> When Bill Clinton took office in January , 1993, his FBI Director was William S. Sessions, serving an appointment made by Ronald Reagan at the time of the Iran-Contra affair. Making it clear that the new President did not want the Republican FBI Director in his Administration, Clinton’s newly appointed Attorney General, Janet Reno, quietly pressured Mr. Sessions to resign.
> 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.
Sorry I quoted the wrong bit. He was actually fired.
> ut the stubborn Republican FBI Director refused to go voluntarily, finally provoking Bill Clinton to telephone Mr. Sessions on July 20, 1993. The President called twice. The first call was to tell the Director he was fired. The second was to tell the Director it was effective immediately. That’s cold, man.
"Trump just fired the man leading a counterintelligence investigation into his campaign, on the same day that the Senate Intelligence commitee requested financial documents relating to Trump's business dealings from the treasury department that handles money laundering." -Comment from reddit that sums up how strange this is.
~~ He also fired the federal judge who ruled against him in Hawaii. So it's not like this is new behavior. ~~
Don't worry though, this is fine.
Ed:
I'm likely misremembering bluster as taking action, since I can't find specific citations. So I retract the comment, and would strike through it (I don't like deleting text), but don't know if I can on HN.
He can't fire a federal judge. There is a due process for impeaching a federal judge from the bench. Neither can Department of Justice (which is part of the executive branch), it is one of the best preserved traditions of our Checks and Balances, despite some of rulings are not agreed by majority (do I have to bring up the stupid ruling of Judge Persky on the People vs Turner case). Therefore, we can't fire or replace a Supreme Court judge except the Congress.
You are probably mistaken that for the firing of the acting AOG Sally Yates for mandating Department of Justice to not to defend Trump's travel ban executive order during her tenure, and the termination of New York-based U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara who was known for going after Wall Street scandals (and who, according to Trump, did not return Trump's calls multiple calls).
--Edit--
I found [1] to be an interesting article on whether impeachment of a judge is limited to Congress.
The person more at fault in the Turner case is the probation officer who recommended such a light sentence. The judge idiotically accepted their recommendation.
TL;DR: a detective impersonated a defense attorney and got the victim to incriminate himself. The original judge in the case let them use the evidence in court and didn't immediately throw that shit to the curb. The appeals judge ripped them a new one though.
There's also the case of a judge in Michigan banning a guy from the internet for having a date over Tinder when he accepted a plea deal that the prosecutor then convinced the judge to double back on. https://ballotpedia.org/Dennis_M._Wiley
You might be thinking of Preet Bharara, the US Attorney for the Southern District of NY which would have been in charge of prosecuting the Trump corp, who was fired abruptly by Trump after refusing to resign.
Yeah, that was one of my first thoughts about this. I have no love lost for Comey but there's a huge conflict of interest here with Trump and I think the reasons for Trump firing Comey are not the reasons I would want him fired. Comey was doing a balancing act, playing one constituency against another.
It seems like Trump is purging everyone who might provide any level of oversight whatsoever.
He didn't actually say "nepotism is a beautiful thing".
While I absolutely do not agree with Trump or his family and what they are doing, I hate to see when people, with a subtle twist change the meanings of what people say.
Trump has done enough to fuel negative press for decades. We don't need to make stuff up.
Winston Churchill was also a painter, so there's that. I know your comment was lighthearted but get enough unsolicited criticism without being tagged as supervillains-in-waiting.
The man at the FBI leading the investigation into the Trump / Russia connection was fired upon recommendation from Sessions who said he was recusing himself from all Russia / Trump investigations.
Fast-something. Nixon created the EPA, trump is on rewind there. I think nixon was more his own person, this guy seems a sponge for whoever spoke to him most recently. In that way he is more similar to many historical kings than modern presidents.
And I'm guessing he's going to freely get away with much more than anything Nixon did.
Thanks to the GOP who doesn't care about any abuses coming out of the White House because they want to get tax cuts for their millionaire friends they are allowing the integrity of our systems to erode.
There doesn't seem to be any Democrat involvement with this. Every recent development is to do with Trump-Russia investigation.
Seems unlikely that Democrats would have supported him much, but it sounds like they weren't asked to -- they were told at 5.30pm that he was fired, same as everyone else!
Minus the intelligence and a number of other factors. I seem to be the only leftie in America that rather admires Nixon despite his numerous flaws and considers him a bit of a tragic figure. In an earlier and scrappier era he'd have been considered a great statesman.
Ooh, if you like that one, you should read up his proposal for health care. Were it not for that little Watergate kerfluffle, the whole ACA debate might have never taken place, and the U. S. might have had decent healthcare. (A lot of supposition behind that, though.)
In other words, comparing Trump to Nixon does a disservice to Nixon, IMO.
...and Ronald Reagan instituted the first cap and trade system in the US for the phase out of leaded gasoline, and then a few years later used cap and trade again to reduce the chemicals that damaged the ozone layer. Also unthinkable in today's GOP.
Trump also complained that senate rules were unfair to him and congratulated Erdogan on seizing more power and is meeting with Duterte. He just wants to be a strongman and is not afraid to remove obstacles.
To be clear, Sessions said he concurred in the recommendation of his deputy Rothstein, who is a life-long prosecutor. Plus, virtually every former Attorney General agreed that Comey made a terrible mistake in announcing the results of the Clinton investigation.
That is the reason they are putting on the books at least. The fact that he is leading an open investigation into Trumps campaign, and that Trump can replace the head of that investigation with another person now is interesting though.
Firing him around January would have had some creedence, not now months later after praising him for months and Trump finding out that Comey has been investigating him and his campaign for almost a year now.
No one knew of the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, even former DNI Clapper, until Comey testified as such on March 20th. Trump firing him any time after this date reeks of a coverup no matter the explanation.
News is now coming out that Rothstein threatened to resign when the White House was saying that Rothstein was the one who originally wanted to fire Comey. Rothstein wrote the letter, but Trump was the one who asked him to write it.
Yep. The great irony here is that Comey almost single-handedly got Trump elected with that late press release about Clinton being under investigation still.
The implication of this comment only holds if the replacement FBI Director drops the investigation. The FBI Director themselves are not conducting the investigation, but have instructed the investigation to be conducted. It stands that we should expect the investigation to continue in Comey's absence. Should it cease, this comment would gain merit.
The reasons cited for the dismissal appear valid on their face: the handling of the Clinton email investigation had a measurable impact on the election and perhaps could have been handled better.
So you're saying you find it plausible that Trump fired Comey an excess of administrative zeal on Comey's part might have led to Clinton's loss of the election.
I might find your position more persuasive if Trump didn't display an almost-daily disregard for administrative norms and procedures. I highly doubt that his new nominee will be told to not obstruct any ongoing investigations.
That deputy AG letter seemed to imply that the reason for the firing was Comey publicly berating Clinton last July, against policy -- the act that Trump praised Comey for at the time. And lets not forget Trump hugging Comey at their first meeting after he took office.
If these were the actual reasons, they would have been triggered months ago during Trump's early firing sprees. There's clearly an unnamed (but obvious) proximal cause.
