May 11, 2017

"Mr. Comey’s fate was sealed by his latest testimony... Mr. Trump burned as he watched, convinced that Mr. Comey was grandstanding."

"He was particularly irked when Mr. Comey said he was 'mildly nauseous' to think that his handling of the email case had influenced the election, which Mr. Trump took to demean his own role in history. At that point, Mr. Trump began talking about firing him. He and his aides thought they had an opening because Mr. Comey gave an incorrect account of how Huma Abedin, a top adviser to Mrs. Clinton, transferred emails to her husband’s laptop, an account the F.B.I. later corrected...."

Excellent detail to the story of how Trump fired Comey, in "'Enough Was Enough': How Festering Anger at Comey Ended in His Firing" (NYT).

Also: "... Mr. Comey thought the president was unlikely to get rid of him because that might be interpreted as a conclusion that the F.B.I. director was wrong to announce shortly before the election that he was re-examining the email case, which would call into question the legitimacy of Mr. Trump’s victory." Comey thought wrong, and it says something about how Trump analyzes these things. The election was already called into question. The questioning was continual and unrelenting. Not firing Comey would never stop the questions. Might as well go ahead and fire him, since everything Trump says and does is used against him. Trump must be inured to criticism, and that stupid mistake about Huma created an opportunity. 

280 comments:

1 – 200 of 280   Newer›   Newest»
Michael K said...

Trump knows he is dealing with a political party and a media that have lost their minds collectively.

The Democrats have all become "Good Germans" who march at the orders of whoever writes the day's plans at DNC.

Yesterday it was "Nixon!"

TosaGuy said...

Dems: When you are outraged at everything, people no longer care what you have to say.

Trump is right, he could shoot someone on Times Square and get away with it because the Dems would escalate that single shooting into a genocide and further destroy any credibility they have.

mockturtle said...

I watched most of the testimony and agree that Comey was 'grandstanding'. He was also emotional and agitated during questioning, qualities I don't want in an FBI Director.

Bob Boyd said...

Comey was the cause of all the Dem woes. Now he's a martyr.

When Prog martyrs go to paradise they get 72 vegetarians.

Darrell said...

It's nice that the NYT can read minds. That must be a really useful skill.

Matthew Sablan said...

Trump is like the minister's daughter. If she's going to be accused of doing all the bad things and punished for it, she might as well get the benefits of doing the bad things.

Darrell said...

Comey divorced the FBI from law enforcement. The same thing happened at the AG's office. Let's hope they can be brought back--and prevented from ever reverting again.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

It was a conflict of interest for Comey to be in charge of the Russia investigation, when he himself had also interfered in the 2016 election.

eric said...

Let me guess, "sources close to President Trump said...."


Without even clicking on the story, I'm willing to bet it says something like this.

Why do we keep falling for it? It's lies. They are making it up.

traditionalguy said...

Nuclear Explosion in DC: The threat Trump has become to the future of the deep state became total. He dared to assert Presidential Authority over DC's Blackmail and Extortion Central run out of a corrupt FBI and a corrupt NSA and a corrupt CIA, all long covered up by a corrupt Attorney General.

Trump owes them nothing. And they are in a total panic about that.

dreams said...

The crooked Dems and the crooked liberal media are going to continue to lose kicking and screaming with each loss and when they lose, our country wins. Trump is too smart for the dumb and crooked liberal Dems.

Notice that the crooked Dems are apparently unable to learn. I'm just going to keep on enjoying their pain, their pain is our gain.

traditionalguy said...

Maybe Obama did not wiretap Trump Tower, but the NYT and their friends appear to have thousands of hidden microphones installed all over the White House.

Nonapod said...

"He was particularly irked when Mr. Comey said he was “mildly nauseous” to think that his handling of the email case had influenced the election, which Mr. Trump took to demean his own role in history."

This is a puzzling quote for many, many reasons. Assuming this is even remotely true, it's a really strange way to interpret that. I mean, how could Comey be somehow "demeaning" Trump in that case? And at any rate, how could whomever this source is infer all that from Trump at all? Unless Trump came right out and said it exactly that (which I concede is entirely possible... this is Trump we're talking about after all, probably the most unfiltered POTUS in history). This really just raises questions about the source of all this.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Not sure how fine the nits are, but if the larger number if emails were contained in a PDA backup as opposed to hand forwarded emails, a sophisticated user could definitely transfer the emails through the backup process.

Dumping, and refresh dumps with add and no delete, of your phone is definitely a viable, and apparently innocent-looking, life insurance tactic that will gather up emails just as digitally pristine and the ones in your inbox.

This is just the equivalent of Gen. Petraeus and his inamorata exchanging messages through a dummy gmail using edits to files in the drafts folder.

That said, seeya Comey.

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sebastian said...

"Not firing Comey would never stop the questions. Might as well go ahead and fire him, since everything Trump says and does is used against him. Trump must be inured to criticism." Exactly.

Dems will go crazy no matter what. As this case demonstrates: Comey had been in their crosshairs for throwing the election to Trump; no firing of a director will stop any investigation, especially not since a grand jury is on the case and the immediate replacement is a Dem; so in a more reasonable world, the Dems would say: good riddance. But of course, that is not the world we live in. Which Trump knows. So he can't be blackmailed by the Dems' threat of faux outrage: don't do this, or else we'll go crazy. It's one of his best features. Which is the small comfort I take from the amateurish execution in this episode.

Michael K said...

One reason why Trump fired Comey as he did, with no notice and no leaks, is that the upper echelons of the FBI have been corrupt for decades. Comey might have been counting on Deep State allies to raise such a fuss before Trump acted that he was caught off guard.

All the talk about Trump being naive in the ways of DC are ignoring his 30 year experience with corrupt local officials in NYC,

Matthew Sablan said...

Trump is going to, eventually, have to fire a lot of people.

You can't let an anonymous #Resistance fester. It won't be long before their deliberate sabotage of government kills people; judging by F&F and the VA Scandal, their incompetence kills people even when they're not TRYING to make things worse.

MikeR said...

A lot of Republican politicians are "expressing their concerns". I'll be watching with interest. So many people are freaking out - will there be any impact from that at all? Trump seems to be Teflon.

mockturtle said...

Darrell asserts: Comey divorced the FBI from law enforcement.

Precisely.

Matthew Sablan said...

I'm concerned, but I also recognize that this will probably ultimately be nothing. If Trump had been president 8 years or so ago, this would be a scandal.

But, after Obama, it is acceptable to fire people who investigate you. I'm sad that we let our presidency devolve to that, but Trump is just playing by the rules established by the last person to hold the office. Hopefully people learn from this that you have to hold both sides to the same standard, otherwise you might find yourself with someone who exploits the lowered standards that were allowed because "Obama's a good guy!"

Bob Boyd said...

When Trump plays Whack-a-Mole the moles stay whacked.

Nonapod said...

Matthew Sablan said...Trump is going to, eventually, have to fire a lot of people.

I sure hope so. While our Federal Bureaucracy is overrun with career long incompetent twits who are unemployable anywhere in the private sector, it is also overrun with competent grifters who enrich themselves off the public largess, as well as true believers in the ever expanding state who have and will actively do everything they can to undermine this administration at every turn. The swamp is vast and old. The swamp is also tirelessly defended by the media by every assault.

If Trump accomplishes little else over the course of his presidency but a little swamp draining, then he truly will have done more good than probably any President in recent history.

Fernandinande said...

Do we need a Dr. Lector to "see" what the Comey was thinking?

eric said...

I'm a little concerned that even right side outlets, like HotAir are picking up lies told by the MSM and treating them as truth and then providing analysis based on those lies.

2 examples.

1) This happened just as Comey was asking for more money for the Russia investigation.

2) The guy behind all this threatened to resign.

rcocean said...

The sad thing is I want to know what happened and I CANNOT trust the NYT to tell me. Is this what really happened or is the NYT slanting it to make Trump look as bad as possible? I don't know. They've made shit up before about Trump.

In any case, Comey should have been fired by Obama in June 2016. Trump gave him a chance to redeem himself, and he blew it. Personally, I would fired him just for dragging out the Russia-Trump investigation. Its been 6 fucking months and they're STILL INVESTIGATING. Trump is right to be frustrated and upset.

rcocean said...

