President Trump Fires FBI Director Comey
President Trump dismisses FBI Director Comey
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/comey-misstated-k...
What an ingrate!
Comey went balls to the wall, and this is how The Donald thanks him???
Which is more likely?
Classic obstruction of justice.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidWright_CNN/status/862079735496626176/pho...
So which is it?
Which is more likely?
James Comey fired latest: Donald Trump dismisses FBI Director
Democrat Senators raise concerns over possible constitutional crisis, with Mr Comey leading the FBI investigation into alleged links between the Trump campaign and Russia
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/james-comey...
[quote]James Comey fired latest/quote]
Han fired first.
In Trump’s Firing of James Comey, Echoes of Watergate
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/trump-fbi-investigation-n...
This comes as no surprise, correct?
Trump Fires FBI Director James Comey (and vid)
"President Donald Trump has fired Director James Comey, following the recommendation of the Attorney General. Trump wrote that new leadership is needed to restore public trust in the agency..."
'Report on Alleged Russian Hacking is Embarrassment To US Intelligence Profession' - Fmr CIA Officer (and vid)
"This week's public hearing on Michael Flynn was an embarrassment. It was sort of a reflection of what is called the 'Deep State' in our country. We had the CIA, the NSA, the FBI all working behind the scenes, said Ray McGovern, former CIA Officer.
'The public report on alleged Russian meddling is an embarassment to the intelligence profession..."
Trump screams at TV. Fires Comey.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/comey-firing-trump-russia-238192
Days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in money and personnel for the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election, according to three officials with knowledge of his request.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/comey-russia-investigation-fbi.html
Oh my, the press is going to have a field day with this. Think of the clicks they will get. I wonder if ratings will go up more than Colbert's post cock-holster.
I don't see any endgame senario here that is bad for Trump. It's almost funny. If the mainstream media freaks out enough about Nixonian abuses of power, the Trump administration will most likely, as John McCain asks, appoint a special prosecutor to continue to look at Russian interference in the election, and that "independent" investigator will certainly widen the investigation into partisan abuses of intelligence material under the Obama administration/leaks/Susan Rice.
Why would they want to appoint an independent prosecutor? That would almost be as bad as forcing Trump to release his tax returns.
I agree with Cenk Uygur's analysis of what is going on here, and it isn't good for Trump. 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. His only hope is to get someone like Rudy Giuliani or Chris Christie in as FBI director, after getting them to promise to smother the evidence against him.
Yup. Though at this point given the schism in the FBI you have to wonder what the chance is that it will be smothered, or if some "Deep Throat" will show up. I am sure Comey must have realized this was in the realm of possibility.
This is the rational put forward by Breitbart (I won't link but you can find there easily enough):
But why fire Comey now? The answer is simple. The day before, President Barack Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper repeated, under oath, what he told NBC News’ Chuck Todd on Meet the Press on March 5 — that he had seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. That gave the Trump administration the breathing room to dismiss Comey — which it simply did not have before.
It is true that Trump did not have an attorney general and assistant attorney general in place until relatively late, but he could have acted before then — though having their recommendation certainly adds weight to his decision.
Put simply, if Trump had fired Comey while there were still serious questions about Russia, then it would have been more plausible to accuse him of trying to interfere in the investigation or cover up whatever happened. It is now clear that nothing, in fact, happened. Monday’s hearing with Clapper and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was meant to reveal a “smoking gun,” and produced nothing but viral videos of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).
-------
Mobo:
I think there are many plausible senarios here. But I don't agree with the analysis he fired Comey as a coverup and there is actual impeachable evidence there. If they had it they would have used it already. And if they had it, firing Comey wouldn't have prevented it coming out. I think it's already clear that the Trump administration doesn't have nearly as much ability to supress leaks as the Obama administration, for example.
This issue hinges, like much of the partisan mess that passes for media in the US, on whether or not you are inclined to believe Trump conspired with Russians to hack the election. And what your standards for evidence are. I have seen nothing approaching a smoking gun, and nothing really even credible.
Well, well, it appears that this idea may have come from longtime rat fucker and Trump pal, Roger Stone, who is one of the Trump associates being investigated for his ties to Russia. Also, Politico says that Comey's firing was definitely done to make the Russia investigation go away.
