Politics Trump fires Comey

[MarAzul]

I am surprise it took this long to fire Comey. I think he blew it with the Clinton investigation. But at least he had evidence which justified an investigation.
I don't understand what the guy thinks his position is, that he can begin investigating a Presidential candidate and then the President, with zero evidence of a crime and answerable to no one.
Hell, every crime is suppose to have some evidence as the reason to begin and investigation. Otherwise it is a Fishing expedition.

He had an illegal server with classified materials on it to anchor the Hillary investigation along with donations from various foreign sources. What the hell did he have on Trump?
Nothing! Hell this is no way to run a government, an untouchable agency continuously investigating the Commander in Chief, never speak about why!?!?!
I would have fired his ass on TV right after his testimony before Congress in March when he said Trump was under investigation and he ain't telling what he's got.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[riverman]

Hell this is no way to run a government

I completely agree with this statement

 

[Further]

So Denny, now that it's been demonstrated By Trump that firing timing wasn't related to the AG or DAG confirmations has your view changed? Especially now that Trump even stated to Holt that he was thinking about the Russian investigation with regards to firing Comey. (Trump however claimed the investigation was a made up story by the D's for having lost an election)

 

[Denny Crane]

So Denny, now that it's been demonstrated By Trump that firing timing wasn't related to the AG or DAG confirmations has your view changed? Especially now that Trump even stated to Holt that he was thinking about the Russian investigation with regards to firing Comey. (Trump however claimed the investigation was a made up story by the D's for having lost an election)

It looked to me like Trump is taking the heat and not pinning anything on his subordinates.

This pretty much sums it up (Vox is a very left leaning site):

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...constitutional-crisis-liberals-hyperventilate

 

[Denny Crane]

I'd add that Comey basically doomed himself with his testimony last week.

He outright said he would end around the Attorney General and DoJ, which is downright scary.

This article sums that up:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-james-comey-had-to-go-1494542297

Testifying last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, James Comey recalled a moment that should have held more significance for him than it did. At the height of the presidential campaign, President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, had chosen to meet with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac. That, said the now-former FBI director, “was the capper for me.” Hillary Clinton’s emails were being probed, but Ms. Lynch was too conflicted to “credibly complete the investigation.” So Mr. Comey stepped in.

Donald Trump and senior Justice Department leaders might appreciate the impulse. According to Democrats and the media, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is too conflicted to recommend sacking Mr. Comey; the Trump administration is too conflicted to name a successor; the entire Justice Department and the Republican Congress are too conflicted to conduct true oversight.

Entirely missing from this narrative is the man who was perhaps the most conflicted of all: James Comey. The FBI head was so good at portraying himself as Washington’s last Boy Scout—the only person who ever did the right thing—that few noticed his repeated refusal to do the right thing. Mr. Comey might still have a job if, on any number of occasions, he’d acknowledged his own conflicts and stepped back.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memo to Mr. Sessions expertly excoriated Mr. Comey’s decision to “usurp” Ms. Lynch’s authority and his “gratuitously” fulsome July press conference. But Mr. Comey’s dereliction of duty preceded that—by his own admission. Remember, he testified that the Lynch-Clinton meeting was but the “capper.” Before that, he told lawmakers, “a number of things had gone on which I can’t talk about yet that made me worry the department leadership could not credibly complete the investigation.”
​

It's also worth reading Rosenstein's actual memo. It's not being portrayed accurately in the media. The way it reads to me is not about some hypocritical reversal on the handling of the Clinton emails, but more of he should have said nothing and she should have been prosecuted. Specifically, the "no prosecutor would bring charges" bit.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/rod-r...ing-public-confidence-in-the-fbi-letter-text/

The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution.​

Not only did Comey "usurp the Attorney General's authority" on July 5, he announced he'd continue to do so in his testimony last Thursday. He effectively said, "fuck Jeff Sessions and the rest of the DoJ" as he did to Lynch and her DoJ (which included Sally Yates).

 

[Further]

It looked to me like Trump is taking the heat and not pinning anything on his subordinates.

This pretty much sums it up (Vox is a very left leaning site):

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...constitutional-crisis-liberals-hyperventilate

You (and Vox) are conflating wether Comey deserved to be fired with why Trump fired him.

You had claimed that the timing looked quite normal due to when AG/DAG were confirmed. But after the DAG threatened to quit over being used as the scapegoat Trump had to change the narrative so admitted the firing would have happened regardless.