Also, if the firing upsets people like McCain - that's an indication that it was a good thing. Comey was obviously a Deep state ally, and Trump will be much better off with his own man.

BTW, people seem to forget that the FBI is part of the DoJ and the reports to the deputy AG. He's supposed to be a team player and obey his boss. Of course, he's supposed to have a degree of independence and not do illegal things because the AG wants it, but part of his job description is being a good subordinate.

OregonGuy said...

Yet we are reminded of the important distinction between "nauseous" and "nauseated."
.

Todd said...

If you fire a guy for "lying" to the VP, is it such a stretch to fire a guy for "lying" to Congress?

Chuck said...

More evidence, as to how flighty, how situational, how moody (perhaps) and how completely non-ideological President Trump is.

He said, "I love Wikileaks!" and presumably someday he will hate Wikileaks and condemn it/them. Trump praised Comey last fall, when Comey re-initiated the Clinton email investigation. But then, for no real policy reason, fired Comey.

The examples of this seem to be never-ending. Day One, Trump says somebody or something is "the greatest." And Day Two, Trump fires them or ridicules them.

I don't mind a president who is single-minded. We've had great presidents (Lincoln comes immediately to mind) who had a ruthless streak, and who used personal deception to their advantage. But always for an articulable national interest.

There is little reason for anyone in Washington to trust Trump on a personal or an ideological level. Which leaves Trump in a lonely position. But it could be good for the nation and for the federal government. We've seen decades of expansion of Executive Branch authority and power and scope. Congress, when Republicans have been in the majority, have shown signs, albeit imperfectly, of scaling back their role and the role of government more broadly. The Executive almost never pursues that course.

So this could be a good thing for the country, and a positive result from the personal animus with Donald Trump; Congress and the Judiciary, and even the governments of the several states, pushing back on the Executive Branch at long last to make it less forceful.

furious_a said...

After seeing before-and-after Tweets from Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann...

...I'm convinced that Democrats could hide their own Easter Eggs.

furious_a said...

The swamp is vast and old. The swamp is also tirelessly defended by the media by every assault.

Guys like Comey are known as "The Plug". (bill mitchell on TWTR)

furious_a said...

"More evidence... of how clueless #NeverTrump continues to show themselves."

There, fixed it for you.

Inga said...

"He's a showboat, he's a grandstander", Trump says. Well then, they have that in common. Was Trump jealous of all the attention Comey was getting, he makes it sound that way. Trump's reasons for firing Comey are lies and obfuscations, just more of the same from this drama queen. I'm glad that the FBI has stated unequivocally that the investigations are continuing. And despite Trump's claims that he's not under investigation, his actions make him look guilty as hell.

eric said...


So this could be a good thing for the country, and a positive result from the personal animus with Donald Trump; Congress and the Judiciary, and even the governments of the several states, pushing back on the Executive Branch at long last to make it less forceful.


This is so stupid it makes my brain hurt.

There is no push back against the presidency. Which is really what you want. There is push back, and always has been, against Republicans.

This is why we don't listen to the likes of Chuck anymore. He is too foolish to listen to. He is fine with rules like, "When you have the ball you score for 1 point, when we have the ball we score for 6 points."

He thinks, well, each score ought to be worth one point. We have the ball. Yay! Each score is now one point! Woohoo!

And as soon as they have the ball again and the scoring changes to six points? Oh shucks, I didn't see that coming!

Give me a break.

Everything you're believing now, Chuck, you're choosing to believe. But most of it is spin and lies. Because it fits with your personal animosity toward Trump, you eat it up. They serve you this sandwich made of crap and you keep saying yummy!

Why is it most Althouse commenters see this, but you don't? How can you believe for even one moment that their is any real pushback against the presidency by the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who were in government the last 8 years and praising the EOs and direct action taken by Obama?

Herb said...

Drudge is right, Trump needs to get to the bottom of who keeps leaking.

Kylos said...

It's the same reason he went nuclear on Bill Clinton at the debates. They weren't going to damage him anymore than they already had, so he wasn't afraid to get dirty to destroy his enemies. It's that ruthlessness that defends him against a biased media. Most people are too afraid of damaging their reputation to take openings like that. Trump knows when the damage is already done and retaliates in full force.

Inga said...

Trump treats the Legislative branch as his underlings, seems to expect loyalty from them. He demonizes the Judicial branch. I can see a time when the Judicial and the Legislative join forces and rein this despot in.

Breezy said...

Well, we are all being entertained, aren't we?

eric said...

his actions make him look guilty as hell.

Only if you begin with the assumption that he is a complete moron. Which we all know you do.

On the other hand, if he has half a brain, firing Comey just brings more attention and if he is guilty, quickens his downfall.

readering said...

News Report:

In the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Thursday hearing, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe refuted this assertion.

“That is not accurate,” the two-decade FBI veteran said in response to a question from Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) about whether rank-and-file agents no longer supported Comey.

“Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does to this day,” he elaborated. “We are a large organization, we are 36,500 people across this country, across this globe. We have a diversity of opinions about many things. But I can confidently tell you that the majority, the vast majority of FBI employees, enjoyed a deep and positive connection to Director Comey.”

steve uhr said...

It never crossed my mind that Comey's "mildly nauseous" remark was anti-trump. He was simply saying that he was upset that he may have played a role in the election in either direction. Trump is too easy to take offense and see insults that are only in his head, and make major policy decisions based on these imaginary insults; another reason he is unfit to be president.

And I agree that Comey should have been fired by Obama when he grossly broke with protocol by deciding that Clinton should not be prosecuted. It was not his call to make.

furious_a said...

... when he grossly broke with protocol by deciding that Clinton should not be prosecuted.

And Comey should have been hired back to be fired again for re-opening the investigation 11 days before voting. SO fired.

eric said...

Remember this story when you hear FBI agents are pissed over Comey firing.

https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/10/06/fbi-agents-are-ready-to-revolt-over-the-cozy-clinton-probe/amp/

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

"On the other hand, if he has half a brain, firing Comey just brings more attention and if he is guilty, quickens his downfall."

Yes this might be true, hopefully it is. I was glad to hear the testimony of McCabe this AM stating he and the FBI are in no way backing away from the investigations.

eric said...

But I can confidently tell you that the majority, the vast majority of FBI employees, enjoyed a deep and positive connection to Director Comey.”

5/11/17, 12:24 PM


How can he possibly know this?

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Matthew Sablan said...
Trump is going to, eventually, have to fire a lot of people.

I expect that will be coming soon. Every CEO that,s come in to the company I work for has always had a process whereby all the senior management gets evaluated and either stays or gets a package. All of the senior management the CEO installed do the same to their direct reports and so on. This takes place during the first few months. Trump is behaving like a CEO and time is running out. That's why both sides are up in arms about the Comey firing. They're worried about who could be next.

eric said...

Yes this might be true, hopefully it is. I was glad to hear the testimony of McCabe this AM stating he and the FBI are in no way backing away from the investigations.

Of course they aren't, why would they? Even Trump himself has said, in the interview you quoted, he wants them to continue.

Because they aren't investigating Trump. They are investigating Russian involvement in the election.

I can tell you, you're going to be very disappointed in the outcome.

Michael K said...

“That is not accurate,” the two-decade FBI veteran said in response to a question from Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) about whether rank-and-file agents no longer supported Comey.

I certainly would take the word of a long time Democrat whose wife got $500,000 from a Hillary PAC for an attempt at office.

What do you expect him to say ?

Inga said...

How ethical is it for the President to ask the FBI director to tell him if he's under investigation? I recall all the anger over that meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. Anyone here angry that Trump did even worse?

Inga said...

"Because they aren't investigating Trump."

LOL!

Trump says he's not being investigated, I don't believe that for a minute.

Chuck said...

eric said...
...
Everything you're believing now, Chuck, you're choosing to believe. But most of it is spin and lies. Because it fits with your personal animosity toward Trump, you eat it up. They serve you this sandwich made of crap and you keep saying yummy!

Why is it most Althouse commenters see this, but you don't? How can you believe for even one moment that their is any real pushback against the presidency by the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who were in government the last 8 years and praising the EOs and direct action taken by Obama?

Among the people whom I now see questioning Trump are Senator John McCain (who ran against Obama), Senator Richard Burr (Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Representative Justin Amash (one of the most principled and ideological conservatives in the House), Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Lisa Murkowski and Marco Rubio, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz.

