The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Trump just fired Comey for... his unfair mistreatment of Hillary Clinton in the e-mail investigation:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_arNngXkAItx6V.jpg:large)

And now we are left with a President firing an FBI director who is in the middle of an investigation into whether or not that President colluded with a foreign power to affect an election.  If it was really that easy all along, why didn't Bill Clinton simply fire Ken Starr?  Hmmm.

Just to sum up the Trump regime, four months in:

- the media are "liars" who undermine the republic
- the courts are "corrupt" and cannot be trusted
- law enforcement in charge of investigating Trump is summarily dismissed

Reichstag smelling kind of smoky these days.

I'd also like to add that this is just another reason why this investigation should have had a special prosecutor assigned months ago: in such a scenario, Trump would be able to fire Comey (who clearly deserves to be fired) without causing a constitutional crisis.

Of course, if we're being serious then it's obvious that if Comey were not the one investigating Trump, there would be no need to deploy the lamest excuse in the history of politics to fire him.  We're seriously supposed to believe that the real, genuine reason President Trump is firing Comey is... the same actions that candidate Trump praised him for?

Not my words but sums up my feelings exactly. I had conversations with Hillary supporters where I agreed that he should be fired. It seemed pretty obvious to me that many people from both sides had lost faith in him and as such he was just one more reason people don't trust government.

1. Comey never should have issued his July 2016 exoneration of Hillary Clinton. If he thought she shouldn’t be prosecuted, he should have made that recommendation and shut up. Instead, he felt the necessity to protect Attorney General Loretta Lynch and supposedly the FBI, and so he spilled the beans on the myriad reasons she should have been prosecuted, demonstrated that he had rewritten the law to protect Hillary, and then let her off the hook. This necessitated Comey appearing before Congress to explain himself, and pledging to keep them updated.

2. Comey issued the infamous October 28 letter informing Congress that the FBI had uncovered new emails in the Anthony Weiner investigation. The letter itself was a bombshell that rocked the Hillary campaign just days out from a presidential election. Comey then rushed the turnaround so that he could exonerate her again a couple of days before the election, but according to the Democrats, Comey was now responsible for electing Trump.

3. Comey appeared before Congress to explain himself, and instead made an ass of himself. He even misstated the evidence regarding Huma Abedin, necessitating that the FBI inform Congress.


In short, Comey had lost both the trust of the Trump administration and the trust of the public. There was no reason not to fire him. That’s what Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein stated in his letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions calling for Comey’s firing: “I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken…The FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them.”

And yet, even with all that very thoughtful reasoning CF, the end result is that Trump fired the person in charge of investigating his campaign's possibly treasonous ties with russia in order to influence the election.

I'm actually OK with trump firing Comey, But now the situation is such that we can't trust the justice department to investigate the president or his campaign, so there must be an independent prosecutor ala ken starr that the president can't fire that would be in charge of the investigation.

Just to speak on this one point at this time, he couldn't fire Starr. They have two different positions, Comey was Director of the FBI and Starr was Independent Council, which is specifically designed so that they do not answer to the President. Independent Council can only be dismissed by the Attorney General.

That's part of the reason people wanted the similar office (Independent Council has been replaced) to take over the Russian probe.

Anybody who believes Trump fired Comey over the email investigation of Clinton rather than the Russian Trump investigation is either a liar or a fool.

It is beyond absurdity to think that this has anything to do with the Clinton situation.  We are living history -- pay attention.

Keep this in mind:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation because of his earlier inaccurate statements to Congress on the subject.
And yet Sessions recommended to Trump that Comey - the person leading the investigation into Russia - be fired.
What was the stated reason for Comey's firing?  The July statement and the October letter... which Jeff Sessions previously stated (https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/862104253992751105) Comey had an "absolute duty" to make.

So Comey is fired for taking action that the person who recommended his firing insisted was his absolute duty, and the person who fired him praised repeatedly.  But this has nothing to do with Russia, believe me!

I have also developed a rather serious case of whiplash from the breakneck speed at which apparently every Republican in the country has instantly flipped from "Hillary was a crook who Comey covered for!" to "Well, everyone knows Comey's treatment of her was completely unfair and unprofessional."  It's like the last year has taken place in an alternate timeline.

For all of you who believe that Trump fired Comey over Clinton, I have a some land to sell you...... It is a beautiful mountain retreat with stunning views of the ocean located in Kansas. 

Wait! you can't say that! That would mean...ummmm ....That would be admitting....All those voters .... The whole Benghazi,email,Hillary's a Crook was the Republican Bullshit, all along...and ALL THOSE HILLARY FACEBOOK,and TWITTER Stories were fake! Our Republican Ass backwards bullshit isn't what the MAJORITY of Americans Want...Comrade Orange Asshat,isn't going to make America great? I mean he really is all hair No brains? and lying sack of shit?  GASP!