Now we also know that it was the Trump/Russia investigation that brought Trump to the firing, so where does that leave us? Obstruction of Justice. Sure, that claim is unprovable without Trump confessing it, but I think it's gotten pretty clear that was at the heart of the firing.

 

[Denny Crane]

You (and Vox) are conflating wether Comey deserved to be fired with why Trump fired him.

You had claimed that the timing looked quite normal due to when AG/DAG were confirmed. But after the DAG threatened to quit over being used as the scapegoat Trump had to change the narrative so admitted the firing would have happened regardless.

Now we also know that it was the Trump/Russia investigation that invented Trump into the firing, so where does that leave us? Abstraction of Justice. Sure, that claim is unprovable without Trump confessing it, but I think it's gotten pretty clear that was at the heart of the firing.

Trump did call him a loose cannon, no?

His Thursday testimony proved that to be a fair assessment. And it also seems to be what caused Trump to pull the trigger.

Plus, there's been: a) no evidence whatsoever of any illegal acts regarding any collusion between Trump and/or his associates and Russia, b) Trump did nothing to alter any investigations.

The 150 FBI agents (or however many) are still investigating.

The new acting FBI director can easily be painted as a Democratic Party operative, so Trump knowingly made the situation worse for himself.

The senate has to approve a replacement and as long as they don't, this Democratic Party operative is in charge. We have yet to see who Trump appoints - what if he nominates Merrick Garland? That'll put the lefties' panties in a real bind.

And Trump isn't altering any congressional investigations.

The Vox article I linked is spot on.

So if you were president and the FBI director announced he would take the DoJ's responsibilities into his own hands, bypassing your DoJ, what would you do?

Here's more of Trump talking about the Russia investigation in that same interview, to provide a bit more context.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ey-whether-he-was-under-investigation-n757821

Holt asked Trump if he was "angry with Mr. Comey because of his Russia investigation."

"I just want somebody that's competent," Trump responded. "I am a big fan of the FBI, I love the FBI."

Trump said he never tried to pressure Comey into dropping the FBI probe of the Trump campaign and insisted, "I want to find out if there was a problem in the election having to do with Russia."

"As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly," Trump said. "Maybe I'll expand that, you know, lengthen the time (of the Russia probe) because it should be over with, in my opinion, should have been over with a long time ago. 'Cause all it is, is an excuse but I said to myself, I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people."

Trump added of the investigation, "I want that to be so strong and so good. And I want it to happen."

Asked by Holt if by firing Comey he was trying to send a "lay off" message to his successor, Trump said, "I'm not."

"If Russia did anything, I want to know that," he said.

But Trump also insisted there was no "collusion between me and my campaign and the Russians."

"Also, the Russians did not affect the vote," he said.​

 

[Denny Crane]

The obstruction of justice thing.

In Nixon's case, there was an outright crime - the burglary. That wasn't some alleged event.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/was-firing-james-comey-obstruction-justice

First, the criminal offense is itself difficult to prove in this context. The statutory language is broad: it covers any attempt, even unsuccessful, to “influence, obstruct, or impede” the administration of the law in a pending proceeding. As the Department of Justice U.S. Attorneys’ Manual explains, the crime is found on proof of three elements: “(1) there was a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States; (2) the defendant knew of or had a reasonably founded belief that the proceeding was pending; and (3) the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which the proceeding was pending.”

As applied to the President and his staff, the first two elements appear to be a slam dunk. First, courts have given “proceeding” a broad definition. As the DOJ Manual notes, “the Sixth Circuit held that the term ‘proceeding’ is ‘of broad scope, encompassing both the investigative and adjudicative functions of a department or agency.’” The Russia investigation pretty clearly counts. Second, Comey himself hadrecently confirmed that the investigation was ongoing—in extremely public and publicized congressional hearings. So no relevant actor could claim he did not know or “have a reasonably founded belief” that the investigation was ongoing.

The questions here surround the third element. One must not merely “influent, obstruct, or impede” but also do so corruptly. Under § 1515(b), a corrupt state of mind requires intent: “acting with an improper purpose.” While the President routinely influences federal law enforcement at a high level—including prioritizing certain categories of crimes or appointing officials based on certain expertise that is bound to influence the Bureau’s work—those contacts would not be considered obstruction because in those scenarios, the President is acting with a proper purpose, his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Ultimately the answer goes to the motives: Did the President or Attorney General intend for Comey’s firing to “influence, obstruct, or impede” the Russia investigation? Even if they had other reasons or goals—including perfectly lawful ones, such as concerns about the public’s perception of the FBI and the Director—if obstructing or impeding the Russia investigation was a goal, that would constitute obstruction of justice. Therefore, inquiries as to whether Trump’s conduct amount to obstruction will center on his motives.

