FBI Director Fired

[Au165]

The question is, where do we go from here? The parallels to Watergate were already there early on, they are only getting closer after this. I am not sure the POTUS actually did anything wrong, but as we have found out throughout history, the cover up is normally far worse than the crime. Will be interesting to see the whole thing progress.

[GMDino]

Slow day at the WH.

[url=https://postimage.org][/url]

[Mike M (the other one)]

About time.
Carry on whiners.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2017, 11:10 AM)Au165 Wrote: The question is, where do we go from here? The parallels to Watergate were already there early on, they are only getting closer after this. I am not sure the POTUS actually did anything wrong, but as we have found out throughout history, the cover up is normally far worse than the crime. Will be interesting to see the whole thing progress.

I watched a good show on CNN about the Watergate event.  I was all of 5 years old when it happened so it was very eye-opening.

And you nailed it.  The actual event could have been handled (still bad) but the paranoia of Nixon went into overdrive.

[Belsnickel]

This is very interesting to me, because I'm not sure how to feel about it. There are too many unknowns for me to really have a good opinion on this. I think Comey there were some ethically questionable things Comey did, and so support him not being in his position any longer. But the motives of why he was fired are questionable as well, and we just don't have all of the information on this. We have what the White House has said on the matter, but the issue there is that we have had almost four months of statements from Spicer and his staff that make us question the facts behind their version of the truth.

I think that main issue I have with it is that it seems very sudden and seems counter to the opinion that Trump has had previously of Comey. I know that Rosenstein recommended firing, but that was a decision up to Trump, so why the turnaround? That's my big question in all of this.

[Millhouse]

I feel bad for Comey. Appointed to be head of FBI for the good of the country, instead gets dragged into having to deal with Hillary's email scandal during the election and now the Russia thing with Trump maybe. He would still have a job if the country actually had halfway decent candidates to begin with that didn't need any investigating.

[Dill]

(05-10-2017, 11:10 AM)Au165 Wrote: The question is, where do we go from here? The parallels to Watergate were already there early on, they are only getting closer after this. I am not sure the POTUS actually did anything wrong, but as we have found out throughout history, the cover up is normally far worse than the crime. Will be interesting to see the whole thing progress.

One circumstance has changed greatly since the early 70s, however. Democrats and Republicans used to each be a mix of conservatives and liberals. That is no longer the case. Some Republicans will be up in arms about the firing and support the call for an independent investigation, but I think more will block this.

Another circumstance is that the American people back in the early 70s were, as a whole, less partisan and readier to put the country first and trust government authorities. Agencies like the CIA and the FBI, while duplicitous when discussing foreign and domestic activities like surveillance, could not conceivably announce a foreign surveillance that did not exist. Courts were also more trusted. As was Congress, because of its more bi-partisan make up. And all of this despite the Civil Rights struggle and the Vietnam War (though these events did much to undermine trust in government).  

Today a significant proportion of the electorate follows Trump in calling the Russian interference in the election a ruse to undermine Trump's legitimacy. They believe Trump is fighting the Obama deep state and firing Comey is part of that.  We have lost that critical mass of well-informed, balanced people needed to make a liberal democracy work. There are still many people with the ability to discern good reporting from bad, distinguish evidence-based arguments from rhetoric, but their total numbers have dropped right along with high school SAT scores. Informed, evidence based arguments are only another kind of "opinion," and whose to say whose opinion is better? You can choose the news you want and your "facts" are as good as anyone else's.

Unlike Nixon, Trump will resist any call for independent inquiry into Russia ties, which he insists aren't there anyway. The  One might argue that Nixon himself might have gotten away with firing Cox if his tapes had not been released a few days later, but things only got that far because there was bi-partisan pressure to investigate the Watergate break-in to the point of appointing a special prosecutor.

So in contrast to Nixon, Trump may in fact get away with this. The people have elected a Republican president, a Republican Congress, and a Republican Senate. Other distractions, new scandals and revelations, will soon appear to distract from this. Violation of presidential and congressional norms has become the new norm. Russia may also get away with this.

In contrast, Hillary may not. I wonder if the investigation into Hillary's emails may continue now, driven be people looking to "lock her up." Could such an ongoing distraction direct attention away from Trump's actions for months? It would allow the Trump state to control the timing of distracting "revelations."

[Dill]

(05-10-2017, 11:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is very interesting to me, because I'm not sure how to feel about it. There are too many unknowns for me to really have a good opinion on this. I think Comey there were some ethically questionable things Comey did, and so support him not being in his position any longer. But the motives of why he was fired are questionable as well, and we just don't have all of the information on this. We have what the White House has said on the matter, but the issue there is that we have had almost four months of statements from Spicer and his staff that make us question the facts behind their version of the truth.