> So you're saying you find it plausible that Trump fired Comey an excess of administrative zeal on Comey's part might have led to Clinton's loss of the election.
I'm saying that I don't find the stated reason plausible, not least because most of the reasons offered in the letter were known many months ago. Comey could have been invited to submit his resignation back in January if Trump were worried about the appearance of impropriety. I don't want to turn this into a political slanging match but the appearance of propriety seems to be pretty far down his list of concerns.
I agree it's fishy, but "plausible" isn't a high bar to clear. I do think it's plausible. Regarding the timing, the request came from the Deputy Attorney General who started two weeks ago.
It's possible Trump waited until now to assign the request to him to write up, but it just doesn't seem like something he'd do. He's an impulsive blowhard and if he wanted to fire Comey I'd practically expect it over Twitter, not via some covert, deniable request to the Deputy AG.
This obviously rests heavily on our respective prior beliefs. All I can say is I will heavily reconsider my position if a bad AG is nominated. I think you should, too, if it turns out, say, the now-acting AG remains in office for the rest of Trump's turn, which seems like a reasonably positive outcome to me.
This is the difference between soft and hard power. With hard power the investigation stops, with soft power it's deprived of resources and faces higher hurdles.
How childish is it that they had to put in the termination letter something about "thanks for telling me three separate times there's no investigation ON ME"? It's almost like this administration is run by 8 year olds.
I'll tell you what's wrong with that: people who are not willing to pay the social price of their opinions shouldn't voice their opinions in public spaces that - like Hacker News - foster considerate conversation. Places like r/the_donald have shown the kind of perverse groupthink that happens when members of the group feel they are exempted of the normal action/social-reaction feedback loop.
If someone has a deeply held belief and they are willing to stand by it, then they won't be worried about "karma" points, right?
Actually I agree with him, for different reasons. Putting that in the letter is definitely an attempt to shape the narrative, though unlike BreakingLimbs I don't think it is an appropriate one to use.
The structure of the FBI is created by the Director. To remove the Director of the FBI, is to essentially force a restructure of all the top agents and top management of the FBI. Those top agents run investigations.
If that's not an efficient way to stall an investigation, I don't know what is.
You don't need a yes man in charge to force a restructure, you just need someone new. An "interim" director who is in the position for a year+ forces a sufficient change to the structure.
sure, he bungled that during the election, but the reasons for dismissal are total nonsense given the timing. im sorry, you really dont find it suspicious? betting markets had comey at 95% change of being FBI director on 6/30 before 3 hours ago. this is a total shock to everyone, please dont act like this makes perfect sense.
> The implication of this comment only holds if the replacement FBI Director drops the investigation.
How can you possibly trust the authenticity of an investigation headed up by someone hand chosen by the person being investigated, who knows the person they pick will immediately be in charge of the investigation?
If Trump is truly innocent, this is literally the worst thing he could have ever done for himself. This action will form the basis for doubt in plenty of people who could otherwise have been convinced nothing happened.
It isn't merely about dropping the investigation, it is also setting the tone. The investigation can be denied resources for years, or whatever the investigation reveals can be undermined. An investigation doesn't have to be dropped to be sabotaged.
James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Monday that he still has not seen any evidence of any kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian foreign nationals.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-N.C., asked if Clapper's prior statement was correct, when he said on NBC that there was "no evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. When asked if that is still accurate, Clapper said Monday, "it is."
On NBC weeks earlier, Clapper said, "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,' that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report."
I watched that NBC interview here: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/former-dni-jam.... Right after Clapper answered, the interviewer asked him whether the information exists, and Clapper answered that it does not to his knowledge, but he does not know whether more information has come to light since he left office.
It's more-or-less a Glomar response, crafted to neither confirm or deny that evidence exists. This is frankly the right thing to say when there's an ongoing investigation and the results aren't made available to the speaker.
The only person that is able to answer definitively whether the investigation into Trump and his administration has produced credible evidence of collusion with Russia was just fired by Trump today.
The left-wing media sure is going all-out to make it appear that there is a story. They're not only pushing the narrative that that there was collusion, but they're actively creating smoke themselves in people's minds with their incessant coverage of non-evidence.
Every single person reading this knows that the Trump / Russia story is a witch hunt and total fabrication of which there has been found zero evidence for. This is CNN's Birther cause.
I am reading this and I disagree, therefore your statement is false. Gen. Flynn was fired - by Trump - for not disclosing his discussions with Russians. So it's not a total fabrication.
I also think your (now flagged) parent comment is mistaken, in that, I, personally, don't know it's a witch hunt and total fabrication. Is it possible that there's no there there? Well, yes. But, is it certain? Of course not. Is it even unlikely? I'd give it 50/50 odds.
Can I imagine that if approached via some tangential proxy for Russia or Wikileaks, that Trump, or someone in his campaign might have agreed that hacking Clinton, or releasing her campaign's emails was a good idea -- given my impression of his disregard for norms and desire for mischief, and a win at all costs, I can totally see him saying go for it, without considering the consequences. He was definitely knowingly underhanded throughout.
So, I don't doubt if he'd had the opportunity that he would take it, thinking he's immune to all consequences. But, then I'd have to wonder if the Russians would really approach him. That's where my doubt comes in. But, given his shocking and irrational fawning over Russia, the financial and other ties several of his campaign aids to Russia, maybe. That he publically asked for hacks Clinton's emails didn't help optics.
Maybe all his evasions and bizarre behaviors are to compensate for his insecurities about his net-worth, and not winning a popular majority, and his macho man-crush on dictators, and his want to be seen as strong as they.
But his historic lack of transparency is what's feeding the "conspiracy" more than anything else. He could probably put all this to bed instantly, but not while protecting his fragile ego.
From my quick skim, I would say that the report isn't about collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign but about how Russia's means and motives in interfering in the election.
Just so readers are aware, the Washington Examiner is a conservative leaning org. The "no evidence" quote was pulled from this sentence: "There was no evidence of that included in our report."[1] There is a difference between "not aware of evidence" and "no evidence".
Clapper and Yates also testified yesterday that they weren't privy to the results of the FBI's ongoing counterintelligence investigation, which is where evidence of collusion would come from.
The thought of Trump nominating an FBI director is bone chilling. Summed up with what's known about Flynn and every other suspicious data point we have what I am increasingly sure that is a modern day coup of the USA.
Time to pause tech and effect change, this is leading to a future darker than I can possibly contemplate.
Well I would be certainly interested in the circumstances especially considering that I always believed he was pro trump. Some even said he played an important role Trump won the election because he opened an investigation into Clinton's emails right before the election.
He was pressured by Trump partisans in the FBI and elsewhere (in accordance with his obligations) to release that and Obama blocked him from writing an Op-ed about Trump before the election.
I think he genuinely tried to stay neutral but the GOP partisans threatened to leak stuff so he tried to do damage control ineffectually.
> The truth is Comey didn’t have a choice. Because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised.
