President Trump Fires FBI Director Comey

237 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rev Pesky

Well, it was more than that. Sessions was accused of using, and shown to have used, FBI resources for his own personal purposes.

Sessions fired

...Sessions's future was thrown into doubt earlier this year when the OPR report found that he had abused his office by setting up official appointments to justify charging the government for personal travel, improperly billed the FBI nearly $10,000 for a fence around his home, and refused to turn over documents on his $375,000 home mortgage, which investigators said they suspected involved a "sweetheart deal."

...The OPR found, for example, that Sessions bumped security agents off FBI planes and forced them to fly commercially so his wife could accompany him at government expense. FBI aircraft were diverted to pick up Alice Sessions in other cities and FBI vehicles were employed to take her to get her nails done, shop and pick up firewood.

Most troubling to administration officials was the OPR finding of a "sham" arrangement to claim a tax exemption on the value of his chauffeur-driven FBI limousine to and from work. Sessions had received a legal opinion from the chief FBI lawyer that he could use the exemption if he carried a firearm or kept one in the limousine.

I don't think anyone could compare Sessions firing with what happened to Comey.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

According to TPM, Trump now says in an interview with NBC that he was going to fire Comey regardless of whatever recommendation Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein made. This is after his underlings (including Pence) have spent the last 48 hours claiming that the decision came directly from Rosenstein, and Trump was merely following his legal advice.

Rev Pesky

More on that Trump interview

I would like to offer some quotes from the Guardian story I linked to, but they won't allow copying. In any case, it's an interesting story, with Trump directly contradicting the story as was given by Vice-President Pence.

Trump also offered that he had asked Comey whether he was being investigated, and Comey told him that he wasn't. That is something I very much doubt. No person in Comey's position could, or would, reveal the status of an open investigation without putting themselves in serious personal peril. In the end he lost his job anyway, but at the time he would have known that revealing an investigation to the person being investigated would be a firing offense.

josh

If he said anything, he probably said that Trump was not the target of the investigation at this point.  Which is not the same thing as not being under investigation.

voice of the damned

Pesky wrote:

I don't think anyone could compare Sessions firing with what happened to Comey.

Yeah, I agree. The reason I brought up Sessions is that somebody had asked if there had ever been an FBI director fired before.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But the reaction people (in the media) have does in fact hinge on whether one in inclined to believe the Russia allegations.   If one is inclined to see the Russian allegations as a nonsense partisan exercise that is an attempt to undermine Trump's ability to govern, then firing Comey is sensible.   If one sees the Russian allegations as a legitimate investigation into serious criminal acts, than this is bad news/evidence of cover up.

Well, one thing I would hope we could all agree on is that there's not much legitimacy in a system which would permit a President (pick any you wish) to fire the head of the agency that would be charged with investigating that President for a crime (pick any you wish). 

That's not "arm's length".  That's not even "finger's length" -- no matter how small your hands are.

josh
Rev Pesky

voice of the damned wrote:

Pesky wrote:

I don't think anyone could compare Sessions firing with what happened to Comey.

Yeah, I agree. The reason I brought up Sessions is that somebody had asked if there had ever been an FBI director fired before.

I didn't think you had. I've seen enough of your posts to know you wouldn't get sucked into a comparison like that.

 I just wanted to make clear the reason Sessions was fired. In the posted article is merely said a number of FBI agents had lost confidence in Sessions.  That  could be comparable to Trump's contention that FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey.

I thought it was important to state that Sessions was fired was for personal use of FBI resources, not for his conduct of any investigation.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

This is what Wikki has to say. It certainly doesn't highlight the complaints of his subordinates. I highlighted the fact that his troubles with perks started immediately after he wanted to investigate in a "sensitive" area.

Sessions was viewed as combining tough direction with fairness and was respected even by the Reagan administration's critics, although he was sometimes ridiculed as straitlaced and dull and lacking hands-on leadership. He worked to raise the image of the FBI in Congress and fought to raise the pay of FBI agents, which had lagged behind other law enforcement agencies.

Despite being a Republican who was appointed by Reagan, Sessions disappointed the administration of President George H. W. Bush for not being partisan, and he was personally disliked by Attorney General Dick Thornburgh. Sessions had an uneasy relationship with Thornburgh's successor William P. Barr. Reflecting the tensions between the Justice Department and the independent Bureau, Sessions announced that the FBI would be looking into whether Justice Department officials illegally misled a federal judge in a politically sensitive bank fraud case involving loans to Iraq before the Persian Gulf War, and 48 hours later Sessions was the subject of an ethics investigation on whether he had abused his office perks.