Trump is definitely in a panic.President Donald Trump weighed firing his FBI director for more than a week. When he finally pulled the trigger Tuesday afternoon, he didn't call James Comey. He sent his longtime private security guard to deliver the termination letter in a manila folder to FBI headquarters.
He had grown enraged by the Russia investigation, two advisers said, frustrated by his inability to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia. He repeatedly asked aides why the Russia investigation wouldn’t disappear and demanded they speak out for him. He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe, one adviser said.
But that has nothing to do with their stated reason for firing him. If it was that, why not just say it?
But I don't agree with the analysis he fired Comey as a coverup and there is actual impeachable evidence there. If they had it they would have used it already. And if they had it, firing Comey wouldn't have prevented it coming out.
Huh? You do know that the FBI has (had) an ongoing investigation? And that a grand jury has been impaneled in Virginia, preliminarily regarding Flynn? And that it took over 2 years for the smoking gun to come out against Nixon.
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.
Furthermore if an American politician acted like Venezula's oppostion they would be charged with treason.
During his weekly television program, Cabello said the NED’s Director for Latin America and the Caribbean Miriam Kornblith arrived in Venezuela Feb. 28, and upon her arrival she opted to disguise her appearance, going so far as to dye her hair.
Kornblith then traveled to Bolivar City to meet with opposition politicians and representatives of a nongovernmental organization, registering at a hotel under the pseudonym Sarah Collins.
“If she is acting in good faith, why does she feel the need to change her name and dye her hair?” asked Cabello. The Venezuelan official also said that Kornblith traveled in a vehicle using license plates belonging to a different car.
Cabello stated that Kornblith’s mission in Venezuela was to resolve an issue regarding the allocation of money from the NED between opposition parties. After returning to Caracas, she allegedly held a four-hour meeting with opposition leader Ramon Jose Medina at the offices of an opposition political party.
http://www.venezuelasolidarity.co.uk/u-s-ned-official-meets-with-venezue...
Well a part of me hopes you (and the politco) article are right, but I don't think you are. It doesn't seem to me like this firing went down any differently than other Trump admin actions, which have had the same appearance of recklessness /quickly decided/not thought through qualities. It is part of what makes him endearing to his base (He's "draining the swamp") .
Note too that Politico article is talking about Trump's anger that it is still a story, still in the news getting in the way of all the positive coverage he feels due. Not that he's angry or terrified they are gonna get him.
One way to read the Comey firing is that he's guilty and covering it up. Another would be he's sick of a politically motivated intelligence agency, loyal to his predecessors, undermining his presidency with a bogus, never ending investigation.
I don't have any idea how the broader American public will feel about this, but I'm not optimistic they are going to agree with the DNC's spin on it.
Josh: And will Comey's firing stop the investigation, or the impanelled jury in Virginia?
Josh: And will Comey's firing stop the investigation, or the impanelled jury in Virginia?
It could. Depending on what happens from here on out.
Curtains For Comey: Rocketing Through The Looking-Glass With The Troller-In-Chief - by Chris Floyd
http://www.chris-floyd.com/home/articles/curtains-for-comey-rocketing-th...
"...People will say it's a bad move by Trump, drawing even more attention to the Russian probe the FBI was carrying out. And in conventional terms, it is a stupid, self-defeating act. But it could also be seen as part of a long-term Trump team strategy to tear everything down, rendering the nation's institutions, law and established procedures to piles of ruin, covered in steaming piles of bullshit, absurdity and chaos.
And what happens to nations and societies in ruins? Why 'strong leaders' must step in, with a strong hand - a free hand - to 'do what it takes' to 'restore order'...Meanwhile, under cover of the carnival noise..."
From Mobo2000:
One way to read the Comey firing is that he's guilty and covering it up. Another would be he's sick of a politically motivated intelligence agency, loyal to his predecessors...
You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that Comey was 'loyal' to the Democrats. On the other hand, Trump supporters are very similar to the old Stalinists. Didn't matter what Stalin did, how many times he did an about face in policy, how many times he was shown to be wrong, they stuck by him through thick and thin.
Putin Reacts To Comey's Dismissal: 'What do we have to do with it? I'm off to play hockey.'
"Was he fired? You're kidding!' Lavrov said, shaking his head."