Qwinn said...

Hey, Inga's back!

Has Inga admitted to lying (or idiocy, take your pick) about what Senator Burr supposedly said in that Politico piece she linked to yesterday?

I'm betting not. "Lies and obfuscation" indeed.

eric said...

I recall all the anger over that meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac.

Why would their be anger over Bill Clinton and the attorney general meeting privately on a tarmac?

Qwinn said...

Oh look, Chuck is lying about Burr now too.

Here's a hint, Chuck and Inga: an anonymous source claiming Comey asked Burr for resources is not the same as Burr saying Comey asked for resources.

And Chuck, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, I defended you against the charge of being a moby. I said you were just an asshole. But I can admit when I'm wrong, which I was. Can you?

eric said...

Among the people whom I now see questioning Trump are Senator John McCain (who ran against Obama), Senator Richard Burr (Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Representative Justin Amash (one of the most principled and ideological conservatives in the House), Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Lisa Murkowski and Marco Rubio, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz.


And you think this is new? The Republican party has always been the party of smaller government and distrust of government.

Hence my entire point about the rules changing when a Republican takes office. When a Democrat is in the presidency, we get the Republicans pushing back against the Democrat. When a Republican is in the presidency, we get the Democrats and Republicans pushing back. Hence the entire sports analogy.

Sorry you missed it. Thought I was quite clear.

Birkel said...

@ so called Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire

As a Never Trumper, I see you take great pride in naming other Never Trumpers as evidence that Donald Trump is not and can never be president of the United States.

President Trump appears not to care about Senator John McCain and other fopdoodles.

Women and children hardest hit.

AReasonableMan said...

Trump calls ousted FBI boss Comey 'a GRANDSTANDING SHOWBOAT ' and says he 'was going to fire him anyway, regardless of Deputy AG's opinion

So much for the pretext of Comey's incorrect answer to congress regarding Huma's emails.

Qwinn said...

Oh wait, I found what Chuck was referring to, not the same as Inga's lie. Sorry, Chuck, thought you were repeating her lie from yesterday, as I didn't see Burr's "I am troubled" bullshit yet.

Inga, on the other hand, claimed that Burr confirmed an anonymous source claiming Comey was expanding the investigation. Which is an outright lie.

AReasonableMan said...

Qwinn said...
Oh look, Chuck is lying about Burr now too.


WSJ has a front page story about Comey ramping up the investigation into Trump/Russia in recent weeks.

johns said...

On AM drive time in L.A. today, Doug McIntyre made a huge deal of saying that Trump's timing in firing Comey was the most inept and clueless that you could imagine. McIntyre is a Republican and not a Trump hater. He cited the Kissinger visit on the same day as reminding people of Watergate; the visit by the very Russians who are alleged to have conspired with Trump to throw the election; and the fact that the US press was banned from the Russian meeting, while Russian state press was allowed to be present. McIntyre believes this was all a screwup by the White House.

Rush Limbaugh, OTOH, says it was hilarious trolling by Trump. Stick it in their faces.

Who's right?

Chuck said...

steve uhr said...
It never crossed my mind that Comey's "mildly nauseous" remark was anti-trump.


I agree! I heard that -- in fact I saw the testimony, not live but an extended replay, in context -- and it didn't occur to me that it was anti-Trump. I am of course someone who might have actually liked it, if then-Director Comey had found a way to take a legitimate, evidence-supported shot at Trump. But honestly, I didn't see that. I listened to Trump's interview with Lester Holt, and it seems the more that anybody from the Trump Administration talks about Comey, the more questions I have. Trump had decided before any report from Rod Rosenstein that he was going to fire Comey. And there is word -- I'd like much better confirmation -- that it was Trump's seeing Comey's congressional testimony on tv that did it.

I don't get it. What exactly was the firing offense in that testimony? God, what a lot of questions. Nobody can possibly put together a coherent story that unifies what Trump is saying, with what Sarah Huckaby Sanders is saying, with what various FBI people are saying, with what we know from the chronology of the relevant meetings and events.

AReasonableMan said...

Chuck said...
What exactly was the firing offense in that testimony?


Trump's insecurity.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Has Inga admitted to lying (or idiocy, take your pick)"

Why can't it be both?

Michael K said...

I think all the uproar is what would have happened no matter how he did it.

I would have preferred that he clean house in January. Someone said he needed to keep the government staffed, even if they were Obama holdovers.

I would say why ?

Aside from the military, what does the government do that you want done without interruption of a month or two ?

The Democrats have obstructed Trump just as they obstructed Bush.

Chuck said...

Qwinn-

I gather that you are now satisfied that I was 100% right to categorize Senator Burr as "questioning" many of the details and some of the broad outlines of Trump's dismissal of Comey.

Here's one link, that is already a bit dated:

https://www.voanews.com/a/republicans-trump-fbi-firing/3847420.html

And about 20 minutes ago, Burr appeared live with his Co-Chairman Senator Mark Warner and basically reiterated his earlier statement.

Okay?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"FBI Deputy Director Anthony McCabe confirms he is "not aware" of Comey having requested more money to investigate Russia scandal crap, and yesterday, a DOJ spokeswoman also said the DOJ had not been so requested."

Another one of Inga's lies shot down.

Birkel said...

@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle

Here is a coherent story: President Trump, who is in charge of the Executive Branch of the government, decided to fire an underling over whom he had complete discretion to fire.

What else do you need?

Inga said...

Quinn,

What the hell are you yapping about? Burr was one of the Senators that knew about Comey's request for more resources. Don't believe Burr if you want. That's not my concern.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Looks like we do need a special prosecutor:

While secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made a personal call to pressure Bangladesh's prime minister to aid a donor to her husband's charitable foundation despite federal ethics laws that require government officials to recuse themselves from matters that could impact their spouse’s business.
The Office of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina confirmed to Circa that Mrs. Clinton called her office in March 2011 to demand that Dr. Muhammed Yunus, a 2006 Nobel Peace prize winner, be restored to his role as chairman of the country’s most famous microcredit bank, Grameen Bank. The bank's nonprofit Grameen America, which Yunus chairs, has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative. Grameen Research, which is chaired by Yunus, has donated between $25,000 and $50,000, according to the Clinton Foundation website.

"Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in March 2011 insisting her not to remove Dr. Muhammad Yunus from the post of Managing Director of Grameen Bank," Deputy Press Secretary Md Nazrul Islam told Circa in an email.

Inga said...

McCabe wasn't aware. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Go ask the Senators who knew it actually did happen, if you don't believe them, it's not my concern.

eric said...


Blogger Inga said...
Quinn,

What the hell are you yapping about? Burr was one of the Senators that knew about Comey's request for more resources. Don't believe Burr if you want. That's not my concern.

5/11/17, 1:06 PM


Are you ignoring my question or did you miss it?

Why would there be anger over Clinton meeting with Lynch?

J2 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck said...

Right now, Sarah Huckabee Sanders is walking back multiple statements from her, from Spicer, and from Pence all about why and when the President made the decision to fire Comey. And after the President's interview with Lester Holt today, we now know that it was Comey's televised testimony that really did it, and that Rod Rosenstein's report was an afterthought.

They are scrambling, to conform the story, to Trump's interview with Lester Holt which seems to me like the worst of all of the possible options.

Yancey Ward said...

I have just received a forwarded comment from the future written by Inga:

Inga wrote on November 1st 2040:

"I just read the latest on the Trump/Russian investigation on CNN-Al Jazeera.com:

Sources close to FBI Director Barron Trump have indicated that more subpoenas have been issued by the grand jury investigating the collusion of the Trump campaign with the Russian government during the 2016 election. The head of Congresswoman Maxine Waters, appearing on tape delay from her liquid nitrogen cannister at Alcor Life Extension Inc., says that she expects President Trump to be retro-actively impeached even though he has been dead for 13 years.

This comes following a contentious late Summer and early Fall for the grand jury originally impaneled in April of 2017 during which SEIU/Walmart has attempted to unionize the grand jury members who have complained about the conditions at their nursing home.


"So, to all you Trump supporters, all I have to say it, 'Keep up your hopeless hope, justice is coming for your guy.'"

Chuck said...

Birkel said...
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle

Here is a coherent story: President Trump, who is in charge of the Executive Branch of the government, decided to fire an underling over whom he had complete discretion to fire.

