BREAKING: Trump Fires Comey

[The_Doctor]

No Trump supporter can answer the question: how do we have faith in Donald Trump's ability to appoint a FBI director when there are active FBI investigations into Trump's campaign with Russia? How do we have any faith that this wasn't motivated, in part, by the Russian investigation Comey led?

I keep asking that question because I believe that the Trump supporters can't answer it.

By the way I thought Comey did fine and I thought Clinton was pretty unethical so dont throw that bull at me.

There aren't "active FBI investigations" into "Trump's campaign with Russia." Comey himself said time and time again that there was no evidence of collusion with Russia by anyone in the Trump campaign.

I'll give YOU the cookie if you can figure out the basic mistake that you are making with your assertion, just as I promised your fellow forum denizen.

Here's the link.  I was rather specific with my statement.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.amp.html

Money quote:

Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. was “investigating 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.”

No cookie for you. You really can't see past your hate, even when the answer is sitting right there in your "money quote."

I feel rather sorry for you.

Since I'm rather dense apparently why don't you explain the mistake?

[The_Doctor]

Well let's explore the example more. Let's say the suspicions were that I ran a huge child prostitution ring in fact. Let's say the investigation began about a year ago, less than that, and started because of happenstance and that a serious investigation only started happening a couple of months ago. Let's say that several of my associates have raised questions about me.

Shouldn't a massive investigation require time - including more than just several months? And shouldn't it be fully funded and fully staffed to either  clear my name or prosecute me?

If a fully funded investigation has been going on for months and has still found absolutely no evidence to back up these claims then maybe questions should be asked about whether such an investigation is justified.

As for 'clearing names' its not the job of an FBI or police investigation to 'clear' anybody's name. If they don't find evidence that can be given to a prosecutor and they stop investigating the that's it. 'Clearing' people is something done by courts, not by police or FBI.

As for your suggestion that this whole thing started by 'happenstance' that's highly doubtful. Much more likely that this has been a witch hunt from the very start.

Actually if you see my latest answer it addresses your points. You'll notice the investigations only began on the Senate and House sides after November and the FBI last fall.

[The_Doctor]

Also I love it too how Chris Hayes, MSNBC anchor and not a Republican, tweeted that no one would care if Clinton did the same thing if her campaign were being investigated

Do you really think the Russian issue isn't a big deal given your concern over LePen? I've raised the question several times over the conflict of interest.

[The_Doctor]

Also I love it too how Chris Hayes, MSNBC anchor and not a Republican, tweeted that no one would care if Clinton did the same thing if her campaign were being investigated

Do you really think the Russian issue isn't a big deal given your concern over LePen?

I never said Russia isn't a big issue. I am 100% convinced Putin is trying to undermine the West in any election he can. What bothers me is those who CONSISTENTLY call out Russia as being tied to Trump at every moment.

There is a hysteria over Donald Trump absolutely but in this case I thought the red flag is that Trump has to replace the FBI director that's overseeing the investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia links. I would call that a problem, minimum.

If you believed that shouldn't you be equally concerned over the allegations about the closeness of Trump and Russia from multiple sources?

[The_Doctor]

anyone who honestly thinks that if any evidence existed of a direct collusion between Trump and Russia that it would not have been leaked to CNN months ago is naive

The reasons there are investigations is because they want to establish something I assume. There is plenty of circumstantial issues and questions. The question is now substantiating it.

[The_Doctor]

Regarding Feinstein she's called for an independent FBI Director and said the president called her. She didn't indicate whether she supported it or not. Still looking on that.

Politically this also hurts Trump but no more than usual. Trumpy continues to divide the country and harden his opposition with each passing day while allowing a narrative about him and Russia to flourish without being resolved. Perhaps he's decided this is the best he can expect from his presidency. I don't think his party has much expectations at this point for a era of goodwill under him.

[The_Doctor]

Wait this isn't the first Trump investigation firing. Preet Bharara was also investigating some stuff and was fired too.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is why the White House is generally incompetent. They didn't understand that Watergate is a cultural lodestar and the concept of a president abusing his power is deeply ingrained in the public imagination.