> Now, it is the democrats turn to rage at Comey and the FBI, although Comey likely did not have much choice: had he kept the information secret, it certainly would have leaked as we predicted; as such his best recourse was to come clean, although many have speculated about the cryptic nature of the disclosure.
> The story broke in the Daily Mail on September 21, and the F.B.I. seized the laptop on October 3. Within a couple of days, the New York F.B.I. agents, who had a warrant to look only at Weiner-related information, knew there were Clinton e-mails on the laptop, and the prosecutors in D.C. were informed.
> Often, a retired agent says, those in the field are suspicious of Washington. “Dreamland,” they called it in his day, because they believed those who weren’t on the ground investigating cases were clueless. “[Agents] out in the field never want to give a case to D.C., because they believe headquarters is a hindrance to their investigations,” says the agent, who also notes there is a paranoia that politics might interfere at headquarters. New York has an especially dim view of Washington and a reputation for fierce independence. “There is a renegade quality to the New York F.B.I.,” says a former prosecutor, which, he claims, can take the form of agents leaking to the press to advance their own interests or to influence an investigation. “New York leaks like a sieve,” concurs another former prosecutor
> Comey chose Washington because he wanted to be close enough to get daily updates, according to CNN, but he may also have been worried about leaks from New York. A former D.O.J. official says that, as early as 2015, a rumor was floating around that the F.B.I. agents in New York were cracking jokes about seeing Hillary Clinton in handcuffs. “It was widely understood that there was a faction in that office that couldn’t stand her and was out to get her,” this person says.
that's not what he did. there already was an investigation. What comey announced right before the elections was that they had found more of clinton's emails in another, unrelated case. That invesigation was into Anthony Weiner, who was married to Clinton's advisor Huma Abedin. Weiner was sexting a 15-year-old, Abedin was forwarding some emails to weiner's computer to be printed out. In investigating weiner's computer they found clinton's emails (forwarded by abedin). That's what Comey announced. I have no idea why he decided to announce that specific information, at that time.
Yep. If you believe that Comey's final investigation swung the election, you also gotta realize that the election was swung because Anthony Weiner is a sleezeball.
The odds that sleezeball would be married to Clinton's top advisor...Bill actually officiated their wedding.
There were a number of unwise actions from the Clintons and their retinue (in this case as well as others). I honestly don't know what level of impact Comey's statements had on the election.
He's not my political opponent. Sleezeball is a euphemism for what he did, is it not? He was sexting a 15-year old girl and his infant son was included in some of his pictures.
I'm a left-leaning liberal registered Democrat so I'm not sure in what way someone would consider Weiner to be my "political opponent", but the guy is absolutely a sleazeball.
Being a sleazeball transcends politics and party lines and there are many Democrat and Republican sleazeballs.
Just in order to keep the record straight, I find it necessary to point out that Comey's specific testimony (last week) on the forwarding of emails was false, and that false testimony may be directly related to his being dismissed today.
The Comey announcement was certainly one of the decisive factors in the election but it's generally seen as ineptness rather than an attempt to swing the election to Trump.
Nobody really knew why he did it... until he explained, in detail. Now we know.
He thought Hillary was going to win, and after the Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton, didn't want to seem like he favored Hillary to avoid backlash from the GOP and Trump's base. He needed to maintain his impartiality. And in that misjudgement, he did hand Trump the presidency.
There's also a follow up by I believe the NYT that downplays the letter. Per the trajectory of the polls leading into the date it was released, she wa on the way down both nationally and in the key swing states.
The release of the letter coincided with polls that showed that slide yet predated its release (in collection).
It's not that it didn't have an impact. Just that it probably wasn't the deciding factor.
The results in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were so close-- under 1%-- that even if the letter only induced a 1% shift, it was THE deciding factor. If you read the 538 story, this is his "Little Comey" version.
That doesn't mean Hillary didn't make a huge strategic mistake in going after Trump's competence and character rather than focusing on the issues. She did. She totally did.
Nate Silver came closest to predicting a Trump win? That's laughable. The USC poll had Trump as winning, and I'd be surprised if there weren't more pollers who had an accurate reading (I only know of the few most popular ones).
Hopefully there's a silver lining and that this means the encryption backdoor push (led by Comey) will slow to a crawl or be forgotten. He was already preparing a push for FISA Amendments renewal together with Dianne Feinstein (who is apparently having a change of heart about her own retirement).
So the right wing wants to reduce encryption? And the left doesn't? Republican Senator Rand Paul has been at the forefront of fighting for privacy protections. Chuck Schumer sure hasn't.
Rand Paul is not what many would be referring to when they say right wing. Rand and Ron Paul are both libertarians that are pro-individual-liberty and clash with the rest of the GOP routinely. They are anomalies.
You're right. The Democrats have been much more aggressive at attacking our privacy over the past 10 years or so. But it isn't really a partisan issue (yet).
It's not a matter of right-wing vs left-wing, it's a matter of authoritarian/security-above-all vs personal freedom. I mean, we're talking about a President who advocated to "boycott Apple" in response to them not decrypting the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone.
You're correct that this is an issue that tends to cross party lines.
Franken tends to be pro-encyption, so does Rand Paul.
It's not a right-left issue. It's a bipartisan issue that speaks to almost every U.S. citizen.
And it's equally bipartisan when people hate this.
This is not a right-left issue. It's a pro/against law enforcement at the expense of constitutional rights issue. There are many on both sides of the aisle who can legitimately support this idea.
You must be joking. The law-and-order MAGA candidate, who attacked Apple repeatedly for not building the FBI backdoor after the San Bernardino shootings, is going to appointment someone who doesn't want encryption backdoors?
I'd give you 10 for 1 on that bet. No one running in the last election (or in office & with real power in recent memory) was any sort of real civil libertarian and I would be stunned if the current powers that be put someone of that ilk up for the position.
When I watched the hearing I think I heard Comey say that he + the intelligence community did not want encryption backdoors, but instead wanted to look for 'alternatives' (w/e that would mean).
However, I would imagine Trump would be the opposite, and be calling for backdoors. I wouldn't be surprised if he compared encryption to suspicion of terrorism..
I'm pretty sure the customary reply from the MAGA camp will be that these are all political appointees, and serve at the President's pleasure.
All that is formally true. But it doesn't make it any less uncanny that such a person would be fired at the very moment he ramps up an investigation into Trump's business activities.
That argument only flies early in the administration, like the first 14 days. We're at day 110+ (I'm not counting). This was done immediately after Comey talked to congress about an investigation into the administration. This can lead to nothing less than an independent commission into Trump.
It's astounding Comey was supposedly fired for misrepresenting the Clinton email thing (by grossly overstating the wrongdoing) and yet they follow-up with "and go after Clinton!!!". I'd comment on the mental gymnastics but it doesn't appear anyone on that page is capable of basic reasoning.
His most entrenched base (e.g., people who really support him rather than those who just voted against Clinton) truly believe that anything he does contrary to their expectations is 4-dimensional chess, that will eventually resolve in a fashion that will benefit him and eventually them.