However, the statutory bar is exceedingly high. Multiple circuit courts have concluded that under §§ 1503 and 1505, “although the defendant need not succeed in his attempt to obstruct justice, his conduct must be such ‘that its natural and probable effect would be the interference with the due administration of justice.’” This requires specific intent to obstruct or impede an investigation. In the context of any criminal proceeding, where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, the possible existence of other motives would likely make obstruction of justice difficult to prove.

 

[Denny Crane]

And even the NYTimes weighs in on Obstruction of Justice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/obstruction-of-justice-fbi.html

Would there be impediments to charging Mr. Trump?

Yes, and not just that the Justice Department reports to Mr. Trump and is therefore unlikely to prosecute him for anything.

Obstruction of justice cases often come down to whether prosecutors can prove what a defendant’s mental state was when he or she committed the act, legal specialists said. It is not enough to show that a defendant knew the act would have a side consequence of impeding an investigation; achieving that obstruction has to have been the specific intention.

Mr. Trump told NBC he had been thinking about the Russia investigation, which he called a “made-up story” that “should have been over with a long time ago,” when he decided to fire Mr. Comey. But he also said he wanted the investigation to be “done properly” and suggested the firing might prolong it.

Defense lawyers could raise arguments in an attempt to create reasonable doubt about Mr. Trump’s motivation for firing Mr. Comey. For one thing, they could point to the alternative stories or purported motives the White House has described. Mr. Trump, for example, has said he acted because he thought the bureau was in “turmoil” under Mr. Comey, whom he called a “grandstander.” The White House also initially put forward a memo by the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, who criticized Mr. Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation — although Mr. Trump said on Thursday that he had already decided to fire Mr. Comey before consulting Mr. Rosenstein.

“To prove that he did it not because Comey was grandstanding or showboating or all the other excuses he has given, but because he wanted to impede the investigation, that would be awfully hard to prove,” said Alex Whiting, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches criminal law at Harvard Law School.

 

[MarAzul]

I completely agree with this statement

Ha! Perhaps you have some salvage value.

 

[Further]

As I originally stated, the Obstruction of Justice claim is unprovable, at least in a criminal court at this time.

But that doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it's not reasonable to believe obstruction took place.

Trump is acting like an erratic man, and I'm honestly not sure if he has a clear train of thought. One minute he might be pissed at Comey for the Russia investigation, then mad at Comey for insinuating the election might have been impacted by his comments 11days pre-election. And in that mix may even be valid reasons for the firing. But looking at Trumps own words, looking at the interference in the house probe, looking at timing of the Comey firing right after a request to expand the investigation, looking at logical assumptions, I think Trump was at least partially trying to interfere.

One other possibility is that Trump is simply pissed at Comey for the investigation and just wants to exact revenge for lack of loyalty, and that is the root of the firing, not obstruction.

But I don't buy for one second that it's because Comey lost the respect of his fellow agents or that it's because of any of his actions regarding Hillary and the election.

 

[Denny Crane]

As I originally stated, the Obstruction of Justice claim is unprovable, at least in a criminal court at this time.

But that doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it's not reasonable to believe obstruction took place.

Trump is acting like an erratic man, and I'm honestly not sure if he has a clear train of thought. One minute he might be pissed at Comey for the Russia investigation, then mad at Comey for insinuating the election might have been impacted by his comments 11days pre-election. And in that mix may even be valid reasons for the firing. But looking at Trumps own words, looking at the interference in the house probe, looking at timing of the Comey firing right after a request to expand the investigation, looking at logical assumptions, I think Trump was at least partially trying to interfere.

One other possibility is that Trump is simply pissed at Comey for the investigation and just wants to exact revenge for lack of loyalty, and that is the root of the firing, not obstruction.

But I don't buy for one second that it's because Comey lost the respect of his fellow agents or that it's because of any of his actions regarding Hillary and the election.

Comey didn't prosecute Hillary, and took that decision from the DoJ where it belonged. That's the gist of Rosenstein's memo.

It's wishful thinking to believe obstruction took place.