What else do you need?


When the Bush Administration did its mass removal of attorneys general, I defended the president, and the decision, and his then-Attorney General.

You don't have to convince me of the legal power to remove a Director of the FBI. it exists.

But the FBI Director is, by statute, appointed for a ten-year term. Removal short of that term ought to be explained, in detail. In exhaustive legal and ethical detail.

And you know what? The president can refuse to do that if he chooses to decline. Then, as a member of Congress in either/both parties, I'd say, "Well then, let's just have ourselves a big ol' investigation of that. Under oath, with subpoenas issued forthwith."


Inga said...

Maybe Trump should resign if he's so concerned about bringing "credibility" back to the Office of the President. He's unfit, much more unfit to be President, than Comey was to lead the FBI.

Inga said...

"He didn't feel Director Comey was up to the job", hilarious coming from the Trump camp.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Removal short of that term ought to be explained, in detail. In exhaustive legal and ethical detail."

-- He lied to Congress.

Done.

Matthew Sablan said...

There are other reasons, and I'm sure Trump also enjoyed firing someone who was undermining him.

But, frankly, "he lied to Congress" is good enough.

eric said...

And you know what? The president can refuse to do that if he chooses to decline. Then, as a member of Congress in either/both parties, I'd say, "Well then, let's just have ourselves a big ol' investigation of that. Under oath, with subpoenas issued forthwith."

Please become a libertarian. We don't want you on our team. Seriously. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, I know we're coming off an administration that didn't punish people for lying to Congress, but, frankly, that's an Obama Rule I'm perfectly fine with trashing, much like I wish we had trashed the "don't fire people investigating your administration and friends" rule that we trashed with Obama.

Birkel said...

@ Fopdoodle Chuck, so called

So the president maintains plenary power to do things but you demand an explanation beyond that because you are a Never Trumper who likes quoting other Never Trumpers.

President Trump doesn't seem to care what you think. More than likely announcing for the whole world that you do not support a president diminishes the fucks that president gives about your opinions.

Grab your carry on.

Nonapod said...

I think Trump should have just said he fired him because he thought he was too tall. I mean, 6'7? That's way too tall for an FBI directory, right?

Matthew Sablan said...

"Then, as a member of Congress in either/both parties, I'd say, "Well then, let's just have ourselves a big ol' investigation of that. Under oath, with subpoenas issued forthwith.""

-- No investigation needed. He lied to Congress. Done.

Matthew Sablan said...

Not only that, but people from both parties and multiple administrations called for his being fired.

There's no reason to question this firing except to make political hay about Trump, especially since the investigation is continuing, only this time, with a Clinton partisan in the lead. It is the worst thing Trump could do to try and kill the investigation.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, there's no reason to investigate this firing, as per the Obama Rules, firing people investigating you IS NOT SUSPICIOUS. We learned that when multiple IGs were fired and positions went unfilled.

If we want to change the rules, fine. I liked the old rules where you didn't fire people investigating you, as I've said. But I see no reason Trump should have been expected to play by the old rules when the new rules were the ones he agreed to play by.

Robert Cook said...

"Notice that the crooked Dems are apparently unable to learn. I'm just going to keep on enjoying their pain, their pain is our gain."

How do you gain? What do you get but crooked Republicans?

Bob Boyd said...

Excerpt from Prepared Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

Executive Business Meeting

May 11, 2017

"Mr. Comey did brief Ranking Member Feinstein and me on who the targets of the various investigations are. It would not be appropriate for me to reveal those details before the professionals conducting the investigations are ready. So, I will not answer any questions about who are targets of the ongoing Russia investigations. But I will say this: Shortly after Director Comey briefed us, I tweeted that he should be transparent. I said he should tell the public what he told Senator Feinstein and me about whether the FBI is or is not investigating the President.

On Tuesday, the President’s letter said that Director Comey told him he was not under investigation. Senator Feinstein and I heard nothing that contradicted the President’s statement. Now Mr. Comey is no longer the FBI director. But the FBI should still follow my advice. It should confirm to the public whether it is or is not investigating the President. Because it has failed to make this clear, speculation has run rampant."

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-discusses-comey-and-russia-investigation-executive-business-meeting

Chuck said...

You can all stop with that "Comey lied to Congress several months ago" bullshit.

We now know; Trump wasn't waiting for any report from Rosenstein. Trump ordered up a report from Rosenstein, after Trump decided to fire Comey.

NEXT SCANDAL: Trump, asking Comey -- in a conversation in which Comey's continuation in his position as Director of the FBI was discussed -- asks Comey if he (Trump) is under investigation. One of two times Trump asked that of Comey. And one of three times Trump discussed it with Comey.

Holy shit, that one is going to catch fire in the next 24 hours.

The luckiest thing for Trump would be if Comey said (as I sort of expect) "I never had any such conversations with President Trump." Trump would then merely be a liar, instead of someone who might be investigated for obstruction of justice.

Inga said...

Comey was asked to testify in the Senate Intelligence hearing on Tuesday. I'm sure they'll be questioning him about Trump asking him if he was under investigation three times and he supposedly saying, "no".

eric said...

NEXT SCANDAL

Did you care when Bill Clinton met with Lynch on the tarmac?

Why?

Chuck said...

Did you care when Bill Clinton met with Lynch on the tarmac?

Why?


Oh, I cared. I thought that was inexplicable. Outrageous. 150% pure Clinton.

Nonapod said...

So now Grassley says that Comey said that he told Trump he wasn't being investigated. So either

1) Trump and Grassley are both lying
2) Comey lied to Feinstein, Grassley, and Trump (he was secretly investigating Trump)
3) Trump isn't actually being investigated

Which is the most plausible?

Qwinn said...

Inga, in the Politico piece you used as your source, find a single statement made by Burr himself, as opposed to what an anonymous source said *about* Burr, so that I can know precisely what Burr himself said that you claim I say he lied about.

Wait, you have no reading comprehension, I'll make it simpler: I can't say Burr lied about anything, because Burr didn't say a damn thing in your source article. Other people made claims about Burr. You claimed that for us to disagree means we're calling Burr a liar. That's the lie.

Michael K said...

Chuck, I caught myself reading your comments again.

" I'd say, "Well then, let's just have ourselves a big ol' investigation of that. Under oath, with subpoenas issued forthwith."

OK How about an investigation interviewing the people who granted immunity to Hillary's creatures with NO obligation for cooperation ?

I might even pay money for that. I would say that is felony level misbehavior. If the agents say the boss said to do it. Let's hear from the boss.

We all know the Russian thing is bullshit. Let's have a real investigation.

Chuck said...

Nonapod said...
So now Grassley says that Comey said that he told Trump he wasn't being investigated. So either

1) Trump and Grassley are both lying
2) Comey lied to Feinstein, Grassley, and Trump (he was secretly investigating Trump)
3) Trump isn't actually being investigated

Which is the most plausible?


It wouldn't matter. I am not suggesting that Trump was and is being investigated. The problem is Trump's asking Comey. And later firing Comey. My witness, for proof on whether Trump asked Comey if he was under investigation, is Donald J. Trump.

J2 said...

Reposting with correct link.

There are some issues about Comey's errors in his testimony that I haven't seen noted.

He used the volume of the emails as his rationale for issuing the Oct 28 letter about reopening the investigation. He said he had to issue the letter because the emails could not be reviewed prior to the election, but then his fabulous staff accomplished the impossible review by working 24/7. As his numbers were overstated his rationale lacks foundation. He also said that FBI got a search warrant for Weiner's computer. This was incorrect. Sen Feinstein corrected him on this.

This testimony begins at 36:50 on the CSPAN video. It is quite comical and reveals his showboating nature as he is ridiculously impassioned and dramatic in his remarks.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?427708-1/fbi-director-defends-decision-reveal-clinton-email-probe-election&start=2397

eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...
Did you care when Bill Clinton met with Lynch on the tarmac?

Why?


Oh, I cared. I thought that was inexplicable. Outrageous. 150% pure Clinton.


Ok, but why? Why would you care if Clinton met with Lynch?

I'm sure the two met plenty of times in their lives. Why would this one time make any difference?

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: 'Holy shit, that one is going to catch fire in the next 24 hours."

Just the Dems/"lifelong republicans".

Real lawyers in the Justice Dept have already provided the ok for that.