NEVER!

You can't say that! Not till After I sell my HUGE Ocean front property development,with terrific ocean views all around in Central Nebraska....

 :D


Darn you Hoodie! you posted before mine!  ;D

I've got whiplash from all the Democratic Hillary supporters who called for Comey's firing, and have now done an about face and are aghast that Trump fired him.

It's funny you bring up Bill Clinton, since Bill Clinton was the last President to fire an FBI Director, William Sessions.

I've already said Comey deserved to be fired.  But the President shouldn't fire the person leading the investigation into allegations of his own collusion with a foreign power.

There is an easy way to square this circle: it is called the DOJ Office of Special Counsel.  Move the investigation from FBI to OSC and then Trump can fire Comey to resounding bipartisan applause.

But we all know that would be missing the point.  Comey wasn't fired despite his investigation into Trump's Russian ties; he was fired because of it.

If you think Comey is the only person in on the investigation then you have no clue. Whatever "evidence" Coney has the FBI has.

Seriously ... if Trump is in bed with Russia most of us that voted for him would want him impeached. Fortunately just like the hipocrites who have about faced on this firing it just seems like more political propaganda. Comey can still sing and now has even more freedom to do so.

No one said Comey was "the only person" in on the investigation.  But when you fire the person running it, it sends a very effective message to his subordinates.

Let's not start writing checks we aren't willing to cash.  Trump voters didn't choose him for his policy positions on Russia; they chose him for Other Reasons, and those reasons are not affected by any deals Trump did or did not make with Russia.  If there is anything we have learned over the last two years, it is that waiting for some magical Last Straw Of Outrage that will finally cause Republicans to ditch Trump is a pipe dream.  As far as Republicans are concerned, the only outrageous thing Trump can ever do is lose.

And once more: there is absolutely no "hypocrisy" or "about face" in the following two statements:

1) Comey overwhelmingly deserved to be fired for his interference in the election, and possibly deserves to be prosecuted for violating the Hatch Act
2) POTUS should not fire the person in charge of an investigation into allegations of his own wrongdoing

The idea that those two things are tied together is a false dilemma.  The very existence of #1 means that Comey should never have been a candidate for #2 in the first place.

dichotomy is the word there .. not dillema

It could actually be either (they are frequently interchangeable).  In this case, I'm saying that the "false dilemma" - a supposedly exclusive choice that actually isn't exclusive at all - would be how to fire Comey without firing the person in charge of the investigation.  There is no dilemma there.

Allow me to ask the following, as I haven't kept up with what is going on really.

But are we sure the prez is under investigation by the FBI?

Googled, found this: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-what-grassley-and-feinstein-said-about-trump-the-fbi-and-russia/article/2622899

After a bit of research, I grasp that Washington Examiner is probably biased, but, that doesn't make the quotations false.

Then I see this in, of all places, Vox: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/11/15625990/comey-deserved-fired-no-constitutional-crisis-liberals-hyperventilate

And while it doesn't take the same angle as the Examiner piece (i.e. Trump himself is not under investigation) it does take the tack of saying there's never been any real linkage between Trump and the Russians, and that Nixonian comparisons are out-of-bounds.

So, I don't know. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but what this seems like is a blunder executed by a political neophyte who isn't taking all the necessary precautions, and whose blunder is being taken advantage of by the decidedly liberal media.

^^^ I do like how you note that the Washington Post is "probably biased," but nothing noted about Vox, which is "definitely" biased. In case you missed the most subtle hint, the term "liberals hyperventilate" in the URL should have been your first clue.
 ;-)

Nothing that Trump has done since taking office has been Presidential. Presidents don't lash out on Twitter at people who make fun of him. Presidents don't go to National Prayer Breakfasts and ask the country's religious leaders to pray for his reality show's ratings. Presidents don't go to a foreign country and ask their political leaders to "not build any wind farms off the coast from one of my golf courses."

Donald Trump isn't a President, despite the - questionable - election results. He holds the office, but he simply doesn't have the intellectual capacity or emotional stability necessary to do the job. Every day he sits in that chair, there's just that much more mess that we'll need to clean up once we get a real President in office.

Washington Examiner, not WaPo.

Vox is typically liberal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_(website)

That's what I was trying to get across when I said "[t]hen I see this in, of all places, Vox".


I'm not disagreeing. I didn't vote for him. But this is off-topic to the point of the thread.

Comey was extremely careful to make sure not to specifically state whether he was or was not investigating Trump.  Such a refreshing change of heart from last year, when he was happy to explain, in great detail, every aspect of any Hillary investigation!  The People Need To Know, after all.

But ultimately, SC, your argument is really semantics.  Trump has repeatedly claimed that he himself is not under investigation, but has made no such claim about his campaign.  So firing the person investigating the actions of your campaign is a distinction without a difference.