The timing, at this point, is irrelevant. As Trump pointed out, he fired Comey knowing it would prolong the Russia fantasy, but he felt it was in the peoples' best interest. His motive is clear and reasonable and reasoned, at this point.

He doesn't put up with bullshit for very long. He's fired his own people and he's fired people in government. It's his right.

 

[MarAzul]

or that it's because of any of his actions regarding Hillary

Ha! I agree with you. All though Comey needed to be fired for his mishandling of the Clinton crimes. I don't think there is any doubt that Comey taking on the task of investigating Trump for whatever crimes he conjured up angered the hell out of the President. Hard to believe a man in high office could be so friggin dumb.

When the dummy went before Congress and testified that Trump was under investigation and had been since July of 2016 and offered zero evidence of good cause supporting the decision, I was sure his days were numbered with few digits.

It is one thing for the FBI to have a policy of not discussing investigations into the criminal activity of every day Joe, like MarAzul or Further and entirely another to investigate the your boss(s) without showing cause. And then completely another when it is the CNC. The whole Nation need to know why he is investigating the Commander In Chief and that takes evidence to show a creditable reason. He apparently assumed he has the power to hang a black cloud over this administration for as long as he sees fit. This is as much out of control and he was assuming the role of the AG in the Clinton case. A man assuming powers of this magnitude must be fired, the sooner the better.

What crime is investigated with out evidence?

 

[Further]

Comey didn't prosecute Hillary, and took that decision from the DoJ where it belonged. That's the gist of Rosenstein's memo.

It's wishful thinking to believe obstruction took place.

It's wishful thinking to believe its provable, Its logical to believe it too place.

The timing, at this point, is irrelevant. As Trump pointed out, he fired Comey knowing it would prolong the Russia fantasy, but he felt it was in the peoples' best interest. His motive is clear and reasonable and reasoned, at this point.

All that timing context came far after the fact, several explanations deep.

He doesn't put up with bullshit for very long. He's fired his own people and he's fired people in government. It's his right.

It's his right, but that doesn't mean it's just or that his reasoning wasn't comprised.

A couple days ago you were pointing out that the timing seemed related to the AG/DAG confirmations. Once that was disproven you moved onto other excuses. It's confirmation bias Denny. You have defended Trump so many times that it's blurred your vision.

 

[Further]

Ha! I agree with you. All though Comey needed to be fired for his mishandling of the Clinton crimes. I don't think there is any doubt that Comey taking on the task of investigating Trump for whatever crimes he conjured up angered the hell out of the President. Hard to believe a man in high office could be so friggin dumb.

When the dummy went before Congress and testified that Trump was under investigation and had been since July of 2016 and offered zero evidence of good cause supporting the decision, I was sure his days were numbered with few digits.

It is one thing for the FBI to have a policy of not discussing investigations into the criminal activity of every day Joe, like MarAzul or Further and entirely another to investigate the your boss(s) without showing cause. And then another entirely when it is the CNC. The whole Nation need to know why he is investigating the Commander In Chief and that takes evidence to show a creditable reason. He apparently assumed he has the power to hang a black cloud over this administration for as long as he see fit. This is as much out of control and he was assuming the role of the AG in the Clinton case. A man assuming powers of this magnitude must be fired, the sooner the better.

What crime is investigated with out evidence?

Well we partially agree. I don't see a problem with the investigation as there is evidence that
1) Russia tried to affect the election
2) People in trumps circle were being paid by Russian interests and resignations resulted. Perhaps prosecution coming with Flynn.

I do agree that at this time I have not seen evidence that Trump himself was conspiring with the Russians. There may be evidence but there may not.

I also don't agree that the American public need be informed about all reasons for investigations. The FBI has a duty to base investigations on logic, and not just a witch hunt, but they don't need to explain that to us.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's wishful thinking to believe its provable, Its logical to believe it too place.


All that timing context came far after the fact, several explanations deep.

It's his right, but that doesn't mean it's just or that his reasoning wasn't comprised.

A couple days ago you were pointing out that the timing seemed related to the AG/DAG confirmations. Once that was disproven you moved onto other excuses. It's confirmation bias Denny. You have defended Trump so many times that it's blurred your vision.

what "logic" ?

Not a single leak or statement by anyone involved in the intelligence organizations or their oversight has said there's even one shred of evidence. There's absolutely no basis for "reasoning" that something took place.