I'll take that over a self-styled Dionne Warwick mind-reader from MI.

Lol

Drago said...

"lifelong republican: "Oh, I cared."

Lol

Uh huh.

Drago said...

Poor Inga. Apparently Comey was so incompetent that he "forgot" to mention a supposed need to increase resources to his own deputy AND his own boss!

Lol

But he might have mentioned it to a senator by the by and also possibly to a local snowcone peddler!

Chuck said...

Michael K said...
...

OK How about an investigation interviewing the people who granted immunity to Hillary's creatures with NO obligation for cooperation ?


Waaa! Waaa! Boohoo! B-b-b-b-b-ut what about Hillary? What about Obama?

FINE! Investigate them! Neither one of them are hurting Republicans any more. Arguably, they are God's Gifts to Republicans. But if they both went to jail, it'd be fine with me. I don't much care.

Mostly, what I don't care for, are people who respond to careful and effective criticism of Trump by saying, "But what about Obama? What about Hillary?"

Drago said...

New lefty rule: republicans are allowed 1 reason, and 1 reason ONLY for any action or else it's TREASON! TREASON I tell ya!!!

eric said...

Mostly, what I don't care for, are people who respond to careful and effective criticism of Trump by saying, "But what about Obama? What about Hillary?"

5/11/17, 1:56 PM


Who cares if we only get one point per touchdown and they get six.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Mostly, what I don't care for, are people who respond to careful and effective criticism of Trump by saying, "But what about Obama? What about Hillary?"

Lol

Says oppo research/fake dossier boy!

Bob Boyd said...

Nonapod said...
"So now Grassley says that Comey said that he told Trump he wasn't being investigated."
I don't think we can conclude Grassley meant that.
I think Grassley meant only that the targets Comey named did not include Trump. Grassley makes no mention of asking Comey if he told Trump he was not a target and Trump's statement to that effect came later.

Your larger point is still valid.

Darrell said...

"But what about Obama? What about Hillary?"

We didn't see your comments about them, Chuck, for the last 8+ years, is all. Probably because you didn't make them. Comey should have been fired long ago, end of story.

Birkel said...

@ fopdoodle Chuck, so called

Are you saying a person can obstruct justice by asking if there is an ongoing investigation and being informed that there is no such investigation?

Q: How does one obstruct justice when there is no criminal investigation to obstruct?
A: Trump is guilty of not being an establishment squish.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
eric said...

Ok, so Inga and Chuck are failing to answer why anyone would be upset or care that Clinton met with Lynch.

The answer is obvious. Because Hillary was under investigation at the time.

But, how did we know she was under investigation?

If the rule under Trump is simply knowing you're the subject of an investigation is a scandal, why wasn't that the rule under Obama?

Why wasn't it a scandal that Hillary knew she was under investigation?

Six points for them, one out for us.

Rusty said...

Mostly, what I don't care for, are people who respond to careful and effective criticism of Trump by saying, "But what about Obama? What about Hillary?"

Mostly we don't give a shit, Chuck, what you care for.

Inga said...


Quinn, I don't give a shit about what you think you're trying to prove. Comey will be testifying under oath on Tuesday in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. We'll see what he says. Until then, neither you nor I know.

hombre said...

When Comey held his July press conference to give Hillary a "Get-out-of-jail-free card" he:

A. Overstepped his authority to usurp the authority of DOJ prosecutors to decide if a suspect should be charged, or,

B. Overstepped his authority per an illicit directive from his political masters at DOJ after the notorious Billy C. AG Lynch airport assignation.I

Either way, he should have been fired for that unprecedented action. Anybody who suggests otherwise is ignorant of the proper working of law enforcement or is an unprincipled political hack.

Comey has also had several other significant lapses in judgment since then.

Inga said...

I doubt Chuck gives a shit if you give a shit Rusty, now be a good boy and go work in your garage.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Waaa! Waaa! Boohoo! B-b-b-b-b-ut what about Hillary? What about Obama?"

Yeah, what do Hillary or Obama have to do with the campaign, protecting the US from cyber attacks, domestic spying, illicit servers, public statements by presidents about the nature of active investigations, planting Dems in key intelligence roles at the last minute, changing the rules for how broadly raw Intel can be shared at the last moment, changing the rules for Justice Dept succession at the last minute to better position a Holder bestest buddy, etc.

Chuckie will not tolerate criticism of his beloved Dems. Particularly Stolen Valor liars like Blumenthal.

Chuck said...

eric said...
Blogger Chuck said...
Did you care when Bill Clinton met with Lynch on the tarmac?
Why?
"Oh, I cared. I thought that was inexplicable. Outrageous. 150% pure Clinton."

Ok, but why? Why would you care if Clinton met with Lynch?

I'm sure the two met plenty of times in their lives. Why would this one time make any difference?


Because at that time, Lynch was in charge of the Department of Justice, which was investigating the Hillary Clinton server (and even the Hillary "operation" such as it may have existed when Hillary was Secretary of State). Let's recall that Bill Clinton was probably not a formal "target" of that investigation.

As with Trump. Comey was investigating elements in the Trump campaign. Like Bill Clinton, Trump might not have been a personal target of the investigation. But like Bill Clinton, it is inappropriate for Trump to be asking the Director of the FBI whether he is a target on ongoing investigation.

Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh sure would not have been happy for Bill Clinton to have said, "I just wanted to ask Loretta if I was personally under investigation; she said I wasn't. I called her later and she said the same thing. We had dinner one time, talking about her possibly working for the Clinton Foundation, and she said for a third time that I was not under investigation."

Nonapod said...

I will say that Trump has the messaging skills of a bonobo on LSD. He says a thing, is contradicted by someone else (or even contradicted by himself) then brazenly corrects his story. It's one of the reasons why I always seriously doubted the Russia narrative, he just never seemed like this clever master manipulator. He's way too mercurial. Even if there was any sort of active collusion with Russians going on I highly doubt Trump himself was ever aware of it.

Qwinn said...

So Inga sprayed accusations around like a fire hose that we were all accusing Burr of lying - very obviously and repeatedly trying to undermine our credibility by putting it in opposition to Burr's.

When called on it, when called on her brazen lying and bullshit, Inga says she doesn't "give a shit".

Let the record show, Inga is a brazen liar and bullshitter, and she doesn't give a shit who knows it.

Birkel said...

@ fopdoodle

It is perfectly legal for you, right now, to ask the FBI if you are the target of an FBI investigation. You have a legal right to ask that question. The right to ask that question, and to see the information held by the FBI in your jacket is enshrined in the US Code. A court can be petitioned to force the FBI to release that information to you.

One cannot obstruct justice if there is no investigation to disrupt.

A: Trump is guilty of disrupting the proper transition of power to the Hillary Clinton Administration. Just ask Sally Kohn, or Yates.

Michael K said...

Neither one of them are hurting Republicans any more. Arguably, they are God's Gifts to Republicans. But if they both went to jail, it'd be fine with me. I don't much care.

So you are not interested in the breach of security that may have compromised major US secrets.

Have you read about the shredding parties in the basement of the State Department ?

Not interested ? You seem obsessed with hating Trump who has done nothing to harm the country but Hillary and her entourage who did harm the country in multiple ways are of no interest to you.

Good to know.

Chuck said...


Blogger Drago said...
...

Chuckie will not tolerate criticism of his beloved Dems. Particularly Stolen Valor liars like Blumenthal.


You stupid fucking asshole. I am not a Democrat. Never have been.

As for Senator Blumenthal, the point was that Trump lied about Blumenthal. Said that Blumenthal had "misrepresent[ed" what Gorsuch told Blumenthal about Trump's asinine "so-called judges" crack.

At the time, I said that Trump's Tweet would come back to haunt him, and soon. I was right. I was right, almost to the day. On the day of Justice Gorsuch's confirmation testimony, Gorsuch did that. Gorsuch confirmed that Blumenthal had not misrepresented anything. Gorsuch repeated the very words that Bumenthal had used.

But, as you allude, Trump had in the meantime gone after Blumenthal for a years-old misstatement in which Blumenthal's military service as a Marine Corps reservist was called Vietnam service instead of Vietnam-era service.

While, of course, Trump dodged the Vietnam-era draft entirely.

Qwinn said...