It's like how if you stare at an old TV tuned to static for long enough you can start to see pictures. It's reading intent where there is nothing but random flailing.
Seemed to be confirmed as real, so here are letters being floated as from Trump, Sessions and Rosenstein firing Comey and blaming the Clinton investigation
Dear Director Comey:
I have received the attached letters from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the United States recommending your dismissal as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have accepted their recommendation and you are hereby terminated and removed from office, effective immediately.
While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.
It it essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission.
I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.
Oh, wow, so this is where they are going. Call me cynical, but it sounds like a distraction tactic from the current investigation into Trump's campaign ties to Russian interests.
EDIT: adding to that thought, Trump's team had to add "although you've informed me that there's no investigation"... while Comey himself has said in public hearings there are investigations. Wow, this stinks to high heavens.
> EDIT: adding to that thought, Trump's team had to add "although you've informed me that there's no investigation"... while Comey himself has said in public hearings there are investigations. Wow, this stinks to high heavens.
He actually said "... that I am not under investigation...", quite different, so it doesn't actually contradict anything Comey said in the hearings.
We're so concerned that Comey might have messed up the election that we won, a victory that we remind people of at every available opportunity. Bad James Comey! Very naughty!
This man cannot help making everything about him. If it was anyone else it would elicit a rueful shake of my head and a comment about a gross display of childishness and saying Na Na Na Na to the bullied kid. But as it comes from the president of the United States, it's terrifying.
Dear Director Comey:
I have received the attached letters from
the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General
of the United States recommending your dismissal
as the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. I have accepted their
recommendation and you are hereby terminated and
removed from office, effective immediately.
While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on
three separate occasions, that I am not under
investigation, I nevertheless concur with the
judgment of the Department of Justice that you
are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.
It it essential that we find new leadership for
the FBI that restores public trust and confidence
in its vital law enforcement mission.
I wish you the best of luck in your future
endeavors.
I've generally had the impression that Comey is a more traditional conservative; he might prefer Republicans rather than Democrats be in control of the federal government, but he's never shown much love of Trump himself.
Comey is a boy scout. He is righteous man for better or worse, has conservative leanings, but he is considered an honorable man especially for his actions during Ashcroft's hospitalization
That is a good way of putting it. I believe he felt required by the obligations of the office to say something about the discovery of the email on Weiner's computer, and I tend to agree, even though I am not in any way a Trump supporter. It was my opinion from the time Clinton's clandestine email server was revealed that she was not viable as a candidate on account of it, and if Comey's statement was as instrumental as many of her supporters claim, then that hunch proved correct (though I am not sure, myself, whether the statement was decisive.)
He's neither. He, like most other members of the U.S. government, is someone simply interested in doing their job to the best of their ability. He's not immune to making mistakes. But, he's also not pushing some partisan agenda.
Once you get a degree of separation or two away from the politicrats, you end up with regular, ethical and moral people actually trying to make things work. That may be surprising to some, but, if you think about it, it's already pretty obvious that the people at the top do a poor job of representing anyone else, including their subordinates.
I don't think anyone can tell. His behavior has been very inconsistent. His reveal of the re-opened inquiry into Clinton's emails a week before the election blew every reasonable legal professional's mind in this country on matters concerning the presidential election. It's incredibly unusual for law enforcement or legal professionals to make comments which would invite speculation about ongoing investigations, let alone the highest law enforcement official in the land. It would have suggested that he favored Trump. Otherwise, what unbiased human would do such a thing? On the other hand, Comey seemed perfectly happy to then turn around and re-enter the public discourse on the matter of Trump's relationship with Russia. No one can figure him out. There's definitely an argument that this erratic behavior warrants termination, but days after he confirmed details about investigations into Trump-Russia? I swear Tom Clancy couldn't write a better story than this.
None of the safety guards that caused Nixon to get knocked down after the Saturday Night Massacre are functioning right now. The AG is a loyalist, the House and Senate are in his pocket (and appear to be intentionally sandbagging their own investigations).
Specific allegations of criminal behavior by the President require a special prosecutor, or they require a finding of no merit. As Sessions has already recused himself, the deputy AG makes the finding. All very publicly.
The only thing missing here, as compared to Nixon or Clinton, is specific allegations. Its been under investigation since July 2016 without any specific allegations against the President.
Not to say associated may not be indicted. I suspect Flynn is going to serve jail time.
Say what you want about the politics, but it's inarguable that Comey, whether he wanted to or not, had become a partisan lightning rod for both sides. The unbiased credibility of the FBI was at stake with Comey at the helm, and this is probably a good move for the country.
I have to agree with this, and I want to believe that was the needle Comey was threading. I am concerned, however, that his tone in the last hearing (eg. "mildly nauseous", Abedin email forwarding mistakes, immigrant investigation mistakes, etc.) was so flippant that he was almost asking to be fired. By design or by accident, he's departing more independent now than ever.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought his tone was inappropriate. Leave that for the tabloids to sell, don't bring it into the political institution.
The FBI was investigating the president for colluding with a hostile state to influence the election and aid them against the interests of the US. This is the worst thing to happen to the country since Watergate or longer.
Yeah you can tell the Trump-Russia connections are not a quixotic quagmire by how the stories continue to be filled with weasel words and spend 100% of their column inches not presenting any evidence at all.
The problem is the response from the man himself. This could all have been resolved with the release of his financials and being open regarding his business dealings when he made the decision to step into the role of public servant.
This is a complete guess but I think by the nature of the man and his history of bankruptcy and lying, that making those documents public would start even more controversies, even if they would put the Russia ties to rest (if that were truly the case). I'm guessing that he has been advised by the people who know this to not disclose them at any cost.
Your argument would be a lot more plausible had Trump not done absolutely everything in his power to look guilty as hell on a daily basis. This whole thing could've been shut down months ago with the barest modicum of transparency, integrity, leadership, and honesty from the administration.
Trump could have cleared this up in an instant if he had made even a token effort to behave like a responsible, competent, sane adult professional who cares about his his country and the people who live in it. Instead he has escalated this situation at every opportunity, culminating in this moment, which so far is the low-water mark for how low Trump is willing to sink.
None of what I wrote above has anything to do with whether or not Trump is guilty of treason- if he were 100% innocent and the victim of a political witch hunt, every scrap of the criticism above would still apply to him. However, if Trump is as guilty as he appears to be, this whole situation is infinitely worse- not just for Trump himself but for all Americans. I have often disagreed with aspects of my country's governance (under leadership of both parties), but the last 6 months and this moment in particular is a level of shame, embarrassment, and disgust that I have never felt in my 45 years as an American citizen. I love America and the principles upon which it (at least in theory) was founded, and this is just a fucking disgrace.
It was never getting shut down. This story is never going away. Regardless of the veracity - and I'm not taking sides - the alternative to the Russia narrative isn't up for discussion. HRC, etc. will never answer for having lost an election they had won.
> This whole thing could've been shut down months ago with the barest modicum of transparency, integrity, leadership, and honesty from the administration.
