Trump Fires FBI Director James Comey (washingtonpost.com) 810
The White House said today that President Trump has fired FBI director James Comey. Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement: "President Donald J. Trump informed FBI Director James Comey that he has been terminated and removed from office. President Trump acted based on the clear recommendations of both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. 'The FBI is one of our Nation's most cherished and respected institutions and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement,' said President Trump. A search for a new permanent FBI Director will begin immediately."
The Washington Post reports: Earlier in the day, the FBI notified Congress that Comey misstated key findings involving the Hillary Clinton email investigation during testimony last week, saying that only a "small number" of emails had been forwarded to disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner, not the "hundreds and thousands" he'd claimed in his testimony. The letter was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, more than a week after Comey testified for hours in defense of his handling of the Clinton probe. In defending the probe at last week's hearing, Comey offered seemingly new details to underscore the seriousness of the situation FBI agents faced last fall when they discovered thousands of Clinton aide Huma Abedin's emails on the computer of her husband, Anthony Weiner. "Somehow, her emails were being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information," Comey said, adding later, "His then-spouse Huma Abedin appears to have had a regular practice of forwarding emails to him for him I think to print out for her so she could then deliver them to the secretary of state." At another point in the testimony, Comey said Abedin "forwarded hundreds and thousands of emails, some of which contain classified information." Neither of those statements is accurate, said people close to the investigation. Tuesday's letter said "most of the emails found on Mr. Weiner's laptop computer related to the Clinton investigation occurred as a result of a backup of personal electronic devices, with a small number a result of manual forwarding by Ms. Abedin to Mr. Weiner." The letter also corrected the impression Mr. Comey's testimony had left with some listeners that 12 classified emails were among those forwarded by Abedin to Weiner.
OMFG u have got to be kidding (Score:3, Interesting)
So, how many in the White House were under indictment for Treason, then?
Humerous quote (Score:5, Informative)
This quote is interesting:
"While I greatly appreciate your 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 unable to effectively lead the Bureau."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The media agreed with you all day, writing about how he mislead Congress about the Abedin/Weiner emails. Right up until he got fired, that is. Now they're all about how this is a repeat of the "Saturday Night Massacre," firing a fine upstanding law enforcement officer for doing his job.
How gullible are you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Donald Trump publicly complemented Comey's press conferences and other actions related to Hillary's email during his campaign events.
How stupid would you have to be to believe that Donald Trump fired Comey for the actions which he publicly commended him for?
Donald Trump is preparing for his criminal prosecution and impeachment just like Richard Nixon did in the leadup to his resignation in disgrace.
That question backfired (Score:3)
How many times have you heard the words "he has my full support" in the first few days of a scandal and then the person gets dumped a few days later? Surely you've noticed that in a few places, business, politics, all over the place.
As for Trump himself going from support to attack on something - consider his earlier praise for WikiLeaks and the current move to act against it:
http:/
Re:That question backfired (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump is not going to leave without leaving metaphorical claw marks on the floor as he's dragged out, and there's no sign of anyone dragging him out any time soon. He started in disgrace and isn't going to resign to avoid it.
I don't think the point was that Trump is going to resign, but rather that's he's already digging his claws into the metaphorical floor by trying to make the Russian investigation disappear.
Re:How gullible are you? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually Comey is a long term member of the Republican party.
Re:How gullible are you? (Score:4, Interesting)
Comey was appointed and served as Deputy Attorney General under Bush, and was involved with several domestic and international intelligence operations. He primarily came to public notice when he refused to certify a domestic wiretapping program while Acting AG because AG Ashcroft was in the ICU being treated for pancreatitis, and rushed to the hospital to intercept Alberto Gonzalez and Andrew Card before they could convince Ashcroft, who was under the effect of painkillers and sedatives, to sign off on it. On the other hand, Comey signed off on torture techniques as being legal.
I don't agree with some of the things Comey has done or backed, but I think he's a man of principles who believes strongly in the law. Had Trump fired him within the first few weeks of taking office, it would have been unusual but part of the changeover. Doing so nearly four months into his term and after the effusive praise heaped upon him for an obviously questionable reason just adds to suspicions over the real reasons.
Re:How gullible are you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since Trump refurbished the EPA with "industry experts" and creationists.
Re:How gullible are you? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, at least we can all breath a sigh of relief that Foreign Minister Lavrov's visit with Trump is scheduled tomorrow so he can provide the President with guidance and recommendations about who to appoint as the new FBI Director.