And Michael K right there nailed why I don't give Chuck the benefit of the doubt about being a moby anymore. Obsesses about Trump for utterly trivial bullahut, and feels no need for Hillary to suffer any consequences for major felonies. If he's not a moby, then whatever he is, it's a distinction without a difference.

Chuck said...

Michael K said...
Neither one of them are hurting Republicans any more. Arguably, they are God's Gifts to Republicans. But if they both went to jail, it'd be fine with me. I don't much care.

So you are not interested in the breach of security that may have compromised major US secrets.

Have you read about the shredding parties in the basement of the State Department ?

Not interested ? You seem obsessed with hating Trump who has done nothing to harm the country but Hillary and her entourage who did harm the country in multiple ways are of no interest to you.

Good to know.


Michael, I just got through saying that it would be fine with me, if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were investigated and, if charges were warranted, prosecuted. I have never supported either one. And, unlike Professor Althouse, I never voted for either one.

Okay? Get it?

Qwinn said...

But don't feel bad, Chuck. Inga's got your back!

That that doesn't make you question every single life choice you've ever made is damning all by itself.

Inga said...

Let the record show Qwinn is butt hurt because I won't concede the argument to him, lol.

Inga said...

I have the back of people who aren't Trump sychophants. It doesn't matter to me if they are conservatives, Republicans or not. You folks are facing a huge let down, I'll be here to comfort you. I'm nice that way.

Qwinn said...

There's no need for you to concede, Inga. It is a simple fact that the Politico article did not say what you claimed it did, but you used it to undermine the credibility of everyone you were arguing with anyway.

You, on the other hand, cling to the childish (and universal among leftists) belief that if you don't admit to doing wrong, then you aren't wrong. It's pretty hilarious.

khesanh0802 said...

Let's look back in history at another president who fired a "popular" figure who the President no longer thought capable of doing his job. Truman fired McArthur for a variety of reasons, but the primary one was that he could not trust McA to follow orders. Now Comey has no where near the stature that McA had at the time he was fired but the publicity stink was horrendous then and a bit similar to today. History's verdict is that Truman was absolutely justified and correct in firing McA The same will be true for Trump..

Matthew Sablan said...

I think the fact Trump wanted to fire someone, but waited until he had a legitimate reason beyond "I don't like the rat bastard" is... isn't that at least a neutral or possibly pro-Trump story line? He could've fired Comey, just cuz, but he looked for a legitimate cause for firing. I don't see how that was bad.

eric said...

As with Trump. Comey was investigating elements in the Trump campaign. Like Bill Clinton, Trump might not have been a personal target of the investigation. But like Bill Clinton, it is inappropriate for Trump to be asking the Director of the FBI whether he is a target on ongoing investigation.

I fail to recall your outrage that Hillary, and the whole world, knew that Hillary was under investigation.

How dare Trump know that information!

Hillary? Ho hum.

Birkel said...

@ fopdoodle
Again, you have every right to call the FBI and ask if you are under investigation. There is nothing wrong with that. You have the right to ask the FBI to let you review the jacket they have on you, if there is one. If there is no investigation, there cannot be obstruction of justice.

@ Inga
You should be mad at the press. They deceived you due to your lower than normal reading comprehension and logical reasoning skills. It's ok that you're not mad at them because of the inability to reason. I'm mad at them for you. It's wrong for them to publish things meant to deceive the stupid. Just because you're stupid gives them no right to treat you -- even though you are a willing dupe -- so poorly.

Matthew Sablan said...

Apparently, there's been no evidence/proof of the FBI receiving interference in their investigation.

Which is different than we've seen with any of Clinton/Obama's investigations (such as firing the IG and not replacing them.)

Chuck said...

Matthew, "I don't like the rat bastard," has never, not once, served as the basis for removal of an FBI Director.

If it was the basis, if anything like that was the basis, and if the President used his raw power (however technically legal) in that way, it should be explained. Congress should demand an explanation. Comey and everyone involved should testify about the details.

Todd said...

Chuck said...

You don't have to convince me of the legal power to remove a Director of the FBI. it exists.

But the FBI Director is, by statute, appointed for a ten-year term. Removal short of that term ought to be explained, in detail. In exhaustive legal and ethical detail.

5/11/17, 1:19 PM


You had to throw in the "but" didn't you.

As to your final statement, why? You just admitted he has the power and right. He violated no laws. He need justify NOTHING in this regard. The man served at the pleasure of the President. End of story. I would not expect an explanation from Bill Clinton nor B. Obama. It is (was) their right as well.

Matthew Sablan said...

"If it was the basis, if anything like that was the basis, and if the President used his raw power (however technically legal) in that way, it should be explained. Congress should demand an explanation."

-- He gave his reason. In a memo, along with the fact Comey lied just yesterday or the day before to Congress.

You have the reason given, along with the fact Trump, personally, didn't like him. If Comey had been a truth telling competent person, maybe Trump wouldn't have fired him.

M Jordan said...

Hey, Eric, keep it up. I like your comments.

Birkel said...

@ fopdoodle

When you use terms like "technically legal" it makes me wonder how you passed the bar, if you did.

Chuck said...

Todd, I say again: the President may have the power to throw out an FBI Director before his term.

And, I say again, Congress has the power to investigate that action.

You seem to be right about one of those things. I am right about both of those things.

Inga said...

Firkel Schmerkel,
You should be mad at yourself for being so obsessed with me. Don't you think it's weird? I do. Wipe your chin and don't touch me with those sweaty hands, ew. And don't wet your pants, but Leviathan is coming to get you.

Matthew Sablan said...

[Again, as I've said: Firing Comey should've been done way, way sooner if it was going to be done. Trump was within his rights, and Comey has no leg to stand on. Democrats have no argument; they wanted him gone too, and they've fired IGs and interfered with investigations, whereas Trump fired someone and did not interfere. There's no rational reason to continue investigating why Comey was fired.]

Matthew Sablan said...

Like, what is the end goal of the investigation? The FBI has acknowledged, today, that Trump's White House has not interfered in the investigation, the investigation will go forward, etc.

If the investigation is to look into whether Trump was trying to hobble the investigation, Done. He didn't, and given that we know his reasons consist of disliking Comey combined with Comey's failures/lies, there is nothing an investigation will show us unless you assume McCabe and Comey are lying to help Trump.

Birkel said...

Fopdoodle: "the (sic) President may have the power to throw out an FBI Director before his term."
(emphasis added)

Use of the word "may" where it does not belong is an odd tic.

Drago said...

Chuck: "Todd, I say again: the President may have the power to throw out an FBI Director before his term."

Lol

"...may have the power..."!!

No Chuck, the President HAS the power to fire the FBI Director "before his term."

Transparently dishonest.

Todd said...

Chuck said...
Todd, I say again: the President may have the power to throw out an FBI Director before his term.

And, I say again, Congress has the power to investigate that action.

You seem to be right about one of those things. I am right about both of those things.
5/11/17, 2:37 PM


Wait, so Congress has the right to investigate a completely legal action "cause". They don't need to justify it with a "why"? You admit that Trump was on firm ground but want it investigated anyway. Even Franz Kafka would be amazed...

khesanh0802 said...

@ Inga Here's what Susan Collins Maine's liberal, anti-Trump Republican Senator had to say about the Comey firing:

"Today’s announcement is likely the inevitable conclusion of Director Comey’s decision last July to bypass the longstanding protocols of the Justice Department and publicly announce the reasons he had decided not to recommend an indictment of Hillary Clinton and to offer his personal views of Mrs. Clinton’s actions. That decision, while well-intentioned, embroiled Director Comey into political controversies that unfortunately continued to this day.

Any suggestion that today’s announcement is somehow an effort to stop the FBI’s investigation of Russia’s attempt to influence the election last fall is misplaced. The President did not fire the entire FBI; he fired the director. I have every confidence that the FBI will continue to pursue its investigation. In addition, I am certain that the Senate Intelligence Committee, on which I serve, will continue its own bipartisan investigation and will follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I hope that the next FBI Director will have the same kind of integrity, intelligence, and determination that Mr. Comey exhibited, but perhaps better judgment on when it is appropriate to comment publicly on the results of an investigation.

Shows a balance and maturity that most of the MSM and many politicians lack.

Chuck said...

The President has the power to dismiss the FBI Director, unless it is done for an illegal purpose, such as obstruction of justice.

Drago: Congress HAS the power to investigate the dismissal of an FBI Diector prior to the end of his term.