I think that main issue I have with it is that it seems very sudden and seems counter to the opinion that Trump has had previously of Comey. I know that Rosenstein recommended firing, but that was a decision up to Trump, so why the turnaround? That's my big question in all of this.

Even if you think the firing was really about Comey's bad handling of Hillary's emails, and so he should not be head of the FBI, you don't have grounds to feel good about it until you see who replaces him. What if it is someone like Guilliani or Christy?

We do have SOME important information. As you said, the sudden, unexpected, current assessment of Comey is counter to Trump's lavish praise for his "courage" over the last 6 months. We know that Comey was investigating the Trump campaign's Russian ties. We know that firing him and appointing a Trump loyalist will certainly have a chilling effect on that investigation. It could even mean the gradual, piecemeal shut down of the investigation as pressured investigators "decide" there is no "there" there. We know that Trump has set a pattern of wanting things done (e.g., the Muslim ban) and then instructing subordinates to find the supporting arguments. We know that an AG who had supposedly recused himself from the Russia investigation is suddenly back in the chain of command regarding Comey's firing.

We also know that Trump does not seem to have replacement ready. This does not look well planned, bur rather like a snap judgment, a reaction to something, a potential threat. And we know that a flurry of grand jury subpoenas was issued to Flynn associates today. Dana Boente, head of the office issuing the supoenas, is also only "acting" and can be quickly replaced. http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/

It will require a lot of local pressure on Congressmen and Senators to provide effective oversight of this investigation and Trump's efforts to undermine it. If not then the investigation will wind down with nothing to show and all the questions raised by the campaign connections remaining.
 

[Belsnickel]

I just saw news on WaPo that Comey had requested increased resources for the Russia probe from Rosenstein last week. That is definitely fishy smelling.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-officials-say-comey-senate-testimony-about-clinton-emails-was-inaccurate-605918

I read yesterday the FBI is trying to correct Comey's testimony to Congress last week and I thought he needed to be fired. I think he mishandled the Hillary Clinton email scandal. His 11th hour statement may have been the tipping point during the presidential campaign, but that's just speculation.

If Trump's Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General can't trust Comey to give accurate testimony to Congress then Comey becomes a liability to the Trump administration during the Russian investigation. They saw the Comey Effect on Hillary. Better to get rid of Comey now before he says an (un)intentionally damaging statement than after.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-10-2017, 01:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Even if you think the firing was really about Comey's bad handling of Hillary's emails, and so he should not be head of the FBI, you don't have grounds to feel good about it until you see who replaces him. What if it is someone like Guilliani or Christy?
 

This is kind of how I feel about the Comey firing. Who Trump decides to replace him with is more imporant than the firing itself.

[GMDino]

Has the President made a live, in person statement yet or just the VP?

You'd think the leader would be in front of the camera instead of on Twitter.

[GMDino]

Jeff Sessions in November on Fox News: "FBI Director Comey did the right thing when he found new evidence. He had no choice" pic.twitter.com/9fMc7FPgCm

— John Whitehouse (@existentialfish) May 10, 2017

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 01:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just saw news on WaPo that Comey had requested increased resources for the Russia probe from Rosenstein last week. That is definitely fishy smelling.

Yea, and that actually concerns me the most I think. I also saw where they stated no special investigator is needed.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2017, 03:28 PM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, and that actually concerns me the most I think. I also saw where they stated no special investigator is needed.

That's Senator Turtlehead saying that.

But he wouldn't investigate a fellow Republican if they got the guy with a severed head in his hand.

[Goalpost]

DOJ is saying the story is false regarding the Comey request

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 04:15 PM)Goalpost Wrote: DOJ is saying the story is false regarding the Comey request

Well of course they are. I'll be interested to see if Comey ends up talking more freely to congress and such now that he is "out".

[Bengalzona]

(05-10-2017, 02:06 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: This is kind of how I feel about the Comey firing. Who Trump decides to replace him with is more imporant than the firing itself.

I kind of disagree. Considering that Comey was fired by an administration that was involved in an investigation that he was heading and that he is the third person involved in the investigation fired by the administration, I would say there would be a real question about the motives of anyone chosen by that administration to succeed him. Particularly in light of the great emphasis the administration has placed upon cronyism over credentials in nearly every other position they have filled so far. 

The slings and arrows of oppression are fair when you decide to have the first admin in 45 years that is not transparent.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2017, 04:15 PM)Goalpost Wrote: DOJ is saying the story is false regarding the Comey request

I read they said the initial report of requesting more money was false but he did request more "resources".

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2017, 11:15 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: About time.
Carry on whiners.

I don't think you get it.

The timing is the key issue here.