That seems naive to me. This whole Russia smoke/fire thing is the left's version of the Benghazi scandal, IMO. Do you think Democrats are above a partisan stoking of fires to try to shut down their opponents, or is that just something Republicans do?
They are not remotely similar; Benghazi was investigated multiple times by republicans and each they time found nothing. It was a fake scandal. Dems are merely trying to have an investigation of something that actually happened; we all saw Wikileaks interfere with the election in a partisan manner only releasing things to damage Clinton. It warrants an investigation, it's not fake, it's not being investigated repeated times, they are not comparable situations.
> but the last 6 months and this moment in particular is a level of shame, embarrassment, and disgust that I have never felt in my 45 years as an American citizen.
I personally felt more disgust when we bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital. But I guess Trump's kind of outlandish too.
That would apply if we were talking about a general in a war and his philosophy for dealing with his enemies. It might also be applicable to a metaphorical general in a metaphorical war, like when people use this quote when discussing competition in business. However if a public servant is thinking in these terms about his interactions with his own constituents and his colleagues after taking office, something is seriously wrong with that person. Running for office is a completely different activity than executing the responsibilities of that office after winning it.
When we're talking about not just a public servant, but arguably the public servant with more responsibility on his shoulders than any other human being in America if not the planet, the same principles apply a million times over.
No-one has published _direct_ evidence of collusion, but there's plenty of _circumstantial_ evidence.
I would like to think that if there were solid, credible, _direct_ evidence of collusion then even the House "Freedom Caucus" would be voting for impeachment.
Nixon tried to cover up what were, by comparison, activities of little to no consequence. He didn't even need the extra intel on the Democrats. He already had the election in the bag.
Trump on the other hand, is under investigation for possible collusion with the nation's primary adversary.
... depending on who replaces him. If we are going by previous appointments (Jeff Sessions) we could get a complete partisan hack undermining the FBI for political gain.
i agree he fucked up, but it strains credulity to think that the timing of this has anything to do with that. so, your first point is correct, but its not a good move for the country because, in all likelihood, its just a way for trump to protect himself from getting busted. i think you are blinded by partisanship if firing Comey now does not raise suspicion in you. if trump is guilty of money laundering / collusion / bribery / ??, which seems reasonably likely to me, it would be better for everyone if that came to light and was punished yes?
Your point is not without merit, but this was an abrupt firing rather than a regretful request for resignation. I believe it would be a mistake to judge this by the normal standards of administrative decision-making.
Comey was leading an investigation into his campaign and was fired by Sessions who was forced to recuse himself from the investigation after outcries of corruption. You think it's good for the country for him for Comey to be replaced with Trump's replacement?
Yea dont forget, Many agents said they despised how comey trashed the reputation of the fbi.
He even said old friends at the fbi refused to shake his hands.
He muat have been fired to prevent a internal fbi mutiny.
A friendly reminder to both sides that whatever the current administration does, the next can undo.
This is especially important when the majority party decides to give itself more power and inadvertently gives their successors more than they intended.
This is not true. Rolling back regulations on green house gas emissions, removing regulations on clean water, denying healthcare to millions of people... Those deaths cannot be undone, the aquifers cannot be cleaned, and the carbon can't be removed from the atmosphere.
I don't like having a political argument in this forum. I don't want hn to turn into r/politics.
I'm not swayed by emotional pleas from celebrities or others crying about a bill they haven't read. Who are these folks dying by the millions? From what I see mortality rates rose since obamacare came about:
"We know that the same year Obamacare’s insurance expansion provisions took effect, there was a pronounced, and statistically significant, surge in U.S. adult mortality."
It's that sort of attitude that really hurts people. My children those that suffered because of attitudes like that. This affects people's lives. It's not hyperbole. It's real.
Do you have health insurance? Have you rejected it because it increases your chance of mortality? Would you refuse health coverage for your children because it would increase their mortality rate?
I have this weird dream, and I am well aware it will never come true, that people will learn how to aim their political anger correctly. There's enough of a problem to be solved and we don't need people muddying up the view of it with rampant misunderstandings based on emotion.
I was not necessarily speaking as to the effects of their policies, but rather their attempts to expand their own power even if that gives their opponents more power next cycle.
It is a shame about the environmental repercussions though.
He fires on a whim. You say one wrong word that hurts his ego, and you're gone no matter how much of a darling you were before. Like someone said elsewhere he demands absolute loyalty from his minions, but has none himself.
The FBI director is supposed to have a 10 year term. That went in after J. Edgar Hoover died. Nobody wanted another J. Edgar Hoover FBI Director for Life situation, but having the FBI director be a "pleasure of the President" appointment made it too political.
This makes Andrew G. McCabe acting FBI director. He's in the civil service, not a Presidential appointment. He was an FBI agent and worked his way up. From what little is available about him, he seems to be good at the job.[1] As civil service, he can only be fired for cause.
Appointing a new FBI director requires Congressional approval, and will be controversial.
The more hurriedly they rush it through, the more political capital they're putting at risk. This (as in the whole ball of wax) is already shaping up to be a larger political upset than anything in most Americans' living memory.
The interesting part is the “hang together or hang separately” aspect: the longer the Republicans in the Congress vocally support Trump's actions the harder it is for them to break with him without penalties.
I don't think it's a long-term success strategy but I'm betting it'll delay whoever is thinking about making the first move.
There are already a few cracks showing in their ranks. A few senators might defect, it really depends on whether they believe that the short-term toxicity will wear off before 2018 rolls around. And considering how well the Democrats have been doing with these fights over the last couple of months, it's very possible that a few of them will care more about their 2018 plans than about getting on Trump's good side. Especially if there's writing on the wall we don't know about.
Historically, FBI heads have had near-unanimous approval. Comey was confirmed on a 93-1 vote. His predecessor, Muller, was originally appointed by Bush and confirmed by a 100-0 vote. 10 years later, he got another term under Obama and was confirmed by a 98-0 vote. All their predecessors were confirmed unanimously.
>As civil service, he can only be fired for cause.
I'm not clear on what "for cause" means for an acting director of the FBI. Wasn't the justification for firing Comey that he mishandled the Clinton email investigation? It looks blown out of proportion to me, but that might count as cause.
The political heads can be fired by the president at-will.
I believe the parent is incorrect in that if he becomes the head, he can be fired for-cause.
I also believe this is only if it he is appointed head, not if he is just acting-head.
Trump has asked Congress for the authority to arbitrarily fire civil service employees, but Congress hasn't given it to him.[1]
There's a formal process, with appeals, for Federal employees. The FBI's process is unusual, in that they're not under the Merit System Protection Board, but it's a formal process with hearings and warnings.
Comey was a political appointment rather than the guy who will temporarily replace him as Acting Director (who has civil service protection) and can't be dismissed as Acting Director, only replaced by appointing a new Director of the FBI.
Dunno. What is certain is that Trump can't appoint a new Director without Senate confirmation. And I'm not even certain about that. He may be able to appoint an acting Director for an indeterminate amount of time. In particular,
There are no statutory conditions on the President’s
authority to remove the FBI Director.