Sessions enjoyed his strongest support among liberal Democrats in Congress. Sessions was applauded for pursuing a policy of broadening the FBI to include more women and minorities, efforts which upset the "old boys" at the Bureau.

Just before Bill Clinton was inaugurated as the 42nd President of the United States on January 20, 1993, allegations of ethical improprieties were made against Sessions. A report by outgoing Attorney General William P. Barr presented to the Justice Department that month by the Office of Professional Responsibility included criticisms that he had used an FBI plane to travel to visit his daughter on several occasions, and had a security system installed in his home at government expense. Janet Reno, the 78th Attorney General of the United States, announced that Sessions had exhibited "serious deficiencies in judgment."

Although Sessions denied that he had acted improperly, he was pressured to resign in early July, with some suggesting that President Clinton was giving Sessions the chance to step down in a dignified manner. Sessions refused, saying that he had done nothing wrong, and insisted on staying in office until his successor was confirmed. As a result, President Clinton dismissed Sessions on July 19, 1993. Sessions was five and a half years into a ten-year term as FBI director; however, the holder of this post serves at the pleasure of the President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Sessions

NDPP

New Book 'Shattered' By Clinton Insiders Reveals That 'Blame Russia' Plan was Hatched 'Within twenty-four Hours' of Election Loss

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/862801658132254720

"The authors detail how Clinton went out of her way to pass blame for her stunning loss on 'Comey and Russia.' The book further highlights how Clinton's Russia-blame-game was a plan hatched by senior campaign staffers John Podesta and Robby Mook, less than 'within twenty-four hours, after she conceded..."

voice of the damned

^ Just because we can recognize  the "Blame Russia" excuse as Democratic spin doesn't prove that nothing improper took place in regards to Trump and the Russians.  

I mean, ultimately, yes, it was the voters, not the hackers(Russian or otherwise), who decided how much weight to attach to the hacked e-mails. But that doesn't absolve anyone, including any American politicians, from criminal responsibilty if they particpated in or abetted the hacks.

 

josh

Now, Trump is trying to intimidate Comey into silence.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473

 

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:
I think that Trump did this in a panic, because he knew Comey's russian investigation has already turned up evidence that could not only see him removed from office, but also spending the rest of his life in prison.

*Yawn* Just more grasping at straws by the Democratic establishment trying to blame Russia rather than look at why they lost the 2016 election, or holding onto their pipedream about impeaching Trump when the Republicans not only control Congress, but are also going to defeat large numbers of Senate Democrats in 2018.

Comey let Clinton off the hook long after anyone else who did what she did would have been thrown in jail. He did not do his job properly. He deserved to be fired.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Investigating any ties with Russia. What a bizarre world when talking to a Russian can get you in trouble but openly colluding with Israel and Saudi Arabia is just fine.

I know.

Please

make

it

stop!

Kropotkin and A24 said what needs to be said. I will simply add that Obama could have fired Comey for interfering in the election.

What amazes me is that in a broken country - where one individual can fire the FBI director on a whim - no one even questions that power. They only question how it is used. I figure that if you give one individual that power, and he uses it, suck it up and shut up. Or fix your absolute monarchy.

Cody87

Unionist wrote:

What amazes me is that in a broken country - where one individual can fire the FBI director on a whim - no one even questions that power. They only question how it is used. I figure that if you give one individual that power, and he uses it, suck it up and shut up. Or fix your absolute monarchy.

Exactly this! I recently said something very similar in a different thread, though you were much more concise.

http://rabble.ca/comment/5254396#comment-5254396

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

It seems to me that the RCMP Commissioner and the head of CSIS serve at the pleasure of the Crown i.e. the PM and Privy council. If the politicians can't fire the spooks then who is charge? 

voice of the damned

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It seems to me that the RCMP Commissioner and the head of CSIS serve at the pleasure of the Crown i.e. the PM and Privy council. If the politicians can't fire the spooks then who is charge? 

I've been trying to find Canadian precedents for who can dismiss such officials. The case that came to mind was D'Arcy Finn, the head of CSIS, who resigned(not fired) some time in the '80s, over the handling of the Air India bombing. Presumably there was some consensus somewhere that things had gone south with the investigation, and he felt he had no choice but to quit. 