Semantics are, in many cases, the law. I don't doubt the veracity of your statement, but I also don't doubt a judge (or a jury) agreeing with what I wrote above. I've seen it happen before, much to my shock and amazement.

Let me clarify: firing someone because they are investigating your campaign is just as much of a conflict of interest and abuse of power as firing someone because they are investigating you.

It's like the difference between theft and embezzlement.  They aren't The Same Thing, but they are still both crimes.  So it doesn't make any difference to claim that Comey wasn't investigating Trump's ties to Russia but WAS investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, because Trump firing him over either one of those things is still obstruction of justice.

It's alleged obstruction of justice. When the man is impeached and on trial before the Senate, I'll grant your point.

Yes, the allegations are of obstruction of justice, which is a crime.  So how does "Trump himself isn't being investigated" change the discussion?   Whether he's trying to block the investigation of himself or his campaign, either one would be the same crime.

OJ is not a killer  ::)

So while we're on the topic of obstruction of justice (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?_r=1):

" President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.

“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.

The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.

Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation."

Remember: when Hillary's unemployed husband briefly met with the Attorney General that was not leading the investigation into her e-mails, this was a Shockingly Brazen attempt to improperly derail the FBI's case.  But when the President himself, who has the power to fire the FBI director (and did!), directly tells him to stop the investigation... move along, nothing to see here.

Can you imagine the absolute... effing... firestorm if Obama had personally met with Comey and told him to "drop this e-mail thing"?  The wailing and gnashing of teeth by Republicans standing up to this tyrant who fashions himself above the rule of law?

But We Gotta Get These Tax Cuts Done, so it's another round of "Hillary lost, get over it!" for everyone.

I realize the "unbiased" MSM is writing Trump's obituary but it looks like Comey is setting himself up for problems. Well ... if the supposed memos do exit. My feelings is that the info will be retracted or changed in a couple of days just like most things do after the damage has been done.

An attorney wrote this in a blog for Mike Huckabee today.

Serious questions about James Comey's credibility in this regard.

18 USC § 4 reads: "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

This is called misprision of a felony.

Concealing knowledge of a felony and failure to report is, itself, a felony.

First, if the former FBI director was taking notes of meetings where the President had allegedly told him to drop a criminal investigation (i.e., to obstruct justice), then why did Comey wait until now to reveal this? In fact, by keeping his notes private until now, he was concealing them. Right? (That is the first element of misprision -- concealment.)

Second, if Comey did not reveal this information "as soon as possible ... to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States," then that means only one of two things ---

(A) Comey did not think the President had committed any crime, or

(B) Comey was committing a crime, himself, (i.e. misprision of a felony) in order to have something to hold over the President.

On the other hand, if he did, in fact, reveal this to a judge, or to the Attorney General, or to any other person in authority, then by revealing this information to the press, Comey may be impeding an active investigation.

So if these memos actually do exist, this does not look good for Comey. Which makes me wonder if they do, in fact, exist.

If I were Comey, I would certainly lawyer up and plead the 5th if he is called to testify before Congress.

That sounds an awful lot like more of the "The real crime was the leak!" logic that has been frequently deployed in Trump's defense.

CF, I think it's worthwhile to mention that a significant component in confirming that the aforementioned conversation was, indeed, a directive from Trump to drop the Russia investigation was... Trump firing Comey for not dropping it (which happened several months after this meeting).  So Comey could quite easily say, "I had my suspicions, but I wasn't certain if he was sincerely telling me to stop the investigation until he fired me, which made it clear that the meeting earlier was intended to dissuade me."

Not at all. It looks more like a disgruntled employee who fabricated either fabricated evidence after the fact or someone who was willing to keep a felony a secret until he was fired for the very secret he was keeping. Either way it does not paint him in a "truthful" light.

If Trump was "asking" him to drop the case then he should have reported him and we all would be agreeing Trump committed a crime. As it is Comey looks like a disgruntled employee ... at least to half of society.

To the first point, this is a piece of an active investigation. Why would he take this information outside of an open investigation? As stated, that would be impeding an active investigation.

To the second point, Comey and his colleagues ARE/WERE persons of civil authority under the United States and they already have an open case.

Someone needs to try harder to convince me of wrongdoing other than to give a two sided argument. You can't have it both ways.

To whom?

 His boss the President?  Or other senior officials within the FBI?

If you pick the latter would it be better for him to just discuss it orally with no record or would it be better for him to write down exactly what happened and share those facts with other senior officials within the FBI in a memo?

The latter is exactly what he did.

Good points by Phish and Hoodie.  By the logic being used to accuse Comey, every law enforcement officer who tried to collect additional evidence to prove a felony (even if he wrote down the evidence he was collecting!) would be guilty of "misprision of a felony" because he did not immediately bring charges at the first sign of a crime.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein just named (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html?_r=1) former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel for the Russia investigation.