From the same cite, a President can nominate an acting Director. On the day after the death of long-time Director J. Edgar Hoover, L. Patrick Gray was appointed acting Director.
The Constitution was set up with checks and balances. But it requires the branches of government to do their duty. When you have a corrupt President of the same party that controls Congress, that may be asking too much.
Actually, not a 10 year term but a term limit of 10 years and apparently even that was waved for Mueller. Big difference. However, I think McCabe will be the acting FBI Director for the remainder of Trump's term which hopefully will be short. I can't imagine a Trump nomination getting past the Senate but then Republicans.
EDIT: I was mistaken. It is a 10 year term. Mueller was given a separate 2 year term.
I'm no fan of Comey either. This all seems very strange and is likely reaching a crisis point.
I wouldn't be too sure. Pence had to break the tie for DeVos and I don't even think they can count on him for the vote considering he's only a seat away from the Presidency.
Oh it'll spawn a whole genre. Having written several scripts myself I've naturally been fascinated by the political machinations going on over the last couple of years, but the #1 difficulty (besides the constant flow of new events that Change Everything) is the sheer outlandishness of it all. I guarantee you that if I had a time machine and went back two or three years into the past with a hot script, virtually everyone in Hollywood would shake their heads and say 'too many unlikely plot twists, nobody would buy this, go take more writing classes until you understand causality, pacing, motivation, character arcs, and real life, kiddo.'
A common refrain among both my movie biz friends and political scientist friends these days is 'I'm living in a fucking cartoon.' Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. At this point Rick and Morty comes off as a bit unimaginative.
Trump had to dismiss Comey. Comey damaged the FBI in his recent sessions with Congress to the point the FBI was on the defensive trying to set the record right. Considering the erratic behavior with both the Clinton and Russia issues it is doubtful that Comey was capable of continuing in such an office.
Like or dislike Trump, there have been many on the Democratic Party side calling for Comey to be gone and the odd part is many are now rushing to the guy's defense. That and he was fired over incorrect testimony about a Clinton aide, testimony that painted her in a worse position than deserved.
Irrational is the best way to describe the reaction of many. I was really shocked by some in the press, it is near impossible to separate journalist from opinion editors when they cannot separate the roles themselves
Dems were calling for Comey to be fired when he commented on the Clinton investigation. If Trump truly was swayed by that, he would have fired Comey at the beginning of his term. The timing of the firing is incredibly fishy.
> Like or dislike Trump, there have been many on the Democratic Party side calling for Comey to be gone and the odd part is many are now rushing to the guy's defense. That and he was fired over incorrect testimony about a Clinton aide, testimony that painted her in a worse position than deserved.
Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing overall is complicated, so no, people aren't just going to be singing "Ding, dong, the witch is dead". But the manner in which it was done was a bad thing.
To remove oneself from involvement in the proceedings. In this case, since AG Sessions was considered to have conflict of interest in the Russian interference matter, he 'recused' himself, i.e., removed himself from the investigations.
In this instance, step away from active involvement in investigations concerning a specific subject to avoid appearance of a conflict of interest. Comey still reported to Sessions as A.G. but would not have had to report updates about the investigations into Trump & Russia.
I have only seen the word in the context of a court case.
A judge may recuse themselves from a case when they feel that they cannot judge it objectively (or that a strong objective argument could be made that they cannot judge it objectively). It means they withdraw from the case. So if a case should go before five judges, and two of them recuse, those two won't participate and the decision will be issued by the other three judges.
This is an interesting card to play if that's indeed his goal. Trump doesn't get to appoint an "acting" head of the FBI AFAIK, he can only recommend a new director, and you can bet your ass that the DNC won't let that slide without a bigly fight at the confirmation hearing.
This move really doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't know what Trump gains here other than a few weeks of pretending he won.
Moot to the acting director though, who can only be gotten rid of for cause or by senate approving a nominee.
I believe the senate only needs a simple majority to approve the nominee, though, so it might not be that difficult for them to get rid of the acting head if they feel pressure
328 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 172 ms ] threadEdit: I was, in fact, mistaken.
> When Bill Clinton took office in January , 1993, his FBI Director was William S. Sessions, serving an appointment made by Ronald Reagan at the time of the Iran-Contra affair. Making it clear that the new President did not want the Republican FBI Director in his Administration, Clinton’s newly appointed Attorney General, Janet Reno, quietly pressured Mr. Sessions to resign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Sessions
> ut the stubborn Republican FBI Director refused to go voluntarily, finally provoking Bill Clinton to telephone Mr. Sessions on July 20, 1993. The President called twice. The first call was to tell the Director he was fired. The second was to tell the Director it was effective immediately. That’s cold, man.
~~ He also fired the federal judge who ruled against him in Hawaii. So it's not like this is new behavior. ~~
Don't worry though, this is fine.
Ed:
I'm likely misremembering bluster as taking action, since I can't find specific citations. So I retract the comment, and would strike through it (I don't like deleting text), but don't know if I can on HN.
You are probably mistaken that for the firing of the acting AOG Sally Yates for mandating Department of Justice to not to defend Trump's travel ban executive order during her tenure, and the termination of New York-based U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara who was known for going after Wall Street scandals (and who, according to Trump, did not return Trump's calls multiple calls).
--Edit--
I found [1] to be an interesting article on whether impeachment of a judge is limited to Congress.
[1]: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/removing-federal-judges-...
I think the case for idiot judges that really makes the case for me is this one: http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/08/tennessee-cops-posed-as-a-...
TL;DR: a detective impersonated a defense attorney and got the victim to incriminate himself. The original judge in the case let them use the evidence in court and didn't immediately throw that shit to the curb. The appeals judge ripped them a new one though.
There's also the case of a judge in Michigan banning a guy from the internet for having a date over Tinder when he accepted a plea deal that the prosecutor then convinced the judge to double back on. https://ballotpedia.org/Dennis_M._Wiley
There are many ridiculous rulings, some are harmless and for giggles, but some are seriously fucked-up like Turner's case or those you linked.
It seems like Trump is purging everyone who might provide any level of oversight whatsoever.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/10/eric-trump-nepoti...
He didn't actually say "nepotism is a beautiful thing".
While I absolutely do not agree with Trump or his family and what they are doing, I hate to see when people, with a subtle twist change the meanings of what people say.
Trump has done enough to fuel negative press for decades. We don't need to make stuff up.
Here's the actual quote: "Is that nepotism? Absolutely. Is that also a beautiful thing? Absolutely. Family business is a beautiful thing."
I think the description is reasonable, and they make it abundantly clear that the first two words are a paraphrase.
Would there be any collaboration between the FBI and Senate Intelligence committee?
Looking corrupt as hell? Most certainly.
Thanks to the GOP who doesn't care about any abuses coming out of the White House because they want to get tax cuts for their millionaire friends they are allowing the integrity of our systems to erode.
Dems already hate him and this removal continues his conflict with the traditional GOP.
He's either gonna cross the wrong person or be so unpopular that he's gone in a few more years and nobody will care.