Re:How gullible are you? (Score:5, Funny)
That tape would be the biggest leak ever.
Re: How gullible are you? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole thing is very odd. The only way it makes sense is if Comey was incompetent in announcing the investigation into the emails 11 days before the election, because the FBI now say they weren't a big deal.
Post-election, this has caused bad people to say that Trump only won because of Comey's intervention when it's obvious his huge win had nothing to do with it. Now we enter the Trump zone: a region of space-time where normal rules of logic, reason and causality no longer apply. Never mind that Trump used Comey's intervention in his campaign, it had served its purpose but has now turned bad, so Comey has to go.
The other puzzling thing is why Comey intervened. Making (what turned out to be) the wrong call can be seen as unbelievably incompetent when the FBI had the evidence but maybe the analysts led him astray. Why then should he persist with his "hundreds of thousands" justification months later?
Two reasons:
1. He overstepped his boundaries. His bureau's job is to investigate - and at the end of the investigation, he stepped on DOJ toes by announcing recommendations, which is not his job.
2. Despite universal consensus from within the FBI, DoJ, and former senior members of both departments that he made some SERIOUS blunders, he doubled down on his decisions, has defended them at every turn... ... and a man who can't admit his mistakes when he makes them isn't fit to lead any organization, let alone the FBI.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Comey is a real piece of shit"
The media agreed with you all day, writing about how he mislead Congress about the Abedin/Weiner emails. Right up until he got fired, that is. Now they're all about how this is a repeat of the "Saturday Night Massacre," firing a fine upstanding law enforcement officer for doing his job.
OH. EM. GEE. A contradiction!!!
My head! My poor poor head!! Someone said something to defend someone they don't like?!? I can't even
It's almost as if their morality isn't just for themselves and their friends! How could anyone defend someone they just called an asshole? What kind of a world would we be living in if there were some sort of... GAH!... objective morality that applies to everyone equally?!?
Oh the humanity! Next thing you know they'll be calling it justice!!
...
...
...
This FBI Director has sought for years to jail me on account of my political activities. If I can oppose his firing, so can you.
-- Edward Snowden
Re:Normal people don't do that... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that 99% of the people in the media now "defending" Comey would want his head if he were behaving as a good FBI director under Trump after what they blame him for with Clinton.
It can be perfectly consistent to say that someone should resign and then to object when someone fires them. If you can't imagine a scenario in which that makes sense, then we're not having a conversation; we're just talking at each other.
Look, just because someone is an asshole who doesn't play by the rules doesn't mean that the rules don't apply equally to them. That includes the protections they offer as well as the penalties they impose. James Comey broke the rules by circulating what turned out to be false news about a candidate during an election cycle. He shouldn't have done that. But the President was wrong to fire him, too, because Comey was actively investigating him for alleged corrupt ties to Russia.
So people in the media called foul in the first instance and called foul in the second. They're not defending the man; they're defending the notion that the FBI should be apolitical and independent. It would be inconsistent not to decry both abuses.
Re:Normal people don't do that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is defending Comey. They just don't believe that Trump cares about any of the bad things Comey did. They have good reason to believe this since Trump praised Comey for the same actions.
Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
What a stupid comparison. Both Assange and Snowden are more credible than anybody holding office in Washington DC.
Why counterpoise the two of them in anyway or fashion?
Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh no. There never was any evidence of wrongdoing by Clinton or anyone close to her on Benghazi. The same cannot be said with Trump and Russian interference.
BTW, Trump advisers say Comey was fired because of Russia investigation. [politico.com]
Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not what's going on - maybe you know that and try to make a partisan statement. It's indeed unlikely that any substantial evidence against him could arise from the Russia link issue, but that's not the reason why Trump worries about it. He's a pathological narcissist who truly wants to be loved by everyone, and this probe continues to cast a bad light on him. He absolutely cannot stand this, he's the most thinly skinned person I've ever seen in public life and, judging from his performance so far, only knows two reactions to critique: Either he tries to make friends with his critique on a personal basis to make the critique go away, or he responds with extreme, often irrational and out of proportion aggression.
That's the reason why he fired Comey, he wants this probe to stop because it bothers him personally. Trump's hidden weakness and insecurity is also the reason why he likes strong, authoritarian personalities and the military so much and attempts to portray himself as a 'strong man' at every possible occasion.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that Trump is after all a nice guy with overall good intentions. But his ego gets way to much in his own way. That's no problem when you're a billionaire and run your own company, but in politics both conflicts and compromises are unavoidable.
Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
Because so many put the blame on Comey, it's harder to say that Comey's actions are not worth firing him over.
His actions were worth firing him over, but the time for that firing was January, not May, and the justification for that firing runs counter to what Trump has repeatedly said previously. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills knows that the justification for firing Comey is a lie. So the question is why is he really being fired, right now?
Trump is able to exploit the mixed messaging because the Dems can't admit that Clinton lost because she ran a horrible campaign and nobody wants establishment GOP-lite.
You conveniently forget that she actually won the popular vote, so considerably more people wanted her than wanted Trump. She may have run a horrible campaign, but I couldn't really tell you because I can't actually recall any coverage during the election of Hillary Clinton's actual campaign. Furthermore, even if she had run a horrible campaign, it doesn't change the fact the margin of victory for Trump was so small that both Comey's actions and interference from Russian operatives were, each and independently, enough to change the result of the election. There are a lot of different reasons why the election turned out the way it did, focusing on one reason to the exclusion of all others is myopic no matter who does it.
Re:Employees fired by Trump: (Score:4, Informative)
Stop being misleading. He's fired a lot more than those three.
Re:Employees fired by Trump: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Employees fired by Trump: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but the point is misleading.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe misleading to you, not to anyone else.
Re:Employees fired by Trump: (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know about Yates, but in the cases of Bharara and Comey, he pretty much implied that he was going to keep them on. In any case, all three were fired very abruptly very soon after new information about the investigation of Trump Administration ties to Russia came to light.
thought experiment (Score:5, Funny)
If Barack Obama had fired an FBI director who was investigating him for treason, Fox News would be arming themselves on national television.
Re:thought experiment (Score:5, Informative)
When Donald Trump claimed that Comey "has publicly said on at least three different occasions..." he apparently hadn't seen the news.
https://www.theatlantic.com/po... [theatlantic.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]
All three of those citations have links to video of Comey stating, in English, that Trump is indeed under investigation. If you need a Russian translation, we can probably find one for you.
Re:thought experiment (Score:5, Informative)
From your first link:
Re:thought experiment (Score:4, Insightful)
All three articles were about the same hearing, which was a while ago. The rat guy was claiming that the three articles supported his theory that the FBI was investigating Trump for treason. Comey said nothing of the sort. *Poof* his delusional claims vanish in a puff of reality.
Re:thought experiment (Score:5, Informative)
And how about if he fired a FBI director that has publicly said on at least three different occasions that he isn't under investigation for anything at all?
Comey never publicly said that, Trump just said that he said it.
Re:Employees fired by Trump: (Score:4, Informative)
Sally Yates was not investigating Trump. She also refused to follow the orders of her boss, so of course she was fired.
Preet Bharara was not investigating Trump. He was one of the politically appointed DoJ attorneys that EVERY president replaces. He refused to resign when asked like every other attorney, and so was fired.
James Comey was not investigating Trump. He's the Directory of the FBI, not an agent, detective, or attorney.
Last week, Democrats wanted his head, too. After his bizarre performance before Congress, he seems to have run out of support, and Trump fired him. Then, suddenly! Democrats love him again. Even though 4 of the last 5 Attorney Generals of the US agreed that Comey should have been fired after last June and October, as soon as he is fired, it's an 'evil Republican' thing.
Re:Employees fired by Trump: (Score:5, Funny)
You are correct
http://nypost.com/2017/03/17/b... [nypost.com]
Fired US Attorney Preet Bharara was investigating a key member of President Trumpâ(TM)s cabinet, a new report Friday revealed.
Bharara was looking into allegations that Tom Price, the health and human services secretary and the administrationâ(TM)s point man on efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare, improperly traded health care stocks while he was a member of the House of Representatives, ProPublica reported.
Price maintained that he broke no laws when he traded health care stocks even as he was involved in legislation relevant to the health care sector. He traded over $300,000 worth of shares of relevant companies during a four-year period in the House.
The issue played a significant role in Priceâ(TM)s confirmation process, and he was asked about it numerous times during his Senate hearing.
The revelation that Bharara was investigating Price comes as many were surprised the US attorney from the Southern District of New York was not retained by the Trump administration.