Everyday I realize more and more that the president isn't a politician and is seriously unaware of how to manage affairs of politics and state. Does anyone think President Rubio or Walker wouldn't have covered their behinds? Heck President Kasich would be right now soaring into the 60s.

Every single day politicians cover themselves and think out every move.  months ahead of time. This is why. They know the more fire they get the worse they are off. This isn't House of Cards where the president can do things like this and not get blowback.

Trump has just given his critics a huge reason to doubt his innocence on Russia.

[The_Doctor]

Comey thought it was a prank and laughed when news of his firing flashed on the TV


https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/862106173465649160

Sheer incompetence.

[The_Doctor]

So apparently the Hill is reporting this. The “recommendation” to fire him from the deputy AG was dated today.

[The_Doctor]

Wait this isn't the first Trump investigation firing. Preet Bharara was also investigating some stuff and was fired too.

So no US President should be able to fire their predecessor's political appointees?  Or is this a special rule for Trump?  Every U.S. Attorney is always investigating "some stuff" that might impact the current administration.

The fact is Bharara was fired along with dozens of other politically appointed U.S. Attorneys.  Just like Obama did when he first came into office.

You are putting far too much emphasis on one person.  There is always another monkey waiting in the wings to do the job.  If you think valid, ongoing investigations just stop because somebody gets fired, I have a bridge to sell you.

Bharara was actually retained by the Trump Administration so his firing was a bit peculiar. Additionally the FBI director has to sign off on recommendations to prosecute or not. Trump's firing him and Sarah Huckabee saying its time to drop the Russian investigation makes things look highly suspicious and draws questions if Trump and Senate Republicans will confirm an independent director who will continue the investigation.

There's a lot of ways a FBI director can quietly kill or stymie an investigation. As I've said can we really trust Trump to appoint and Senate Republicans to confirm a director who may sign off on a recommendation that may warrant prosecution of a number of Trump associates?

If you believe that why do you believe so?

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There we go

Ha

Doesnt the FBI have to sign off on these recommendations before the grand juries go forward? Can someone confirm?

[The_Doctor]

https://twitter.com/AndreaChalupa/status/862071059100696580?s=04

Has this been confirmed?

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There we go

Ha

Doesnt the FBI have to sign off on these recommendations before the grand juries go forward? Can someone confirm?

No. Federal prosecutors obviously rely on the FBI to conduct their investigations, but when it comes to running the grand jury and choosing who to indict, the prosecutors run the show.

So for our edification can you tell us how the FBI would stop an investigation? Could a new director seriously damage it?

[The_Doctor]

Bharara was actually retained by the Trump Administration so his firing was a bit peculiar. Additionally the FBI director has to sign off on recommendations to prosecute or not. Trump's firing him and Sarah Huckabee saying its time to drop the Russian investigation makes things look highly suspicious and draws questions if Trump and Senate Republicans will confirm an independent director who will continue the investigation.

There's a lot of ways a FBI director can quietly kill or stymie an investigation. As I've said can we really trust Trump to appoint and Senate Republicans to confirm a director who may sign off on a recommendation that may warrant prosecution of a number of Trump associates?

If you believe that why do you believe so?

Bharara was no more "retained" by the Trump administration than the other 46 Obama prosecutors fired on the same day.  No political appointee is safe in his or her job - nor should they be.  They serve at the pleasure of the President, not the other way around.

Contrary to your (and Comey's) belief, FBI directors don't make the ultimate decision on whether to prosecute.  That's ultimately up to Justice Department prosecutors, not the FBI.  Comey's belief that he should be acting as a prosecutor is one of the reasons he has been fired.  The job got to his head, and he was making bad decisions.  His misstatements to Congress last week were the last straw.

Can we really trust any President to appoint FBI director who may sign off on a recommendation that may warrant prosecution of a number of his associates?  Why is Trump any different than Obama or Clinton or Bush?   So why bother appointing FBI directors?  Screaming Russia, Russia, Russia, as you, the liberal media and the Democrats are doing, without a scintilla of evidence that Trump did anything criminal isn't going to change this calculus.  The Russia investigation is part of the FBI's domestic surveillance role, not criminal.