But what would happen if it was blatantly obvious that the head of CSIS had screwed up on some file, but he refused to quit? Do we just have to accept his continued rule? I'm assuming there would have to be SOME way of getting rid of the guy. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

He reports to parliament through the Cabinet. In Canada we get people's resignations and don't have to fire them but if push comes to shove they have to be accountable and thus able to be fired by the government. 

josh
josh

Cody87 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

What amazes me is that in a broken country - where one individual can fire the FBI director on a whim - no one even questions that power. They only question how it is used. I figure that if you give one individual that power, and he uses it, suck it up and shut up. Or fix your absolute monarchy.

Exactly this! I recently said something very similar in a different thread, though you were much more concise.

http://rabble.ca/comment/5254396#comment-5254396

The FBI is part of the Justice Department, and its director reports to the Attorney General.  There was a director who couldn't be fired.  His name was J. Edgar Hoover.  And he couldn't be fired because he kept blackmail information on everybody.

Rev Pesky

I have just learned why Comey was fired. This is information that was unknown to me, but I was turned towards it by an article about the firing in which Comey was referred to as a 'towering' figure. It didn't mean he was especially significant in his work, it meant he was tall.

In fact, James Comey is 6'8" tall, and every time Trump had to talk to him while they were in physical contact, Trump, who is 6'2", would have had to look up to him. Knowing Trump as we do, that would have been an intolerable situation for him.

It would also explain why he referred to Comey as a 'grandstander' and a 'showboater'. No one around Trump will be allowed to be taller than he is. I also suspect Comey's hands were significantly larger than Trump's, another obvious ploy by Comey to diminish Trump.

Comey had to go.

Comey with a regular sized human:

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Geez, just get Trump an apple box to stand on.  That's what they do with "leading men" like Tom Cruise who are dwarfed by normal-sized women.  The camera can be instructed to stay above the hips.

Unionist

josh wrote:

The FBI is part of the Justice Department, and its director reports to the Attorney General.  There was a director who couldn't be fired.  His name was J. Edgar Hoover.  And he couldn't be fired because he kept blackmail information on everybody.

Exactly my point, josh. You don't question the royal papal power of the president to fire the head of the FBI. You just want it done according to your convenience. That's very sad. It's an indication that your country has no viable democratic structures. Would you have been pleased if Obama had the guts (something he never had) to fire Comey for sabotaging Hillary's election hopes by making a police investigation public? I (given papal power) would have fired Comey first and then had him investigated for corruption charges. But the same useless coward Obama - who couldn't even keep a cheap promise to close Guantanamo - let Hillary go down the drain. I think I know why.

Cody87

Huh, and all this time people have been calling Trump literally Hitler when it turns out he's literally Napoleon!

NDPP

CrossTalk: Comey Shown the Door

https://youtu.be/VvMt9ekP1tw

"Cleaning house or political coup threatening democracy? Take your pick..."

josh

Unionist wrote:

josh wrote:

The FBI is part of the Justice Department, and its director reports to the Attorney General.  There was a director who couldn't be fired.  His name was J. Edgar Hoover.  And he couldn't be fired because he kept blackmail information on everybody.

Exactly my point, josh. You don't question the royal papal power of the president to fire the head of the FBI. You just want it done according to your convenience. That's very sad. It's an indication that your country has no viable democratic structures. Would you have been pleased if Obama had the guts (something he never had) to fire Comey for sabotaging Hillary's election hopes by making a police investigation public? I (given papal power) would have fired Comey first and then had him investigated for corruption charges. But the same useless coward Obama - who couldn't even keep a cheap promise to close Guantanamo - let Hillary go down the drain. I think I know why.

Obama should have fired Comey after the election.  Comey claimed he couldn't let political considerations enter into his decision to write the letter in October, and then turns around and says that he had to write the letter or else be accused for covering up for Clinton if she won.  But now he's investigating the Trump campaign while Trump is president.  Entirely different matter.

There needs to be an independent counsel.  But so far the Republicans in congress refuse to even call for one, and the Justice Department won't appoint one.

6079_Smith_W

First time I saw that absolute power questioned was on election night when david frum pointed out that there was no conflict of interest law for the president, and that with a normal person it is not necessary. If we want to make comparisons our system is far more monarchical , both literally and figuratively and our politicians usually manage to stick to convention..
I am more surprised why some don't see why a president taking that step is a constitutional crisis - an assault on the judicial branch by the chief executive. The convention is that an FBI director is supposed to have a 10 year term, not fired at whim.
As for how broken it is, let's see how this plays out. It sure doesn't seem to have had the desired result so far.