---
Preet was investigating cabinet members of Mr. Trump's administration. And it was in his jurisdiction to investigate Mr. Trump in new york and there were rumors that he might do so about the time he was fired after Mr. Trump had said personally given Preet assurances that would preet be retained.
Re:Employees fired by Trump: (Score:5, Interesting)
They were all just investigating people very close to Trump for committing crimes in support of Trump, so clearly there's no danger to Trump in these investigations and no possibility of him getting dragged into them.
Re:Employees fired by Trump: (Score:4, Insightful)
No....I'm tired of this Us vs Them politics.
It's not working and it's harmful.
Re: Employees fired by Trump: (Score:4, Funny)
Yes but Them started it.
Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, it had better be a really darn good reason.
Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding (Score:5, Informative)
[...] but it hasn't been done before, and would be a very unusual step.
Bill Clinton fired an Attorney General William Sessions but that guy was under investigation for ethical issues that made his firing a foregone conclusion. The attorney general that came after him was the one who appointed the Whitewater special prosecutor that caused Clinton all kinds of trouble.
Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding (Score:5, Informative)
The FBI director isn't supposed to play kingmaker in DC.
Seems like Trump is firing the FBI director not for playing kingmaker but not for backing up Trump's false accusation that Obama wiretapping him.
How's that for gratitude (Score:4, Informative)
After all it was Comey who got him elected.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After all it was Comey who got him elected.
Are you complaining because the President didn't keep him in office to return the favor? Or are you just complaining to complain?
Re:How's that for gratitude (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you complaining because the President didn't keep him in office to return the favor? Or are you just complaining to complain?
I, for one, made the same observation immediately. That's pretty poor payback. I don't think Comey got him elected singlehandedly, the DNC did most of it, but still
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And John Podesta. He helped a lot. So did Carlos Danger.
Re: (Score:3)
The DNC did screw up, however the Russians hacking the DNC and exposing there plan to stop Sanders really turned off a lot of people who may had sided with Clinton if she won in a fair fight. The emails scandal was pure stupid because it is such a minor offense it wasn't really worth anything. But with people on the sidelines from the leaked info Colmy opening the investigation was enough to turn a few states red.
Re: How's that for gratitude (Score:5, Informative)
There's a long list of Republicans who've run private e-mail servers but they were all very quick to condemn HRC for doing it too.
In fact, she herself did it on the advice of Colin Powell. On the other hand, she clearly did it for the purpose of hiding evidence, and other data which was supposed to be recorded as it pertained to her work as sec. of state. So yeah, those Republicans are hypocritical fucks, as one expects, but incompetently running her own email server was still an unacceptable act. It wasn't worth electing trump over her or anything ridiculous like that, but stop defending her. It was a stupid thing to do, it was a criminal thing to do, and if the only defense you can come up with is "everyone else was doing it" then it's indefensible.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, no doubt the embarrassing part of the "sensitive" information that keeps leaking about Trump campaign ties to Russia is actually coming from foreign agents within the Russian Intelligence Services. This makes it rather awkward for those on intelligence committees, who nominally are supposed to know what's going on.
Re:How's that for gratitude (Score:5, Insightful)
The timing seems a bit odd, doesn't it? Now that it's pretty clear that the endless attacks on Rice and Yates haven't prevented Congress from continuing to investigate the links between his campaign and Russia, it's time to start putting friendly faces in charge of the three letter agencies.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The timing is ODD? The whole thing is ODD if you ask me, just not in the way you are implying.
Come on, the timing would have been "odd" regardless of when Trump did this. Of course the Democrats will decry how this is evidence of something "odd" going on that we need to investigate... Maxine Waters and Nancy will be spouting off about impeachment again because it doesn't matter what Trump does or when he does it, it's always suspicious to them..
I think this is all odd in that Comey lased this long after
Re:How's that for gratitude (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How's that for gratitude (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to tell whether the Trump team are some of the most malicious individuals who have ever occupied the most powerful position in the world, or are simply arrogant halfwits. I'm leaning towards the latter.
Re:How's that for gratitude (Score:5, Insightful)
He lobbed the "voter attention redirection" handgrenade 11 days before the election, which had the effect of making non-committal swing voters think "damn, the person I'm thinking of voting for is probably a criminal - the FBI is investigating her."
From that moment to the election day, the "poll question" became "is Hillary criminal or not?" as opposed to "can we risk that Trump bozo?".
Re: (Score:3)
It's Trump. Do not expect gratitude, respect for others or any recognition. Trump does not understand these things.