Okay here's a question before I go on -- where do you stand on Trump and Russia? You're on record believing there should be no investigation? If so given the multiple concerns of the intelligence community (and their January assertion that Russia worked to elect Trump), and the British and other European intelligence services saying there were Trump and Russia ties and Comey taking seriously the Steele dossier (ditto McCain) do you believe all current investigations should be ended or what?

to answer your question that's why we normally have Senate confirmation of an FBI director. However Trump removed Comey at a time when Comey was doing active investigations on Trump's campaign. I don't recall when an FBI director was removed during an investigation that had as much circumstantial evidence. That's what distinguishes this from a normal situation (Obama, Bush etc as you said), especially after the Yates testimony of yesterday and Comey's testimony of March 20. It raises questions of motive here.

My question is if the Director has to sign off on the domestic surveillance section's recommendations or if he can influence the investigation? You're not clarifying that the Director can't do that.

[The_Doctor]

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr: I am troubled by the timing and reasoning of Director Comey’s termination.

Does anyone find this normal for the Senate Intelligence Committee chair to say? Especially one of the same party as his president?

[The_Doctor]

Senator Jeff Flake, R-Arizona: https://twitter.com/JeffFlake/status/862124755339685888?s=09

[The_Doctor]

There hasn't been a resolution to the investigations because in Congress they're complaining about lack of resources and in the FBI it was apparently launched in October. All investigations started near the end of the election or around the election itself or after…

 Investigation of presidential malfeasance takes years. Didn't Whitewater take years?

[The_Doctor]

US Attorneys serve at the will of the President (or, I think, technically, the Attorney General), and can be fired for any reason or none at all.  46 other political appointees were fired the same day.

How many of the 46 other political appointees were personally asked by Trump to stay on in the new administration, cinyc?

How many of the 46 were grandstanding, camera-mugging glory hogs, like Bharara?

You're allowing your own personal feelings cloud your judgement but ok wek

He didn't answer me either guess that says it all.

[The_Doctor]

The investigation isn't over and isn't going to be over anytime soon..........

A question. Do you think there's anything worth investigating, Grumps? And why do you oppose a special independent prosecutor?

I know you said in January you didn't think there was anything with Russia.

[The_Doctor]

comey wanted to INCREASE the russia investigation a few days ago.



https://twitter.com/davidjoachim/status/862331936819302400

This has since been confirmed by the Washington Post and NBC (Pete Williams).

This story is not getting better for him…

[The_Doctor]

Good Lord I can't keep up with the fire hydrant of information coming out of this situation.

[The_Doctor]

SHS is roasting Democrats alive during her briefing today........lol.  

How? She's unable to reconcile the fact the President just undermined the Administration's rationale for firing Comey -- a rationale the vice president said yesterday.

Are we watching the same briefing?

Are you trolling? Lol

[The_Doctor]

So today the President undermined the White House's rationale for firing Comey and then admitted he asked Comey if he was under investigation. Then he qualified if he was not under personal investigation, meaning the campaign is definitely under investigation. The White House today claimed countless FBI agents thanked them for firing Comey, which was refuted by the acting FBI Director.

Meanwhile the Washington Post confirmed that 30 sources say Trump fired Comey in relation to the Russian investigation while the Wall Street Journal says Comey was seeing evidence of collusion.

Then we learn the FBI raided a Republican digital firm in Annapolis which is connected to national GOP candidates.

Did I leave out anything?

[The_Doctor]

So today the President undermined the White House's rationale for firing Comey and then admitted he asked Comey if he was under investigation. Then he qualified if he was not under personal investigation, meaning the campaign is definitely under investigation. The White House today claimed countless FBI agents thanked them for firing Comey, which was refuted by the acting FBI Director.

Meanwhile the Washington Post confirmed that 30 sources say Trump fired Comey in relation to the Russian investigation while the Wall Street Journal says Comey was seeing evidence of collusion.

Then we learn the FBI raided a Republican digital firm in Annapolis which is connected to national GOP candidates.

Did I leave out anything?

The secret videotape of Paul Ryan accepting laundered money from Kislyak at the GOP convention.

Not confirmed beyond Mensch so taking that with a grain of salt.

In any other Administration we would be talking impeachment tomorrow.