NDPP

In Search of an Empire Without An Emperor: Dynamics Behind the Comey Firing

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/11/in-search-of-an-empire-without-an...

"...The political factions spew allegations to the public that are at best difficult to discern, even if you follow politics full time, much less if you're trying to hold down a regular honest job. This leads to a political culture based on loving or hating various political figures, or just checking out of politics, which much of the political establishment may want for large sections of the public. 

In terms of Trump's own crimes, he is quite impeachable on the domestic emoluments clause, but the establishment Democrats seem quite uninterested in pursuing that...But it is incredibly dangerous that the establishment Democrats seem intent on risking escalation with the other major nuclear power on the planet so they can beat Trump over the head."

"...So now Russia must pay. Putin must be demonized and derided. The American people must be taught to hate Russia and all things Russian. And, most of all, Russia must be blamed for anything and everything under the sun, including the firing of a completely worthless sack of sh** FBI Director James Comey, who - at various times in his career - 'approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration including torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention.' (ACLU)

This is the low-down, good-for-nothing scalawag that the Democrats are now defending tooth and nail. It's pathetic..."

The Russian Hacking Fiasco

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/12/the-russian-hacking-fiasco/

josh
josh

Comey willing to testify before congress, but only in public.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/comey-willing-testify-only-public-...

Cody87

There are five major political groups in the U.S. The elite/establishment Democrats, the elite/establishment Republicans, ordinary Democrats, ordinary independents, and ordinary Republicans.

The fact that Comey was terrible at his job and should resign is literally the only thing that, until Trump fired him, absolutely everyone agreed on. They can't agree on TPP or environmental regulations or taxes or Healthcare or whether minorities are real people too, or even bizarre things like who really killed JFK or if the WTC was an inside job. But they all agree and have called for months for Comey to resign #fireComey.

Since Comey didn't seem to get the hint, Trump fires him, and now "it's a constitutional crisis" and we're back to square one with no common ground.

josh

They never agreed at the same time.  And Trump admitted he fired him because he wouldn't stop the Russian probe.   Context means everything.

cco

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I am more surprised why some don't see why a president taking that step is a constitutional crisis - an assault on the judicial branch by the chief executive. The convention is that an FBI director is supposed to have a 10 year term, not fired at whim.

The FBI is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch. By American constitutional law, the president is the nation's chief law enforcer, in charge of "tak[ing] care that the laws be faithfully executed". The 10-year convention is far more recent; no FBI director has ever served a 10-year term, with William Webster coming the closest, and both Robert Mueller and J. Edgar Hoover serving for longer. Which isn't to downplay the ongoing clusterfuck over this firing, just to say it's not a constitutional crisis in the same way refusing to hold a hearing for Obama's Supreme Court nominee was.

If Trump really wanted to kill any possibility of a criminal investigation, in fact, he could just issue himself a blanket pardon for all federal crimes, in much the same way Ford pardoned Nixon despite him not having been indicted yet. There's no check on that power.

bekayne

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Geez, just get Trump an apple box to stand on.  That's what they do with "leading men" like Tom Cruise who are dwarfed by normal-sized women.  The camera can be instructed to stay above the hips.

6079_Smith_W

The potential damage might not hang on anything being criminal or not. Whatever it may be, it is clearly important enough for trump to resort to obstruction of justice.

And technicalities aside, what we are talking about is obstruction of justice, not of the executive.

NDPP

The Scandal Hidden Behind Russia-Gate

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/11/the-scandal-hidden-behind-russia-g...

"Russia-gate is not about democracy but about neo-McCarthyism and war. Where Watergate was about blocking a cover-up, Russia-gate is about perpetuating one."

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
Clinton wasn't just anyone else.  She had the highest security clearance.

She may have had high level security clearance, but the construction of the unencrypted unsecured private e-mail server exposed classified information to any potential hacker. That alone is egregious, whether or not any actual hacking happened.

josh wrote:
Yawn.  Watergate is just grasping at straws by a Democratic establishment seeking to blame a handful of flunkies for why they lost the 1972 election.  Please make it stop.