Re: (Score:3)
Comey just provided protection, allowing the AG to keep her word of not putting hillary in any danger while at the same time stopping her political future.
Re:How's that for gratitude (Score:5, Interesting)
No it was very much hillary who got him elected, Anyone who was not a completely worthless human or clump of grass would of won over him; and the grass would of been in the running
Trump went up against umpteen senior GOP candidates incl 1/2 a dozen former governors and beat them like rented mules, garnering the most votes ever in a Republican primary.
Seems there were a lot of completely worthless humans both running against him & voting for him.
How Nixonian of him (Score:3, Insightful)
Who's next?
first a russian mole in the white house (Score:4, Insightful)
next a russian mole as head of the FBI.
Next up: NSA.
Re:first a russian mole in the white house (Score:5, Insightful)
But none of this is going to make the problem go away. He can't fire Congress, and he can't stop Comey and the other directors (or ex-directors) from testifying. I guess he could start trying to interfere with their investigations, but then that would generally be considered abuse of power, and that would give Congress grounds to impeach him.
Re:first a russian mole in the white house (Score:5, Insightful)
He doesn't have to sorry about impeachment. It would be a humiliation to the Republican party beyond imagining if that happened - they simply cannot allow it, and they have a majority.
Re:first a russian mole in the white house (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, that may change if they start to sense a rising tidal wave coming to wipe them out in Congress. But we're not there yet, by far - just look at how most of the Republican Senators acted at the Yates hearing yesterday for instance.
Comedy gold! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what get you with this guy: used and thrown away. Sounds like Comey wasn't willing to help bury the investigation into the mango-in-chief's ties to Russia. With the way the swamp is being "drained" in DC, I expect the new head of the FBI to be someone from the mob. ;)
Re:Comedy gold! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is what get you with this guy: used and thrown away. Sounds like Comey wasn't willing to help bury the investigation into the mango-in-chief's ties to Russia. With the way the swamp is being "drained" in DC, I expect the new head of the FBI to be someone from the mob. ;)
Didn't you read Trump's letter? He says that Comey told him three times that he (Trump) wasn't under investigation. Since Trump would never lie, and the FBI would never lie to a target of investigation, you can take it as gospel truth that that wasn't what happened.
</sarcasm>
Was I the only one that found it utterly bizarre that Trump chose to mention that in his letter firing Comey?
Re: (Score:3)
Autocrats do that sort of thing. Personal issues become the most pressing State issues. Expect a lot more of this sort of thing.
It's new for the US Presidency but extremely common in various regimes. It's the sort of thing that inspired George Washington to refuse a crown and ensure that his power was balanced - he's fought against leader that was a lot like Trump and didn't want one running Ameri
Re:Comedy gold! (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually feel a little pity for the GOP right now. They backed Trump because in their eyes any other choice was worse, and I'm sure they thought they could control him adequately via being his 'advisers', since he's new to politics, but what they got instead is like a demented self-driving clown car with the throttle jammed wide open and a full tank of gas: can't control it, can't really stop it without completely destroying it, and guaranteed to end up in the ER for their trouble.
Re:Comedy gold! (Score:5, Insightful)
What choice did they have? The GOP isn't the Democrats, there are no superdelegates to block a bad choice. I'm sure if the Republican establishment had had their way Jeb Bush would have been the nominee. Once he was nominated, there was little choice but to back him. The GOP's nomination process is pretty damned democratic, and the Democrats learned that having it too open can lead to candidates like McGovern.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Comedy gold! (Score:4, Interesting)
>Kind of like not wanting to pay for a _ "qualifies as" denying her the right to _
I choose "Breast cancer" and "life". Sounds right.
>or how not wanting to pay for other people's _ education "qualifies as" denying access to education
"Public."
> or opposing the presence of illegal _ in the US "qualifies as" racism
"Immigrants". See, I just made it not racist! Why are you only after the Mexicans?
>opposing "gay marriage" qualifies as homophobia.
Uhhhh.. I got nothing. Turns out that opposing something that isn't your business and doesn't effect you just because it is icky is a phobia.
Highly unsual (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, it had better be a really damn good reason.
Re:Highly unsual (Score:5, Interesting)
It does have the look of desperation. I'm not really one to give much credence to conspiracy theories, but I read yesterday of some group of Congressmen (identities unknown) who are already meeting to discuss impeachment. I'm not really sure I believe that, but Trump is running out of people to throw under the bus.
