F.B.I. Director James Comey Is Fired by Trump

[Harry]

WASHINGTON — President Trump has fired the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, over his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, the White House said on Tuesday.

Mr. Comey was leading an investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

“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,” Mr. Trump said in a letter to Mr. Comey dated Tuesday.

“It is essential that we find new leadership for the F.B.I. that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission,” Mr. Trump wrote.

In a separate letter released at the White House, Mr. Spicer said that the president informed the director that he has been “terminated and removed from office.”

Memos released by the White House show that Rod J. Rosenstein, the newly sworn-in deputy attorney general, that recommended Mr. Comey be fired over how he disclosed the investigation into Mrs. Clinton.

Continue reading the main story

 

[GTWT]

Am I allowed to say that this is really bad timing by a president who appears to be trying to cover his butt?

[EagleMBA]

17 minutes ago, GTWT said:

Am I allowed to say that this is really bad timing by a president who appears to be trying to cover his butt?

IMO you are allowed to say that...but it doesn't make it true.

[MeanGreenTeeth]

Meh.  Why not?  He (Trump) already gets ragged on by everyone on TV 24/7.  He might as well fire him if he doesn't like him.  He gets to look tough for his supporters and it isn't like his detractors can get any more agitated than they already are.  

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by MeanGreenTeeth

[Rudy]

He should have been fired when he said any normal person would have faced charges for doing the same thing hillary did.

[VideoEagle]

I find it interesting to see so many posts on Facebook suggesting this is equivalent to Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. Nixon had to fire both his Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General as they opposed the firing of Archibald Cox. In this case, the DAG went to the AD who went to the President to suggest the firing. 

Last night, CBS 11 was interviewing retired FBI agents who agreed with the firing. The FBI is supposed to turn over the results of an investigation to the Justice Department who has career prosecutors - NOT political appointees - decide if a prosecution should occur. The FBI Director isn't supposed to make that decision. 

[GTWT]

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 7:32 PM, EagleMBA said:

IMO you are allowed to say that...but it doesn't make it true.

I didn't say it was "true".  I said it 'appeared' to be that Trump was covering his butt.  That appearance still holds.

[GreenMachine]

On 5/11/2017 at 6:12 AM, GTWT said:

I didn't say it was "true".  I said it 'appeared' to be that Trump was covering his butt.  That appearance still holds.

Not really, Comey stated numerous times he wasn't investigating Trump.

[GTWT]

58 minutes ago, GreenMachine said:

Not really, Comey stated numerous times he wasn't investigating Trump.

That's according to President Trump.

[GrandGreen]

The same Comey, that the Democrats were howling for his ouster.  Trump is a disaster in many ways, but attacking him for things like this which is fully in his rights to do, is just partisan politics as usual.   

[GTWT]

2 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

The same Comey, that the Democrats were howling for his ouster.  Trump is a disaster in many ways, but attacking him for things like this which is fully in his rights to do, is just partisan politics as usual.   

His rights aren't in doubt.  His motivation is.

[GreenMachine]

3 hours ago, GTWT said:

That's according to President Trump.

No, that was stated by Comey on numerous occasions.

[GTWT]

13 minutes ago, GreenMachine said:

No, that was stated by Comey on numerous occasions.

Please provide a link to a legitimate source documenting those statements by Comey.

[GreenMachine]

26 minutes ago, GTWT said:

Please provide a link to a legitimate source documenting those statements by Comey.

You provide a link to a legitimate source stating he was investigating Trump.

[GTWT]

5 minutes ago, GreenMachine said:

You provide a link to a legitimate source stating he was investigating Trump.

First, that's not a statement that the FBI Director would make.

Second, you're the one who said that Comey stated on numerous occasions that he was not investigating President Trump.  I'm just asking that you document just one of those occasions.  I don't think you can.  If you do I'll apologize profusely.

Edited May 14, 2017 by GTWT

[Caw Caw]

First time dipping my toes into these waters on here, but I like to look at these events as if there was no names or faces associated with these people and if it were by title only. If a nameless president fired someone investigating them is this a conflict of interest and how would you feel about it. This obviously forces you to disregard your voting history and allows you to look at it through that lens. If you want to take it a step further, if It were Hillary firing comey before the e-mail investigation was finished, would you not feel she was hiding something (obviously hypothetical to if she would have won)?

And just for the record, here is a time stamp of a sworn testimony from the judiciary comittee clearly statingthat the FBI is investigating. You can keep watching for more proof of the same. And while the man "questioning" comey has his own take on the matter, it's not exactly some huge stretch to say that this issue isn't under serious surveillance and investigation.