There's a difference. Watergate actually happened. Russiagate is a clear scapegoating attempt by the Democrats, as well as a deflection away from the Clinton family's own dealings with Russia.

josh

Aristotleded24 wrote:

josh wrote:
Clinton wasn't just anyone else.  She had the highest security clearance.

She may have had high level security clearance, but the construction of the unencrypted unsecured private e-mail server exposed classified information to any potential hacker. That alone is egregious, whether or not any actual hacking happened.

josh wrote:
Yawn.  Watergate is just grasping at straws by a Democratic establishment seeking to blame a handful of flunkies for why they lost the 1972 election.  Please make it stop.

There's a difference. Watergate actually happened. Russiagate is a clear scapegoating attempt by the Democrats, as well as a deflection away from the Clinton family's own dealings with Russia.

There was an attempted bugging in Watergate.  There was an actual hacking here.  

Clinton was at worst negligent in her handling of the information.  There was no criminal intent.

Cody87

Intent doesn't work like that. Unless you're too big to jail, intent applies to whether you intended to perform an action, not whether you intended to break the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If it's illegal to whistle at someone, and you don't know it, and you whistle at someone, then you had intent to whistle and are criminally responsible. It doesn't matter that you didn't intend to break the law.

Clinton intended to set up a home server to store emails that she was sending and receiving. This is already mishandling of classified material even if her server was never compromised. She had intent to commit the act, and the act was illegal even if she was unaware it's illegal.

 

Edit to add:

A better example. If you set up lethal booby traps in your apartment before you move out, and then when the landlord is showing the apartment someone is killed, you won't get off because "you had no intention to kill someone." You intended to set up the traps and you knew or ought to have known that those traps might kill someone and that killing someone is illegal. It would be ridiculous for an authority in law enforcement to refuse to recommend charges because you "were just extremely reckless but had no criminal intent."

Rev Pesky

In fact it was Sessions personal use of FBI resources that led to his dismissal. Some of the accusations were that he (courtesy Washington Post):

...had abused his office by setting up official appointments to justify charging the government for personal travel, improperly billed the FBI nearly $10,000 for a fence around his home, and refused to turn over documents on his $375,000 home mortgage, which investigators said they suspected involved a "sweetheart deal."

...that Sessions bumped security agents off FBI planes and forced them to fly commercially so his wife could accompany him at government expense. FBI aircraft were diverted to pick up Alice Sessions in other cities and FBI vehicles were employed to take her to get her nails done, shop and pick up firewood.

Most troubling to administration officials was the OPR finding of a "sham" arrangement to claim a tax exemption on the value of his chauffeur-driven FBI limousine to and from work. Sessions had received a legal opinion from the chief FBI lawyer that he could use the exemption if he carried a firearm or kept one in the limousine.

According to the story, Sessions was investigated for months, then given many opportunities to resign, but refused. It wasn't something that was done on the spur of the moment, and in fact many thought the Clinton administration acted too slowly.

josh

Cody87 wrote:

Intent doesn't work like that. Unless you're too big to jail, intent applies to whether you intended to perform an action, not whether you intended to break the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If it's illegal to whistle at someone, and you don't know it, and you whistle at someone, then you had intent to whistle and are criminally responsible. It doesn't matter that you didn't intend to break the law.

Clinton intended to set up a home server to store emails that she was sending and receiving. This is already mishandling of classified material even if her server was never compromised. She had intent to commit the act, and the act was illegal even if she was unaware it's illegal.

 

Edit to add:

A better example. If you set up lethal booby traps in your apartment before you move out, and then when the landlord is showing the apartment someone is killed, you won't get off because "you had no intention to kill someone." You intended to set up the traps and you knew or ought to have known that those traps might kill someone and that killing someone is illegal. It would be ridiculous for an authority in law enforcement to refuse to recommend charges because you "were just extremely reckless but had no criminal intent."

It's not ignorance of the law.  Intent, or mens rea, is a part of nearly all criminal statutes.  It certainly is in the statutes Clinton was supposed to have violated.  

Your hypothetical is totally non-analogous.  Those type of actions are one of the exceptions to the intent rule because they are inherently dangerous to life and limb.

Cody87

And improperly handling classified and top secret information isn't inherently dangerous?

josh

Nowhere near to the extent of being shot by a spring gun.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
A better example. If you set up lethal booby traps in your apartment before you move out, and then when the landlord is showing the apartment someone is killed, you won't get off because "you had no intention to kill someone."