And how does firing Comey even help him? As I said above, it's not like he can't be summoned by Congress, and while I guess Trump could try to stymie further investigation, that would constitute a positively Nixonian abuse of power. As it is, Sessions has recused himself, so Trump's AG isn't really inside of this at all.
Re:Highly unsual (Score:5, Interesting)
Would it work? Probably not, no more than Nixon replacing the Attorney General in order to get special prosecutor Archibald Cox fired quashed the Watergate investigation/scandal. At worst, I think you'd see the damning evidence start to leak out into the open, spurring more action.
Re:Highly unsual (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with such a reaction to a scandal is that it only raises the stakes. Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre was pretty much the turning point in the Watergate Scandal, where public support bled away, and with it his insurance policy that Senate Republicans would jump on the grenade to protect him.
Re:Highly unsual (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, it could well be both, or some combination thereof. Perhaps Trump thinks the spectacle of that would distract sufficiently from the Russia investigation to let him quash it more easily, too.
Re: (Score:3)
The other possibility that occurs to me is that Trump, in his fixation with Hillary Clinton, intends to double down.
What fixation? As soon as the election was over Trump stopped caring about Hillary's "crimes". He didn't really care even before, but it made him popular when he pretended and he loves being popular.
I suspect that he's getting rid of Comey because Comey isn't playing ball quashing the Russia investigation, and Trump's all about childish outrage when anyone "defys him". Also, no republicans in DC will help Comey because this will just hasten the Russia investigation, and most republicans in DC hate Presid
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently I'm now hearing that the number of Clinton emails on Weiner's computer was 12. With 12 he could have gone over them in an hour or two, gotten the results and secretly given it to Congress and not made the mess in late October.
What I find even worse than this, was in Comey's press release about the laptop he made it clear they hadn't scanned it and didn't know what was on it. It was basically "Hey! We think there could be incriminating emails from Clinton on here! Maybe!" Then there wasn't anything they didn't already had, and the release turned to "we didn't find anything, sorry."
Re:Historical details (Score:3)
It was the "Saturday Night Massacre [wikipedia.org]."
The "someone" that agreed to fire Nixon's Special Prosecutor was Robert Bork [wikipedia.org], who is more well-known these days as President Reagan's nominee to the post of Associate Justice of SCOTUS in 1987.
Re: (Score:3)
FBI Directors are traditionally non-partisan, and serve a 10 year term that is not at the pleasure of the president, unlike political appointees. This isn't to say that the President doesn't have the power to fire the Director, but it hasn't been done before....
Yes it has. Clinton fired the FBI Director for abusing the corporate jet to visit friends. That was the first and only time that I'm aware of, however.
Re:Highly unsual (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Say what you want (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, a lot of you disagree and think that it's cliche and not authentic, but I do enjoy that new sitcom about a TV buffoon getting elected as the US president. Every week a new episode full of laughter and surprises.
Re:Say what you want (Score:5, Insightful)
While the ratings are high, apparently some people want it canceled. Something about it bringing the whole network down.
Re:Say what you want (Score:5, Insightful)
"I’m a Leninist. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment." -Steve Bannon [thedailybeast.com]
It's been some time since Lenin has been brought up in the west as an exemplary leader but it has happened not too long ago: "Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight." -Joseph Goebbels
Goebbels and his ilk also had great ratings for a while but I've seen that movie and I'd like to avoid a remake, they tend to be even worse than the originals.
this is going to be fun (Score:3)
keep getting rid of the players and the only person left to look at is the manager
LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
"Trump Fires FBI Director James Comey"
L-O-fucking-L!
I swear, if this so-called president wasn't busy destroying the country through his greed, ignorance, and epic incompetence, I'd be laughing my ass off at the antics of this draft-dodging clown.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, why is this on Slashdot?
Because it's news for nerds (and everyone else).
Re:Had it comming (Score:5, Funny)
the Senate is wearing the same team jersey as Trump
No, Trump grabbed a T-shirt the same color as the GOP's jersey, spray painted '00' on the back, then snuck into the Team party, and when asked who invited him, pointed to the guy that just left the room to use the can, then scurried away to talk to someone else before anyone could question him. By the end of the night everyone thought everyone else invited him. By the next morning he was already POTUS and everyone wondered what the hell happened.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that a lot of OTHER READERS OF SLASHDOT hold a clearance, for their jobs. If you had done one 1000th of the shit that Hillary and Huma had done, do you have ANY DOUBT that you wouldn't be pounds rocks into gravel, in Leavenworth?