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.
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!
Speaking of those "Stalinists":
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/this-is-not-a-drill...
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.
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!
That's total crap. Clinton wasn't just anyone else. She had the highest security clearance.
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.
Actually it is not.
It is the president firing the cop who is investigating him - the cop who is supposed to be independent. Think of if Stephen Harper had started firing people in the RCMP as the Robocalls investigation was going on. That is why even partisan republicans should be paying attention to this.
And it is worse than watergate, because watergate was just about a burglary. This is about national security, even if it is not technically criminal.
Smith: Trump was told 3 times that he was not the subject of the investigation. He helpfully pointed that out in his letter firing Comey. I know in these fast moving modern times we're all about guilt by association now, but the details matter here.
Rev: The Republicans have been making the accusation that the Democrats used the intelligence agencies for partisan political purposes during Obama's administration and during the most recent election campaign. An as mentioned above in post32, in Republican's eyes Comey was way too soft on Hillary. Watch Trey Gowdry question Comey on the Hillary investigation on youtube sometime.
Smith: Trump was told 3 times that he was not the subject of the investigation. He helpfully pointed that out in his letter firing Comey. I know in these fast moving modern times we're all about guilt by association now, but the details matter here.
More lies.
Smith: The David Frum article is pretty funny, don't you think? Especially liked:
"It’s a lot more probable today than it was yesterday that the chain of command is compromised and beholden in some way to a hostile foreign power."
"Perhaps the worst fears for the integrity of the U.S. government and U.S. institutions are being fulfilled. If this firing stands—and if Trump dares to announce a pliable replacement—the rule of law begins to shake and break."
Hilarious.
Josh: Here's politico's take on if Trump was the subject of the investigation.
"So is it true? Did Comey three times tell Trump he isn’t under FBI investigation?
We know with certainty that the FBI is investigating possible Russian coordination with Trump campaign associates. But we have no way of knowing whether the FBI is investigating Trump personally, nor do we know what Comey told Trump. Definitive answers to these questions haven’t appeared in media reports, either.
When asked for more detail about the three separate occasions during the White House daily press briefing May 10, spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, "I’m not going to get into the specifics of their conversations."
The FBI won’t say, either, because it normally doesn’t confirm the existence of an ongoing investigation.
But in March, the Justice Department gave Comey permission, due to the significant public interest in this case, to confirm that the agency is looking into "the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts."
That’s as much as Comey would say.
Members of Congress pressed Comey for more detail during two lengthy hearings in March and May, but he declined to answer nearly every question.
At the March 20 hearing, Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., asked Comey directly if Trump is currently under investigation, or if he was during the campaign.
"I'm not going to answer that," Comey replied."
It's not just goofy right wingers like Frum who think this is a significant event. On Democracy Now, Glenn Greenwald says that he thinks it's "shocking", "stunning" and "amazing". Interview starts around 3:20 into the clip.
Oooh I will check that out!
@ Michael
Agreed, it is something that should shock everyone. That is why the fact right wingers like Frum are outraged is significant. It is not just a partisan issue, or even one which hinges on whether one believes the Russia allegations or not.
Smith: It was shocking. I certainly did not expect it.
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.
David Frum invoking the rule of law is hilarious, regardless of his motives. He is not a typical right winger, he is a neo-con warmonger. There is no greater principle at play here. If the Russia investigation was not happening, firing Comey would have been applauded by the Democrats.
Kshama Sawant: Don't Wait for Authoritarian Trump to Be Impeached, This is the Moment to Revolt
quote:
But I would say that as far as ordinary working people, people like us, people like most of the people watching this show, are concerned, I don’t think the most important question is whether or not a certain FBI director was fired. And I’ll say why: because the FBI itself is part of a racist and repressive security and state apparatus. It has a long track record of targeting activists, black activists. So, at the end of the day, the larger question is not so much about that, but about what this indicates as far as the status of the administration is concerned, and what should we be doing about it. I think a lot of people correctly want Trump out. I want Trump out. But I want Trump, the Republicans, the billionaire class and the security state out of power. How do we accomplish that?