Mueller served from 2001-2009 under GWB and from 2009-2013 under Obama.  His 10-year term would have been up in 2011, but Obama requested he stay on for two additional years.  This appointment appears to be one that should satisfy not just partisans on both sides, but the rank-and-file in the FBI who were displeased with Comey's dismissal (for whatever that's worth).

Obviously you didn't read or don't care as it as it clearly states if Comey did not reveal this information "as soon as possible ... to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States," then that means only one of two things ---

(A) Comey did not think the President had committed any crime, or

(B) Comey was committing a crime, himself, (i.e. misprision of a felony) in order to have something to hold over the President.

The FBI Director can't just hold onto information if he is a witness or victim of a crime he is required by law to report.

The FBI director is an "other person in Civil authority". He shared it with other such persons senior officials within the FBI. 

Count down to impeachment......

not gonna happen .. democrats are gonna slow roll any impeachment calls to make sure trump gets 4 years.. they'll use him the same way republicans use abortion ..  they'll use it to win elections, but once they actually get into power they won't do anything about it.

 Impeachment? That's so far from the truth.  I was watching NBC for the hearing yesterday and Chuck Todd, as well as other talking heads, said while it will give Democrats a reason to complain, there is nothing there and Republicans will be celebrating that.

Taking politics aside ... Comey is either a really shitty employee (coward by his own words) or was trying to set Trump up.  I've worked in government a while and NO politician knows the rules. It's staff's job to let them know what they are asking or doing is illegal. I've personally had to go to my now county manager and a couple of our commissioners to let them know what they were asking was illegal or would put us in a liable situation. The politicians have final say but staff are the professionals and are expected to know better.

1) Republicans will not impeach Trump under any circumstances while they are in control.  If you think there is something that could happen that would cause the GOP to abandon him before it has proven to cost them seats, you haven't been paying attention for the last year.

2) Even if Dems control the House in 2018, impeachment will be no more than theater.  The Democrats would need a minimum of a dozen Senate Republicans to vote for his impeachment.  That will not happen.

It sounds like you're saying that Hillary's e-mail server was always a nothingburger because how could she be expected to know if what she's doing is illegal?  She's only a politician.

First off, you are presuming that Trump was not informed by his staff of the (il)legality of his actions before he chose to do them anyway.  The idea that if only he had been informed by his staff, he never would have done that thing is at odds with his entire persona.

Second, I think there is a significant difference in the expected standard of competence between a county manager and the chief executive of these United States.

She knew the law about private servers let alone wiping them. She broke the law.

His persona has nothing to do with it. Many politicians are narcissistic. I can say especially the lower you go the worse it seems to be. Mt basis for thinking that is no one has come forward saying they had informed Trump. You know ... that whole evidence thing. God knows if that was true that would have been leaked too.

Nope and the County Manager is hired by the Commissioners.  The County Manager comes with government background. The Commissioners who are elected officials might have never done anything more than be a partner in a business. They typically have no idea how government works.

In government everything is public record. You can see my salary, phone calls, emails, texts all just by going to HR and asking to get a copy and the extent of that takes a while to realize. Now add in all the laws and codes that I have never even heard of and you have some pretty ignorant people.  Even is I am using my personal things during work it can sometimes be public record. Where in my company I can do almost anything ... in a right to work state... I have to treat  people with kid gloves because many things can lead to a lawsuit that outside would be considered the norm. 

You literally just said, "NO politician knows the rules" (emphasis in original).
Are we giving out passes on the rules, or not?

What do you mean "nope"?

There is a significant difference in expected standard of competence between a COUNTY MANAGER and THE HEAD OF STATE OF OUR NATION.
How can you even argue this?

She's been a politician for her whole adult life .... not too mention she spent 8 years as the first lady and another 4 as Secretary of State. Trump has been one all of 5 months and even less when the meetings occurred. I know you get that but for whatever reason choose to argue.

Nope means exactly what it says. No ... local governments are under the same standards of accountability as Washington politicians .... although secrets are much more dangerous in DC.

BTW ... you keep referring to the County Manager. The County Manager is a staff position that is hired by the County commissioners. The County Commissioners are elected officials.  The County Manager, along with the County Attorney who is another staff professional, helps all of the elected officials walk the lines of what they can and cannot do.

If career politicians actually do know the rules, then why are you insisting that "NO politician knows the rules"?  If Trump doesn't know the rules because he's never held a single elected office before, it is relevant and appropriate to criticize him for not knowing what he is doing.

If you think that a county commissioner and the President of the United States should meet exactly the same standard of competence, then I guess it makes sense to support Trump.  After all, it makes sense to elect a businessman who has never held any elected office and is completely clueless about how our federal government works, the history of our military alliances, etc.... to county commissioner, so why not President, right?