Pounding rocks into gravel? In Leavenworth? Doubtful. On the other hand, I have no doubt if any one of us were caught doing half the shit they got up to that we would be losing our clearances and our jobs. No doubt about that.
Go eff yourselves, liberal monkeys. The law matters.
Yeah, yeah, yeah! Whatever. In case you hadn't noticed, we now live in the age of Trump. Laws don't matter much any more. It's much more important to confidently double down on your own alternative facts...and to look chic and stylish while doing so!
Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) (Score:5, Informative)
Both of them did exactly that - they sent classified information via an unclassified email system. In one case, I was one of the recipients. Want to know what happened? There was an investigation to determine just what happened, and when. The investigators then wiped all the unclassified systems that touched those emails, including the servers they passed through. The guys who sent the email? They received a reprimand (I'm not sure if it was verbal or something more formal), and had to retake the security training on handling classified material.
That was it.
Neither was fired. If they did it again, they might have been, or if they violated security procedures some other way (bringing a cellphone into the secure area, or leaving a vault door unlocked or something). They sure as sh*t weren't sent to court, let alone jail over it.
Now, if the unclassified email was their own system? They might have gotten fired/lost their clearances, sure, but unless the investigators determined that there was intent to leak classified information, a la Manning/Snowden/etc, or worse, sell it to someone a la Ames/Hansen/etc, that's almost certainly all that would happen to them.
Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) (Score:5, Interesting)
Posting as AC, 'cause I still have a job and a clearance and I don't need the hassle.
Fire_Wraith is right - this is what usually happens with inadvertent disclosure of classified info over an unclassified system. I too have seen this happen exactly as described.
However, once you get beyond "accidental disclosure" and go to deliberately sending this info knowingly over unclassified networks onto unsecured systems - and later destroying the materials yourself instead of reporting it promptly to the appropriate people to cover up the act - that gets into very dangerous territory, from lose your clearance and get fired to throw your ass in jail territory.
I cannot believe anyone who holds a clearance and saw what Clinton did would think for a moment that they could get off so easy too if they did the same thing.
Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) (Score:4, Informative)
Nice avoidance.
Uh huh. Were they Original Classification Authorities? Did they also destroy evidence without authorization, or set up their own unsecured, unauthorized email servers at their homes which they used for all electronic correspondence?
Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) (Score:4, Insightful)
Republicans have spent a billion tax payer dollars trying to find one thing Hillary is guilty of other than being a power hungry bitch.
No one. Not even Donald Trump can stay free under that kind of scrutiny unless they are not guilty of legal wrong doing. No one can hide with that many private and public investigations going againist them.
Morally she might be bankrupt, but we don't try people for being morally bankrupt or trump would have been executed for his crimes decades ago. Crimes like never paying back contractors what they are owed. Like hiding money from legally owed taxes. Oh and running more companies into the ground than airlines have crashed planes.
So name one legal thing she has been found guilty of in a court of law?you can't all you know is propaganda heresey and lies told by Fox news and other conservatives. The fact you use liberal monkeys shows you are too stupid to use reason and logic.
Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) (Score:5, Insightful)
A testable claim! Oh God, I love testable claims about the law. No "could be this" or "could be that," just it's there or it's not.
18 U.S. Code sec. 798 - Disclosure of classified information [cornell.edu]
My criminal law class taught that "knowingly and willfully" are intent elements. If you didn't know it or didn't will the act to happen (e.g., the information that you were given was unmarked and only later retroactively classified), then it's not a crime.
Your claim that there's no "intent" test in the statute is false. Yes, the law matters, but your flawed understandling of the law does not.
Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) (Score:5, Informative)
He called out the Espionage Act. That's the classified information section of the Espionage Act. Is there another Espionage Act?
It's called "moving the goalposts." You've just done it.
That IS the Espionage Act. Tell you what, why don't you specify the section of the U.S. code that you're referring to and we'll test that claim as well.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the issue here is more to do with the timing. With the Russia investigation heating up, or rather there isn't enough other news to bury it, all of sudden Comey's thrown out. Sure, maybe it's because Trump is convinced he's a fuck up, but if that were the case, then why wait until over four months into his presidency before he decides to give Comey the boot?
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
No it's not really interesting.
What Comey did with respect to Clinton was an abuse of his position, and its right to call him out.