So, in addition to the Watergate as a memory from the Nixon era, I would say there’s another very, very relevant educational memory that we should draw upon from the Nixon era. It was during Nixon’s regime in the White House that we had one of the most historic eras of social and political and workers’ movements. It was when Nixon was in the White House that we had the Environmental Protection Agency formed; the Occupational Safety and Health Act that was passed; the Supreme Court pro-abortion decision, Roe v. Wade, landmark decision, was passed; and the Vietnam War was ended; and there were massive strike actions by workers. But none of this was because of Nixon in any way. He was a misogynist, racist, right-wing president. It was because movements were drawing the correct conclusions that it is time to really build on our own independent strength. And I think we can do that right now, as well.
And so, in relation to Comey, I would say that it is really indicative of the deep instability of this administration. But we, as ordinary people, as social movements, we cannot wait for whether or not there will be a smoking gun that will be found in the investigations, which, of course, should go forward. The question is: What do we do now? And I think that right now the time is ripe to really build social movements. I don’t know if your viewers saw this, but one of the sociologists recently in America said that there is protest fatigue happening right now, that’s the wrong conclusion to draw. Actually, people are starting to come into a state of revolt like never before, in our generations, at least. And you can see the rise of the popularity of socialism among younger generations. The strike actions on May 1st were very significant. And ultimately, a very strong indicator of what’s already happened in Trump’s regime is the airport actions that happened in late January, that were a decisive factor, the civil disobedience and shutdown, peaceful shutdown, of airports. That was a decisive factor in giving Trump his first stinging defeat on his attempted Muslim ban. I think we need more of those kinds of social movements. And right now, if people are sitting up and taking notice, it’s correct, and let’s get organized.
Mobo
I have to disagree with you there. The notion that a president would arbitrarily remove the head of an agency responsible for investigations and enforcing the law (even though he technically has the power) is shocking. Doubly so because it hinges on such an investigation. If it is nonsense, why not let it play out, and be proven to be nonsense? That is actually the line the White House is trying to sell now. So why did he feel it necessary to remove Comey?
If the Russia investigation was not happening, firing Comey would have been applauded by the Democrats.
Uh . . . yeah. What's your point?
Smith, I think Josh answered your question to me for me. Your use of the word "arbitrarily" is kind of key, isn't it?
These two Counterpunch articles sum things up pretty well for me. I also agree with the thrust of the article posted at #45.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/11/in-search-of-an-empire-without-an...
"A great irony now is that the establishment Democrats are going after Trump in a number of personal ways, but collude in others, and indeed stiffen up his use of violence. When Trump uses military violence in Yemen or Syria, he is lauded by presumed liberals like Van Jones and Fareed Zakaria as presidential.
Johnson was thought to curtail bombing for political gain. Trump now gains politically when he engages in bombing.
The U.S. establishment seems to want an Emperor who will go around the world spying on people and killing them as he sees fit, but want to make sure he abides by legal niceties in the U.S.
The obsessiveness over secrecy and the intense “principless“ partisanship give us a situation where the political factions spew allegations to the public that are at best difficult to decern, 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 sectors of the public."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/11/impeach-trump-for-right-reasons/
"
The coverup is not worse than the crime. Serious crimes are available as impeachment charges, and overlooking them effectively permits them going forward, along with any other crimes, as long as there’s no coverup.
We have yet to see any actual evidence of any actual Russian influence on the U.S. election. Toying with hostility toward a nuclear government is more reckless than anything (else) Trump has done. Can you impeach and try Trump for obstructing an investigation into what all the corporate media refer to as if it were established fact, without actually focusing on whether there is any evidence, and without demonizing Russia?
If some lesser crimes are proven that involve Russia in some way, can you try them without advancing the notion that the fundamental crime is friendship with Russians?"
Hey, I'm just catching up on mobile, but has any president ever fired an FBI director before? Is there precedent for this?
Hey, I'm just catching up on mobile, but has any president ever fired an FBI director before? Is there precedent for this?
Yes. Bill Clinton fired William Sessions. But at least upon cursory examination, the two cases aren't really comparable. Sessions had arguably lost the confidence of rank-and-file agents, 100 of whom signed a letter criticizing his leadership of the FBI.
Can't get a workable link, but googling "Clinton fires William Sessions" should bring up lots of info.
Sorry, my mistake. Apparently, it was an internal FBI report that cited over 100 agents criticizing Sessions' ethics.