See how this game is played?

Matthew Sablan said...

"The President has the power to dismiss the FBI Director, unless it is done for an illegal purpose, such as obstruction of justice."

-- We know it was not, as the investigation was not stopped, hobbled or interfered with.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and Noted Defender of Stolen Valor Dems Chuck: "But, as you allude, Trump had in the meantime gone after Blumenthal for a years-old misstatement in which Blumenthal's military service as a Marine Corps reservist was called Vietnam service instead of Vietnam-era service."

Lol

Chuck continues his lies in support of Blumenthal despicable Stolen Valor lies.
Blumenthal lied multiple times in different venues and as recently as 2010 during his Senate campaign.

Note carefully Chuck's now repeated purposeful and intellectually dishonest mischaracterization of the facts in support if ANOTHER Democrat.

Unexpectedly!

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/17/bombshell-democratic-senate-candidate-lied-about-serving-in-vietnam/

Birkel said...

@ fopdoodle

Name the justice that was potentially obstructed. Give it a name.

Matthew Sablan said...

So, I guess what I'm saying is, since we know there was no illegal purpose behind the firing (unless, again, you assume Comey and McCabe are lying, or you're alleging some OTHER illegal action occurred, such as Trump being bribed to fire Comey), any investigation based on "obstruction of justice" is pure nonsense.

Matthew Sablan said...

By the way, this line of "investigate Trump" is the same sort of investigation that hounding Ted Stevens out of office, was attempted against Rick Perry and Scott Walker and Sarah Palin.

Drago said...

Intellectually Hobbled "lifelong republican" Chuck continues his brave Don Quixote-like battle against his strawmen enemies!

Stolen Valor Dems defender Chuck: "Drago: Congress HAS the power to investigate the dismissal of an FBI Diector prior to the end of his term."

So?

Chuck said...

Todd, I want the firing of Comey investigated because I think Trump is a lying prick. A pathological liar, in fact. And because I don't understand the varying reasons given for the firing, and because I might not believe them even if I understood them.

Todd, I did not "admit that Trump was on firm ground." I think Trump is on shaky ground. I think Trump will remain on shaky ground, on this issue, (not to maention several other issues) until the details of how and why Comey was fired are exposed publicly. And I hope that a bipartisan Congress does it, with a vengeance.

Drago said...

Btw Chuckie, Blumenthal received 5 deferrments prior to landing a stateside role before lying multiple times about his service.

I can see why you would respect that about him.

Inga said...

"@ Inga Here's what Susan Collins Maine's liberal, anti-Trump Republican Senator had to say about the Comey firing:"

I have a great deal of respect for Susan Collins, too bad so many Trumpists and conservatives didn't like her and called her a RINO.

Birkel said...

The Justice that was Obstructed that Dare Not Speak its Name:

Trump is attempting to govern whilst not Hillary Clinton.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "A pathological liar, in fact. And because I don't understand the varying reasons given for the firing, and because I might not believe them even if I understood them."

Lol

We must investigate because Chuck doesn't understand something!

Looks like we'd better get started in that "How dare MI vote in a way Chuck doesn't understands" investigation!

Sorry dummy. We don't stop the govt until you catch up!

Matthew Sablan said...

"Todd, I want the firing of Comey investigated because I think Trump is a lying prick. A pathological liar, in fact. And because I don't understand the varying reasons given for the firing, and because I might not believe them even if I understood them.

Todd, I did not "admit that Trump was on firm ground." I think Trump is on shaky ground. I think Trump will remain on shaky ground, on this issue, (not to maention several other issues) until the details of how and why Comey was fired are exposed publicly. And I hope that a bipartisan Congress does it, with a vengeance."

-- This is the most transparent firing in D.C. I can remember. What don't you understand? Trump didn't like Comey; Democrats and Republicans, for months at different times, claimed to have lost faith in his ability to lead; multiple administrations/AGs said he should go; he lied to Congress; he fumbled his handling of the Clinton investigation (even if Trump was OK with how his fumbling turned out). Any ONE of those things would be fine for firing him.

Birkel said...

My preferred explanation for firing Comey:

My dick was bigger.

Birkel said...

That would have been an LBJ-approved reason.

Lucien said...

LLR Chuck: I found it inexplicable.

Really? I can think of at least two obvious explanations.

1. Clinton really did scramble across the tarmac to talk with Lynch about their grandkids.
2. Clinton was talking with Lynch about how to make the investigation of Hillary go away, including perhaps the reward Lynch would get if she did so, all in a location they thought would be unlikely to be subject to surveillance or taps.

There may be other reasons but it's hardly inexplicable. "150% pure Clinton"? How about "150% pure corruption and illegality"?

I trust you understand why no one here but Inga (and maybe not even her) thinks you're really a life-long Republican?

I disagree with those who call you a Moby though, because a Moby's tactic is to pretend to be Republican and then say hateful and bigoted things in an attempt to make Republicans look bad. Your shtick has more of a Tokyo Rose flavor.

Chuck said...

Drago, I guess this is an invitation to me to repeat: Donald Trump's furious Tweet about how Gorsuch was supposedly "misrepresented" by Senator Blumenthal was a lie. Trump lied. Blumenthal didn't misrepresent Gorsuch. Blumenthal represented Gorsuch accurately. Gorsuch himself said so.

What was the kefuffle all about? Again, it was about Gorsuch's saying that Trump's "so-called judges" Tweet was "disheartening" and "demoralizing."

Trump seems to have been enraged, to learn that two guys in that position were agreeing that Trump was full of shit on that comment. Trump tried to smear Blumenthal, and tried to put Gorsuch on the spot. (The latter being the most inexcusable Trumpism in all of this, which is saying a lot.)

So; glad you asked, Drago. What a nasty, lying shit head Trump is.

Drago said...

Thank goodness Trump has real lawyers and not fake "lifelong republican" Ines advising him.

Chuck has all the courage you would expect of someone who "almost joined the military" but didn't "because there was no draft."

It's that kind of courage under pressure the republicans don't need in DC.

Matthew Sablan said...

If I recall, there weren't too many investigations into the IGs Obama fired. The media and the world pretty much accepted when Obama told them that one guy who had asked for Obama to stop interfering with his investigation was just too senile to still be an IG.

But, yeah. Let's focus on why the incompetent liar the boss didn't like may have gotten fired.

Drago said...

Rachel Maddow fanboy and "lifelong republican" Chuck: Drago, I guess this is an invitation to me to repeat: ..."

Lol

No one cared the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or nth time you said it.

Nonapod said...

Certainly if someone being a "lying prick" were justifiable cause for an investigation, most Senators, Congressmen, and pretty much anybody in and around DC would probably need investigating.

Drago said...

You know who was a lying prick?

Sen Richard "stolen Valor" Blumenthal.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
Btw Chuckie, Blumenthal received 5 deferrments ...


Same as Trump, right? Didn't Trump get five deferments, in which the fifth was his faked "heel spurs" dodge?

Just askin'.

AReasonableMan said...

Nonapod said...
I will say that Trump has the messaging skills of a bonobo on LSD. He says a thing, is contradicted by someone else (or even contradicted by himself) then brazenly corrects his story. It's one of the reasons why I always seriously doubted the Russia narrative, he just never seemed like this clever master manipulator. He's way too mercurial. Even if there was any sort of active collusion with Russians going on I highly doubt Trump himself was ever aware of it.


I largely agree with this, although I wouldn't put quite as positive spin on it as you have done. This does not mean, of course, that some of Trump's advisors/henchmen, particularly in the early phases of his campaign, aren't under some reasonable suspicion.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and Dem Defender Extraordinaire Chuck: "Same as Trump, right?"

Nope, because Trump did not proceed to lie repeatedly over multiple years about serving in Vietnam like your pal Blumenthal.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Nonapod said...
"I will say that Trump has the messaging skills of a bonobo on LSD. He says a thing, is contradicted by someone else (or even contradicted by himself) then brazenly corrects his story. It's one of the reasons why I always seriously doubted the Russia narrative, he just never seemed like this clever master manipulator. He's way too mercurial. Even if there was any sort of active collusion with Russians going on I highly doubt Trump himself was ever aware of it."

ARM said...
"I largely agree with this, although I wouldn't put quite as positive spin on it as you have done. This does not mean, of course, that some of Trump's advisors/henchmen, particularly in the early phases of his campaign, aren't under some reasonable suspicion."