Trump firing him for investigating Trump is also an abuse of position.
The problem isn't Comey, its people abusing positions of power, and it's entirely consistent to think Comey should have been fired for lobbing an anti Clinton grenade into the election, while also thinking it's entirely wrong for him to be fired for investigating Trump.
2 wrongs don't make a right, mmmmkay?
Re:Investigation down the toilet. (Score:5, Informative)
Comey has found NOTHING after over a year of trying to prove a link between Trump and the Russians.
It hasn't been a year yet (July or August of 2016 is when the investigation started) so it hasn't been over a year.
There are plenty of links between Trump and Russia when you look at the folks on his campaign and their own connections. Roger Stone bragged on several occasions he was in communication with Guccifer 2.0 [cbsnews.com] and knew when the next batch of emails was going to be released. Guccifer 2.0 is part of the Russian intelligence services [businessinsider.com].
Flynn, well, we know about his numerous ties to Russia and that he lied about not having any.
Carter Page, who at first said he never helped the Russians with classified or other such materials, then changed his tune to "no comment" [cnn.com] when asked about the investigation into his dealings with Russia, and now is saying, "No I'm not going to hand over evidence of my dealings with the Russians [cbsnews.com] so you can hang me with it."
As we saw a day or so ago, Eric Trump bragged that it was Russians who were financing his father's golf courses [marketwatch.com] during the Bush recession. This on top of other financial dealings Trump has with Russia.
Then today, the Senate committee investigating collusion between Trump and Russia during the campaign has asked the Treasury Department's criminal division to hand over any and all documents related to Trump [cnn.com], his campaign and campaign aides.
That doesn't sound like "nothing important".
Re:Investigation down the toilet. (Score:4, Informative)
They have some evidence now. At the time of Flynn's firing, Trump said that he'd just learned about Flynn's problems, but now that appears to have been a lie. If so, Trump is implicated in the cover up at least.
Re:Investigation down the toilet. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the next director cannot do any worse for you... Comey has found NOTHING after over a year of trying to prove a link between Trump and the Russians.
The Watergate scandal took 26 months from the day the burglars were arrested to the President's resignation. Just because you watched it all in 140 minutes doesn't mean that's how it actually played out.
Re: (Score:3)
The Benghazi hearings went on longer than that and produced nothing but smoke too... Remember Ken Star? Of course you do, how long was Clinton under investigation?
Yep, no argument from me. You're more or less making my point, which is that how long an investigation takes is no indication—one way or the other—of its outcome. I have no opinion on the likelihood of Donald Trump's personal involvement in corrupt collusion with a foreign power. I believe he's stupid enough to do it, but nobody has yet shown any plausible evidence that he actually did.
Re: (Score:3)
how long was Clinton under investigation?
And Clinton was impeached, as Trump surely will be. Clinton's transgressions are ridiculously minor compared to Trump's treasonous selling out of America.
Re: (Score:3)
It was semantics (though it did indeed make him look like an idiot). At what point do you redefine kissing to be sex? Clinton seemed to be arguing never, and seemed to be arguing that only intercourse was "sex with that woman".
The really strange thing is we are still talking about it today as if it was important enough to waste all that time in court. Clinton was already known to be sleazy, it was just his political opponents trying an "angle" t
Re:Splitting hairs (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, but classified emails on a home computer will get you reprimanded but not convicted. So... why is the email the most important part of the whole situation in your opinion? That's more important than cabinet members being caught lying about meetings with Russians? More important than an FBI director (intentionally or not) affecting an election by providing false information?
Re:So long slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the horrible result of extreme partisanship. When it becomes more about your team winning than what's best for the country, morals and class become irrelevant. It's like Pittsburgh Steelers fans—they know their quarterback is a rapist but they defend him anyway because he's their quarterback and he wins.
Your post also makes me think of how terrible our education system is. We think of education purely as job training. That's why being a "geek" doesn't mean you're smart or read awesome Douglas Adams books. There are people who learn to code, or learn to monkey around in IT, or do whatever type of thing that's stereotypically nerdy but they never took an ethics class or studied foreign cultures or immersed themselves for just a small time in any form of liberal arts.
In college I would always hear people complain if they had to take anything outside the purview of their specific major. "Why do I have to learn this? When am I ever going to use this?" they would say. I guess my answer is: because you have the power to vote and you'll use this knowledge when you cast your ballot. Now we've elected President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)