Seems unlikely that Democrats would have supported him much, but it sounds like they weren't asked to -- they were told at 5.30pm that he was fired, same as everyone else!
> The United States House Committee on the Judiciary opens formal and public impeachment hearings against President Richard Nixon.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_9&oldid=77960...
In other words, comparing Trump to Nixon does a disservice to Nixon, IMO.
People don't like it.
Having him write the memo recommending the action isn't really all that strange and goes quite a ways towards explaining the timing.
People would have complained that it was about the investigation anyway in January.
This is impeachment level shit.
The reasons cited for the dismissal appear valid on their face: the handling of the Clinton email investigation had a measurable impact on the election and perhaps could have been handled better.
I might find your position more persuasive if Trump didn't display an almost-daily disregard for administrative norms and procedures. I highly doubt that his new nominee will be told to not obstruct any ongoing investigations.
If these were the actual reasons, they would have been triggered months ago during Trump's early firing sprees. There's clearly an unnamed (but obvious) proximal cause.
Yes, that is the stated reason: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/fbi-dire...
edit: better source
It's possible Trump waited until now to assign the request to him to write up, but it just doesn't seem like something he'd do. He's an impulsive blowhard and if he wanted to fire Comey I'd practically expect it over Twitter, not via some covert, deniable request to the Deputy AG.
This obviously rests heavily on our respective prior beliefs. All I can say is I will heavily reconsider my position if a bad AG is nominated. I think you should, too, if it turns out, say, the now-acting AG remains in office for the rest of Trump's turn, which seems like a reasonably positive outcome to me.
"Yes, [I believe that it is plausible because it] is the stated reason [and that alone is sufficiently convincing]"
or
"Yes, [in case those in the audience didn't catch it,] that is the stated reason [if you can believe it!]"
?
If someone has a deeply held belief and they are willing to stand by it, then they won't be worried about "karma" points, right?
If that's not an efficient way to stall an investigation, I don't know what is.
We are all living in Absurdistan now.
How can you possibly trust the authenticity of an investigation headed up by someone hand chosen by the person being investigated, who knows the person they pick will immediately be in charge of the investigation?
If Trump is truly innocent, this is literally the worst thing he could have ever done for himself. This action will form the basis for doubt in plenty of people who could otherwise have been convinced nothing happened.
I think everyone can easily think of another scenario where the implication of the original comment still holds true.
Want to take a stab?
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-N.C., asked if Clapper's prior statement was correct, when he said on NBC that there was "no evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. When asked if that is still accurate, Clapper said Monday, "it is."
On NBC weeks earlier, Clapper said, "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,' that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-clapper-still-no-evi...
Does this imply that there was evidence and he did not include it?
I am reading this and I disagree, therefore your statement is false. Gen. Flynn was fired - by Trump - for not disclosing his discussions with Russians. So it's not a total fabrication.
Can I imagine that if approached via some tangential proxy for Russia or Wikileaks, that Trump, or someone in his campaign might have agreed that hacking Clinton, or releasing her campaign's emails was a good idea -- given my impression of his disregard for norms and desire for mischief, and a win at all costs, I can totally see him saying go for it, without considering the consequences. He was definitely knowingly underhanded throughout.
So, I don't doubt if he'd had the opportunity that he would take it, thinking he's immune to all consequences. But, then I'd have to wonder if the Russians would really approach him. That's where my doubt comes in. But, given his shocking and irrational fawning over Russia, the financial and other ties several of his campaign aids to Russia, maybe. That he publically asked for hacks Clinton's emails didn't help optics.
Maybe all his evasions and bizarre behaviors are to compensate for his insecurities about his net-worth, and not winning a popular majority, and his macho man-crush on dictators, and his want to be seen as strong as they.
But his historic lack of transparency is what's feeding the "conspiracy" more than anything else. He could probably put all this to bed instantly, but not while protecting his fragile ego.
Lack of knowledge of evidence != no evidence.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3254229/ICA-2017-...
From my quick skim, I would say that the report isn't about collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign but about how Russia's means and motives in interfering in the election.
[1] https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/05/09/parroting-t...
Time to pause tech and effect change, this is leading to a future darker than I can possibly contemplate.
I think he genuinely tried to stay neutral but the GOP partisans threatened to leak stuff so he tried to do damage control ineffectually.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/report-obama-re...
> Report: Obama Rejected Comey Op-Ed on Russia’s Election Meddling
http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-reviewing-more-clinton-emails-51...
> The truth is Comey didn’t have a choice. Because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-28/leaked-memo-james-c...
> Now, it is the democrats turn to rage at Comey and the FBI, although Comey likely did not have much choice: had he kept the information secret, it certainly would have leaked as we predicted; as such his best recourse was to come clean, although many have speculated about the cryptic nature of the disclosure.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/james-comey-fbi-direc...
> The story broke in the Daily Mail on September 21, and the F.B.I. seized the laptop on October 3. Within a couple of days, the New York F.B.I. agents, who had a warrant to look only at Weiner-related information, knew there were Clinton e-mails on the laptop, and the prosecutors in D.C. were informed.
> Often, a retired agent says, those in the field are suspicious of Washington. “Dreamland,” they called it in his day, because they believed those who weren’t on the ground investigating cases were clueless. “[Agents] out in the field never want to give a case to D.C., because they believe headquarters is a hindrance to their investigations,” says the agent, who also notes there is a paranoia that politics might interfere at headquarters. New York has an especially dim view of Washington and a reputation for fierce independence. “There is a renegade quality to the New York F.B.I.,” says a former prosecutor, which, he claims, can take the form of agents leaking to the press to advance their own interests or to influence an investigation. “New York leaks like a sieve,” concurs another former prosecutor
> Comey chose Washington because he wanted to be close enough to get daily updates, according to CNN, but he may also have been worried about leaks from New York. A former D.O.J. official says that, as early as 2015, a rumor was floating around that the F.B.I. agents in New York were cracking jokes about seeing Hillary Clinton in handcuffs. “It was widely understood that there was a faction in that office that couldn’t stand her and was out to get her,” this person says.
The odds that sleezeball would be married to Clinton's top advisor...Bill actually officiated their wedding.
What is he?
Being a sleazeball transcends politics and party lines and there are many Democrat and Republican sleazeballs.
https://www.propublica.org/article/comeys-testimony-on-huma-...
He thought Hillary was going to win, and after the Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton, didn't want to seem like he favored Hillary to avoid backlash from the GOP and Trump's base. He needed to maintain his impartiality. And in that misjudgement, he did hand Trump the presidency.
The release of the letter coincided with polls that showed that slide yet predated its release (in collection).
It's not that it didn't have an impact. Just that it probably wasn't the deciding factor.
That doesn't mean Hillary didn't make a huge strategic mistake in going after Trump's competence and character rather than focusing on the issues. She did. She totally did.
I strongly believe the average libertarian would disagree with this statement. Rand has made it clear that he is a Republican first.
* http://gizmodo.com/trump-calls-for-boycott-of-apple-products...
* https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/70079517002382540...
Franken tends to be pro-encyption, so does Rand Paul.