I agree. Trump would probably not have been able to pull off any collusion with Russia by himself. He had Roger Stone, Manafort, Carter Page and Flynn to do the thinking for him, he probably just told them to go ahead and do what they wanted if it benefitted him.

Birkel said...

Justice Gorsuch is too big a pansy to be in public life. He takes criticism of third parties too much to heart.

Hell, he might have killed himself of he had gotten wind of Obama's criticisms of the Court on which Gorsuch now serves. The Federalist Society really fucked up that recommendation.I

Glad President Trump had nothing to do with that nomination.

Drago said...

Chuck, in addition to being a self-proclaimed mind-reader is also, apparently, a medical doctor.

On top of a MI political savant!

As well as self-appointed Althouse Blog Content Monitor!

Nothing psychological going on there... Lol

Drago said...

Inga: "I agree. Trump would probably not have been able to pull off any collusion with Russia by himself. He had Roger Stone, Manafort, Carter Page and Flynn to do the thinking for him, he probably just told them to go ahead and do what they wanted if it benefitted him."

Lol

If you are going to go full crazy like Chuck, then you might as well go all the way like Inga!

Inga said...

Drago,

Speaking of psychological stuff going on...are you manic again today?

Drago said...

Inga takes time out from posting alot to question others about posting alot.

Nothing psychological going on there.

Birkel said...

@ Inga, so called

Which version of Maxine Waters do you support? The one six months ago when Hillary was the presumptive next president or the one today, when Hillary is the Sally Kohn presumptive next president?

Inga said...

Drago,
Why do you feel the need to respond to every comment, even when the commenter wasn't addressing you? Your rapid fire comments make you sound like you're on speed or in a manic phase. Calm down, you'll burn yourself out before you get old.

Rene Saunce said...

Hillary and her minions were angry too, but that anger is holy and precious.

Trump's anger = Russians!

Todd said...

Inga said...

I agree. Trump would probably not have been able to pull off any collusion with Russia by himself. He had Roger Stone, Manafort, Carter Page and Flynn to do the thinking for him, he probably just told them to go ahead and do what they wanted if it benefitted him.

5/11/17, 3:19 PM


As with a lot of liberals, Inga sometimes gets the conclusion right but for all the wrong reasons. Trump didn't collude with the Ruskies cause (hold on this will be a shock) he didn't. Liberals LOVE to call Republicans (and other "not Democrats") idiots and stupid despite all evidence to the contrary. Since (in this case) Trump is a moron BUT he beat a Democrat, he MUST have had super duper genius help from someone(s)! The guy (Trump) only runs a HUGE business with multiple companies but he is a moron because he is NOT a Democrat but managed to beat a Democrat, hence the secret cabal of geniuses to run the shadow government through this idiot puppet.

According to liberals (and Democrats) at the time he was in office Reagan was a moron. Bush I was a moron, Bush II was a moron, and now Trump is a moron.

How come Democrats keep losing (when they lose) to morons?

Doesn't that shtick get old after a while? The record scratched, the tape worn? I have to tell you it sure gets tiring hearing that same song played endlessly...

Drago said...

Inga: "Your rapid fire comments make you sound like you're..."

Well versed, quick witted and astonishingly efficient.

I'm sorry if you are easily befuddled.

Inga said...

"As with a lot of liberals, Inga sometimes gets the conclusion right but for all the wrong reasons. Trump didn't collude with the Ruskies cause (hold on this will be a shock) he didn't."

STOP ALL THE INVESTIGATIONS!

Todd says Trump didn't collude with Russia. Whew, I'm sure that will be a huge relief to the Trumpists here. Thanks for the inside info.

Birkel said...

@ Drago

That answer was witty and efficient. No fair to do called Inga.

Todd said...

To fire or not to fire, that is the question..."

Inga said...

Drago,

Befuddled? Nope, bemused maybe.

Birkel said...

@ Todd

What will happen, do you think, when Inga finds out you agree with Senator Feinstein?

Inga said...

"Do called Inga", you made me chuckle Firkel Schmirkel.

Todd said...

Inga said...

Todd says Trump didn't collude with Russia. Whew, I'm sure that will be a huge relief to the Trumpists here. Thanks for the inside info.

5/11/17, 3:36 PM


You don't have to take my word for it. I am just repeating what I have heard in the news and from some in the Government.

Or do you think that Trump the moron helped the Russians hack into the DNC email system to steal all of those very bad emails? Or do you think that Trump (pre election) influenced the man he just fired to get him to re-open the Hillary email investigation? I mean really? Where does the foundation for this come from other than he beat Hillary?

Molly said...

On the matter of Trump asking Comey if he were under investigation--

Not comparable to Bill and Loretta.

First, its perfectly standard to ask, or have your lawyer ask, the prosecutor's team if you are a target of a particular investigation. When I was called to a Fed grand jury, the first thing I did was to find out if I were a target. Not exactly the same as Trump's situation, but--

Second--and this should be obvious--Bill was not asking Lynch if he or Hill were under investigation--they knew she'd been under investigation for months, for heaven's sake. So he was doing something else, and it couldn't have been good.

Particularly since Bill was the one who started Lynch on her political-plus-judicial career. Just a friendly exchange to remind her where her loyalties belonged.

Trump's asking Comey about whether he was a target doesn't carry the same implied threat. He could have had his lawyer call the DOJ, I suppose, but the question itself is perfectly proper.

Drago said...

Inga: '...bemused..."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HvAd33J9-po

roesch/voltaire said...

Perhaps the bug in Trump's ear that causes him and the WH staffers to change his story about Comey so often was planted there by the Russian spy he let into the WH along with the Russian Only press to take pictures (wink, wink).

AReasonableMan said...

Rich Lowry said...
Trump said in an interview with Lester Holt that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the Rosenstein recommendation, which has the advantage of almost certainly being true, but the disadvantage of contradicting what his defenders, including the Vice President, have been saying for days. I wonder if the end of the Rosenstein defense is meant to placate Rod Rosenstein, who may be the most powerful person in the U.S. government right now. If he quits, he would turn what has been a damaging few days into an utter debacle.

Drago said...

Todd: "I mean really? Where does the foundation for this come from other than he beat Hillary?"

It comes from the desperate need to cover up massive domestic spying against American citizens and political opponents, unmasking and leaking of classified information, and failing to adequately investigate Democrat scandals.

To this date, Sally Yates has not been interviewed about leaks.

Or, as "lifelong republican" might term this witch-hunt of republicans and cover-ups for Dems: his preferred mode of operations.

Drago said...

roesch/voltaire: "Perhaps the bug in Trump's ear that causes him and the WH staffers to change his story about Comey so often was planted there by the Russian spy he let into the WH along with the Russian Only press to take pictures (wink, wink)."

The guy who visited Obama 22 times in the White House?

Looks like our Russian visitor already knows his way around.

Mark said...

Had Comey any professional or personal integrity, he would have voluntarily resigned on his own back in January, when it was clear that NOBODY trusted him except for some of his sycophants and political hacks in the FBI who feigned shock at his firing and are themselves still part of the problem of an untrustworthy FBI.

grackle said...

And you know what? The president can refuse to do that if he chooses to decline. Then, as a member of Congress in either/both parties, I'd say, "Well then, let's just have ourselves a big ol' investigation of that. Under oath, with subpoenas issued forthwith."

I’m wondering why a lawful action by a POTUS requires investigation – but then I’m not a NeverTrumper. Chuck’s reasons lack credibility to me. Any flimsy excuse for witch-hunts and fishing expeditions, right?

I’m not surprised at the collusion of McCain and the other eGOP NeverTrumper idiots with the Democrats/MSM to bring Trump down. They’ve always bent over anytime a congressional Democrat got a hard-on. It’s one of the reasons that Congress has an abysmal approval rating.

I fully expect either a special prosecutor or something like it in the future of President Trump. Why? Because the eGOP idiots in Congress don’t have a working set of balls between them. They went along with the Democrats in opposing their own party’s duly nominated candidate and I do not expect anything different from them at this point.

Drago said...

What r/v's comment illustrates is the Dem/"lifelong republican" tactics going back to the 70's: an attempt to criminalize policy differences and the normal operations of govt if a republican is in power.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 280   Newer› Newest»