I was wrong that it was solely on the basis of Rosenstein's memo that Comey was fired, but to say it had nothing to do with Comey's firing is the blurred vision thing. Even though Trump said he would have fired Comey regardless of the memo's content, even if it didn't recommend Comey's firing, there's no way to know if he would have been persuaded by his AG and Deputy AG urging against the firing. Past history, like his bombing of Syria and numerous other "flip flops" he's done, indicates he can be persuaded to change his mind.

I am not defending Trump. There's a big difference between demanding fact based argument over wishful thinking when it comes to wanting the president gone. He won, I recognize that and am willing to live with it.

The unrelenting shit storm he's faced all along is only partly of his making. The part that isn't his own making is a real danger - we may as well not have elections and let the CNN talking heads choose our government otherwise.

Speaking of confirmation bias.... Trump is called a liar at every turn. So only when he says "I was going to fire Comey..." (or because he mentioned Russia in an interview) is he telling the truth.

 

[MarAzul]

being paid by Russian interests

base investigations on logic

I don't see a hell of a lot of difference between RT and NPR or CNN.

Logic!
Outstanding! When you investigate the CNC, by god use logic and bring forth your evidence. Logic suggests you are going to fucking need it.
Logic also would tell you, Your boss knows what you don't have, and will have little patience with fishing.

 

[kingslayer]

A couple days ago you were pointing out that the timing seemed related to the AG/DAG confirmations. Once that was disproven you moved onto other excuses. It's confirmation bias Denny. You have defended Trump so many times that it's blurred your vision.

Bingo.

I suspect when this is all over many of his staunchest defenders will have become expert mental contortionists without ever realizing it and it's highly amusing.

 

[MarAzul]

Bingo.

I suspect when this is all over many of his staunchest defenders will have become expert mental contortionists without ever realizing it and it's highly amusing.

I find nothing amusing. Appalling comes to mind.

 

[kingslayer]

I find nothing amusing. Appalling comes to mind.

I'm referring to Trump's defenders. You are one of them, but you're welcome to think that of yourself.

 

[MarAzul]

you're welcome to think that of yourself.

Cute.

But not amusing.

Not very smart either. I am not defending Trump, he needs none. I have attempted to point out why Comey needed to be fired.

 

[kingslayer]

I am not defending Trump, he needs none.

Lol. The lack of self-awareness is appalling!

 

[MarAzul]

Lol. The lack of self-awareness is appalling!

Ha! Well I would have fire his ass, and I have explained why. If Clinton were the one firing him, some of my reasons for firing him would still apply.
But I will avoid exchanging what I find appalling on a personal level.

 

[kingslayer]

Ha! Well I would have fire his ass, and I have explained why. If Clinton were the one firing him, some of my reasons for firing him would still apply.
But I will avoid exchanging what I find appalling on a personal level.

There are definitely compelling reasons for him being fired, no one is arguing that. That was evident with both parties expressing just as much. The ridiculous timing and Trump's bullshit initial reasoning (that Comey was too mean to Hillary) is what's the problem here. Trump's comments during Lester Holt's interview last night confirmed the Comey-led Russia investigation was the main impetus. And with reporting by many outlets that Comey was unwilling to pledge fealty to the president, it's not hard to see what's going on here.

 

[Chris Craig]

And now Trump is threatening Comey on twitter, openly attempting to blackmail him into remaining silent. #corrupt#pookieletsburnthismotherfuckerdown

 

[Chris Craig]

Ha! Well I would have fire his ass, and I have explained why. If Clinton were the one firing him, some of my reasons for firing him would still apply.
But I will avoid exchanging what I find appalling on a personal level.

Clinton would have not fired Coney. She would have been immediately tarred and feathered...then impeached

 

[MarAzul]

Comey-led Russia investigation was the main impetus

Well Sherlock, read my post above. I have no doubt at all, this piss the President off no end. The fool stated before congress he was investigating Trump and refuse to offer any evidence as to why?
I can't imagine how the nitwit expected to be able to hang a black cloud over the President like that with no creditable evidence to support the action. Then he expects a licence to fish for as long as he wishes? The fucker had to be fired! This is way worse than assuming the AG's role in the Clinton investigation.

 

[MarAzul]

Clinton would have not fired Coney. She would have been immediately tarred and feathered...then impeached

I suspect you are probably correct. But this would be just another example of her incompetence, failing to do what should be done.

 

[The Professional Fan]