Edit: In that matter of full disclosure. At best, the situation makes me feel uneasy about the respect for checks and balances in our current system. At worst, it's a gross misconduct in an aggressive move to cover something up.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Caw Caw

[GreenMachine]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rep-peter-king-probably-more-evidence-of-connections-between-clinton-and-russia-than-trump/article/2623061

Just now, GreenMachine said:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rep-peter-king-probably-more-evidence-of-connections-between-clinton-and-russia-than-trump/article/2623061

Sorry, was linking to multiple places but this is a good read none the less.

[GTWT]

6 minutes ago, GreenMachine said:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rep-peter-king-probably-more-evidence-of-connections-between-clinton-and-russia-than-trump/article/2623061

Sorry, was linking to multiple places but this is a good read none the less.

I know I must be missing something obvious, but where in the article do they quote Comey saying President Trump wasn't under investigation?

[GreenMachine]

15 hours ago, GTWT said:

I know I must be missing something obvious, but where in the article do they quote Comey saying President Trump wasn't under investigation?

I misspoke, Trump might be under investigation by the FBI but Comey isn't directly involved. If Comey is fired or not, it doesnt change a possible investigation. From what I have read so far, more evidence points to Clinton collaborating with the Russians than anyone else.

[GTWT]

2 minutes ago, GreenMachine said:

I misspoke, Trump might be under investigation by the FBI but Comey isn't directly involved. If Comey is fired or not, it doesnt change a possible investigation. From what I have read so far, more evidence points to Clinton collaborating with the Russians than anyone else.

It will be interesting to hear Comey's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  That's assuming the testimony is public.  Until then we only have President Trump's reports of his conversations with the FBI Director.  You and I seem to assign different levels of credence to our president's veracity.

[UNTFan23]

3 hours ago, GTWT said:

It will be interesting to hear Comey's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  That's assuming the testimony is public.  Until then we only have President Trump's reports of his conversations with the FBI Director.  You and I seem to assign different levels of credence to our president's veracity.

I trust the POTUS as much as I trust MSM, which isn't much ... at all.

[GreenMachine]

5 hours ago, UNTFan23 said:

I trust the POTUS as much as I trust MSM, which isn't much ... at all.

Do you trust any of the sleazeballs? It's crazy the amount of crap coming from both sides of the aisle.

[UNTFan23]

12 hours ago, GreenMachine said:

Do you trust any of the sleazeballs? It's crazy the amount of crap coming from both sides of the aisle.

In this day and age of gotcha politics, hyperbole rules supreme. So to answer your question ... No.

[MeanGreenTeeth]

On 5/14/2017 at 5:44 PM, Caw Caw said:

First time dipping my toes into these waters on here, but I like to look at these events as if there was no names or faces associated with these people and if it were by title only. If a nameless president fired someone investigating them is this a conflict of interest and how would you feel about it.

Yeah, I get what you're saying, but you can't really compare Trump to some random nameless president can you?  Trump firing Comey just because of some perceived slight or that he doesn't like the guy is perfectly in character for him.   Not saying he's right to do so, but frankly it is far far more plausible than assuming he had the wherewithal or temperate to engage in some sort of covert collusion with Russian actors.  And honestly, if there was any evidence, we all know it would have been leaked out by now.

My guess is all the current scandals will end up being nothing or relatively minor.  However, by the time that is determined there will be dozens of other things taking the limelight.  We are in for 4 or 8 years of constant drama.

[Caw Caw]

3 hours ago, MeanGreenTeeth said:

Yeah, I get what you're saying, but you can't really compare Trump to some random nameless president can you?  Trump firing Comey just because of some perceived slight or that he doesn't like the guy is perfectly in character for him.   Not saying he's right to do so, but frankly it is far far more plausible than assuming he had the wherewithal or temperate to engage in some sort of covert collusion with Russian actors.  And honestly, if there was any evidence, we all know it would have been leaked out by now.

My guess is all the current scandals will end up being nothing or relatively minor.  However, by the time that is determined there will be dozens of other things taking the limelight.  We are in for 4 or 8 years of constant drama.

I agree it is in character... but shouldn't we hold the president to the standards of other presidents before him? I disagree on the evidence part too, I think things like this don't tumble with one piece of evidence. This is the type of thing that would take some serious data to back up if you're going to go after the POTUS. More released today that will give this train enough steam to at least run its course. It bothers me the most that we're so busing cheering on our team (Read party) that people don't hold people on their side of the aisle to the same standard. If any of this would have happened in Obamas term he would have been crucified, in my opinion.

That being said, I don't think Donald Trump is malicious. But, ignorance of the law isn't an excuse to break it. I think he's playing a game he doesn't know the rules of. Honestly, Flynn is the key to all of this. His information is pretty much out in the open, he offered to roll over on the others for immunity. The investigative group(s) must have something more concrete than a former generals testimony if they didn't sign him to a deal to fry bigger fish. It could all be nothing, but the white house isn't acting like a group that has nothing to be scared of, in my opinion.

Also, i appreciate the thoughtful and polite discourse, cheers.