If you want to use this analogy to analyze Clinton and her e-mails, then wouldn't the equivalent of "someone is killed" be "and hackers took over her server and read all sorts of classified stuff"?

And did that actually happen?  Because I'm pretty sure that if I booby-trap my apartment but nobody is hurt, I probably won't be charged with murder/manslaughter.

Timebandit

Right - and isn't intent and the level of intent the factor that differentiates of first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter?

So, bad analogy, anyway. And what happened or didn't happen, as Magoo points out, is also a factor.

In any case in regard to Hillary Clinton's email server: If there had been something to charge Clinton with, the Republicans would have seen her charged. But no matter how hard they pushed it, there wasn't a prosecutable offence. Asked and answered, done and over with. Can we please move the fuck on?

6079_Smith_W

Good luck there. I'm sure it will be front and centre in the next election.  Given what is considered relevant in these general discussions, maybe two hundred years and it might no longer be considered a contemporary issue. Maybe.

Rev Pesky

In any case, Trump himself felt that Comey's actions against Clinton during the election were fine, and said so on any number of occasions. So for him to now say that he fired Comey because of the way he handled Clinton is just plain old bullshit.

And whatever Comey did, or didn't do, with the Clinton file, it is true that the FBI is forbidden from engaging in politics. Comey was handling a situation that hadn't happened before, that is, the investigation of someone running for president of the USA. How could he conduct the investigation without crossing the boundary of interfering in politics? Everybody should see that is a delicate balance, especially with both sides in the election hammering the investigation on a daily basis, one side wanting more and the other less.  

I'm not saying he handled it correctly, but even I can cut him a bit of slack for dealing with a situation that had never ocurred before, and which it was obvious from the beginning didn't have a winning side. For him it was lose-lose.

I posted earlier that I thought Trump fired Comey because Comey is taller than him by 6 inches. I was joking of course, but in thinking it over, I'm not so sure I was wrong. Knowing Trump as we do, that would be the kind of thing that his fragile ego couldn't handle. Besides, I think he likes to appear 'presidential', and after his failures with the travel ban and the medical care legislation, he probably thought firing someone would add a bit of stature to his administratoin.

Back when, during the election, Melania Trump, in response to a reporter's question, said something like, 'I have two ten year olds to look after.' That was a reference to her son and her husband. People didn't pay a lot of attention to that statement, but they should have. Donald Trump is indeed that immature emotionally.

6079_Smith_W

@ Rev

agreed, especially since, as was reported at the time, there was a revolt within the FBI over the emails investigation. But yes, he certainly could have handled it better by pointing that out, or at least providing a bit more background.

But it is also a moot point, as Trump has already admitted the Russia investigation was part of the reason for the firing.

Timebandit

Yes, agree with you both. My frustration is that every time Comey comes up, we seem to have to re-prosecute the Clinton email debacle. It's a distraction from the current situation. Simply put, even if there is nothing to the allegations of collusion with a foreign power to win the election or of deep conflicts of interest, the optics of firing the man investigating you are exceptionally bad and it shouldn't have happened.

Trump has just made himself look even guiltier. So he's either guilty as sin, a complete fucking idiot, or a combination of the two.

6079_Smith_W

Yup. And it is going to keep being an issue now that this conspiracist "deep state" trope is out there. All that easier to sell because of who she is, and that she isn't one of the boys.

 

Mobo2000

Regarding Hillary Clinton email investigation and intent, watch the cross examination of Comey by Trey Gowdry here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ

The Republicans felt Comey did not do his job on this investigation for a couple of reasons, two big ones being:

1.   The statute Hillary was alleged to have violated makes no mention of intent, the bar is "gross negligence".   The republican position was that her intent did not matter, she violated the law through negligence.

2.  He recommended that she not be charged when (according to them) he should merely have passed his findings on.

Other random points on assorted comments made above:

The "deep state" is not conspiracist nonsense.   If you don't like the term, find another one.   Shadow government used to be popular a decade ago.    

The reason the Clinton emails keep being discussed is the same reason the Clinton foundation's ties to russia keep popping up.    People notice and are interested in hypocrisy.    To the disinterested or casual follower of politics these juxtapositions show that there is no principled objections coming from the DNC or DNC media to Trump's  actions that are based on ideals, principles, or rules that should apply to everyone.    And are therefore easy to dismiss as partisan lies/fake news.  

 

 

 

 

Pages