It's not a right-left issue. It's a bipartisan issue that speaks to almost every U.S. citizen.
And it's equally bipartisan when people hate this.
This is not a right-left issue. It's a pro/against law enforcement at the expense of constitutional rights issue. There are many on both sides of the aisle who can legitimately support this idea.
However, I would imagine Trump would be the opposite, and be calling for backdoors. I wouldn't be surprised if he compared encryption to suspicion of terrorism..
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-...
All that is formally true. But it doesn't make it any less uncanny that such a person would be fired at the very moment he ramps up an investigation into Trump's business activities.
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=comey...
It's like how if you stare at an old TV tuned to static for long enough you can start to see pictures. It's reading intent where there is nothing but random flailing.
Trump: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_apTsDXoAAVKYn.jpg
AG Sessions: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_apUYrXgAAihp2.jpg
Deputy AG Rosenstein: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_apVImXcAIKhfm.jpg
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-comey-f... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/09/us/politics/d...
EDIT: adding to that thought, Trump's team had to add "although you've informed me that there's no investigation"... while Comey himself has said in public hearings there are investigations. Wow, this stinks to high heavens.
He actually said "... that I am not under investigation...", quite different, so it doesn't actually contradict anything Comey said in the hearings.
Once you get a degree of separation or two away from the politicrats, you end up with regular, ethical and moral people actually trying to make things work. That may be surprising to some, but, if you think about it, it's already pretty obvious that the people at the top do a poor job of representing anyone else, including their subordinates.
Specific allegations of criminal behavior by the President require a special prosecutor, or they require a finding of no merit. As Sessions has already recused himself, the deputy AG makes the finding. All very publicly.
The only thing missing here, as compared to Nixon or Clinton, is specific allegations. Its been under investigation since July 2016 without any specific allegations against the President.
Not to say associated may not be indicted. I suspect Flynn is going to serve jail time.
"more than I will make in the remainder of this job, [...]"
Trump could have cleared this up in an instant if he had made even a token effort to behave like a responsible, competent, sane adult professional who cares about his his country and the people who live in it. Instead he has escalated this situation at every opportunity, culminating in this moment, which so far is the low-water mark for how low Trump is willing to sink.
None of what I wrote above has anything to do with whether or not Trump is guilty of treason- if he were 100% innocent and the victim of a political witch hunt, every scrap of the criticism above would still apply to him. However, if Trump is as guilty as he appears to be, this whole situation is infinitely worse- not just for Trump himself but for all Americans. I have often disagreed with aspects of my country's governance (under leadership of both parties), but the last 6 months and this moment in particular is a level of shame, embarrassment, and disgust that I have never felt in my 45 years as an American citizen. I love America and the principles upon which it (at least in theory) was founded, and this is just a fucking disgrace.
That seems naive to me. This whole Russia smoke/fire thing is the left's version of the Benghazi scandal, IMO. Do you think Democrats are above a partisan stoking of fires to try to shut down their opponents, or is that just something Republicans do?
I personally felt more disgust when we bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital. But I guess Trump's kind of outlandish too.
As a counterpoint:
"Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak" - Sun Tzu
When we're talking about not just a public servant, but arguably the public servant with more responsibility on his shoulders than any other human being in America if not the planet, the same principles apply a million times over.
I would like to think that if there were solid, credible, _direct_ evidence of collusion then even the House "Freedom Caucus" would be voting for impeachment.
Nixon tried to cover up what were, by comparison, activities of little to no consequence. He didn't even need the extra intel on the Democrats. He already had the election in the bag.
Trump on the other hand, is under investigation for possible collusion with the nation's primary adversary.
He muat have been fired to prevent a internal fbi mutiny.
This is especially important when the majority party decides to give itself more power and inadvertently gives their successors more than they intended.
Edit:
I don't like having a political argument in this forum. I don't want hn to turn into r/politics.
I'm not swayed by emotional pleas from celebrities or others crying about a bill they haven't read. Who are these folks dying by the millions? From what I see mortality rates rose since obamacare came about:
"We know that the same year Obamacare’s insurance expansion provisions took effect, there was a pronounced, and statistically significant, surge in U.S. adult mortality."
http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/25/running-numbers-mortalit...
So you can get some facts together or continue crying. Your choice.
Or technology to scrub co2 from the air?
Your assertion is as callous as it is absurd.
It is a shame about the environmental repercussions though.
We're about to find out in the coming years how much republicans own this country.
This makes Andrew G. McCabe acting FBI director. He's in the civil service, not a Presidential appointment. He was an FBI agent and worked his way up. From what little is available about him, he seems to be good at the job.[1] As civil service, he can only be fired for cause.
Appointing a new FBI director requires Congressional approval, and will be controversial.
[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/na-la-fbi-deputy-director-2016...
I don't think it's a long-term success strategy but I'm betting it'll delay whoever is thinking about making the first move.
It's not supposed to be a political job.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/why-can-president-trump-can-f...
I'm not clear on what "for cause" means for an acting director of the FBI. Wasn't the justification for firing Comey that he mishandled the Clinton email investigation? It looks blown out of proportion to me, but that might count as cause.
I believe the parent is incorrect in that if he becomes the head, he can be fired for-cause. I also believe this is only if it he is appointed head, not if he is just acting-head.
[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/na-la-fbi-deputy-director-2016...
From the same cite, a President can nominate an acting Director. On the day after the death of long-time Director J. Edgar Hoover, L. Patrick Gray was appointed acting Director.
The Constitution was set up with checks and balances. But it requires the branches of government to do their duty. When you have a corrupt President of the same party that controls Congress, that may be asking too much.
EDIT: I was mistaken. It is a 10 year term. Mueller was given a separate 2 year term.
I'm no fan of Comey either. This all seems very strange and is likely reaching a crisis point.
A common refrain among both my movie biz friends and political scientist friends these days is 'I'm living in a fucking cartoon.' Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. At this point Rick and Morty comes off as a bit unimaginative.
Like or dislike Trump, there have been many on the Democratic Party side calling for Comey to be gone and the odd part is many are now rushing to the guy's defense. That and he was fired over incorrect testimony about a Clinton aide, testimony that painted her in a worse position than deserved.
Irrational is the best way to describe the reaction of many. I was really shocked by some in the press, it is near impossible to separate journalist from opinion editors when they cannot separate the roles themselves
Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing overall is complicated, so no, people aren't just going to be singing "Ding, dong, the witch is dead". But the manner in which it was done was a bad thing.
A judge may recuse themselves from a case when they feel that they cannot judge it objectively (or that a strong objective argument could be made that they cannot judge it objectively). It means they withdraw from the case. So if a case should go before five judges, and two of them recuse, those two won't participate and the decision will be issued by the other three judges.
i.e., A judge in Florida recently recused herself from a case involving USF's football coach because she was a USF alumna.
This move really doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't know what Trump gains here other than a few weeks of pretending he won.
I believe the senate only needs a simple majority to approve the nominee, though, so it might not be that difficult for them to get rid of the acting head if they feel pressure
Trump isn't exactly big on forethought.