jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (63 posts)

Trump fires Comey, the man responsible for investigating Trump

  1. promisem profile image95
    promisemposted 3 months ago

    It was allegedly because of the Clinton email investigation, which Trump had previously let go. We'll see if it ends the FBI investigation into Flynn and other Trump campaign connections with Russia.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/ … index.html

    From CNN:

    CNN's Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, however, was not buying the idea that Comey was sacked over the Clinton investigation, saying it was "absurd."

    Toobin branded the move a "grotesque abuse of power by the President of the United States."

    "This is the kind of thing that goes on in non-democracies," Toobin said, referring to the fact that Comey was dismissed while leading an investigation that "reaches near" the President. "We do not fire FBI directors when they are closing in on the White House."

    1. Live to Learn profile image83
      Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Does raise an eyebrow. Wonder why he didn't fire him shortly after taking office, if it does have to do with the Clinton email investigation.

      1. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I think this is what they are going to talk about now, not the emails and what was on them.

        WH: Why didn't Dems let FBI look at their servers after Russian hacking claim?
        http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mel … an-hacking

        "From: H [HDR22@clintonemail.com]

        Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 4:10:34 PM

        To: JilotyLC@state.gov

        CC: Huma Abedin

        Subject: Call list and HRC Support Network"

        ***

        Kirsten Gillibrand—cybersecurity

        "On January 17, 2010, five days after the massive Haitian earthquake, former Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper emails Hillary Clinton’s then- deputy chiefs of staff, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin, to ask if they can do a conference call to discuss Haiti. Clinton Foundation officials Laura Graham and Doug Band are also provided the call-in information for the conference call. (Author Peter Schweizer would later describe in his book “Clinton Cash” how the Obama administration, during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, allowed hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer-funded reconstruction contracts for Haiti to flow through the Clinton Foundation.)

        According to minutes of a January 27, 2010, senior State Department staff meeting, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents uncovered “at least a couple pedophiles” attempting to adopt children in Haiti following the earthquake.  The State Department was reportedly working with the Haitian government to expedite adoptions and removal to the United States of Haitian orphans.

        “These new emails show Hillary Clinton is a serial violator of various laws concerning the handling of classified material,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “The initial investigation into this criminal matter was compromised by Barack Obama’s corrupted FBI and Justice Department.  This new information should spur new federal criminal investigations.”"
        http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room … re-server/

        As far as I know there is a Washington DC pedophile ring investigation.

        1. promisem profile image95
          promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          You seriously want to claim there is a pedophile investigation into the Clintons using the right-wing Judicial Watch as the source? On a thread about Trump firing Comey?

          Really?

          1. MizBejabbers profile image88
            MizBejabbersposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Wishful thinking on her part.

      2. promisem profile image95
        promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I agree. Trump said on national TV multiple times that Comey was doing a great job. Then Comey announced the FBI was launching the Russian probe, and Trump changed his tune.

        It's interesting that Comey found out he was fired via a news report on TV. It sounds like the firing was personal and vindictive.

        1. MizBejabbers profile image88
          MizBejabbersposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          True, but at least it didn't set a precedent. The precedent was set in 1973 by President Nixon, and that was after he suffered a mental breakdown. But I guess the long-distance firing was a precedent of sorts. Trump didn't have the decency to wait until Comey returned from California and tell him face to face.

          1. promisem profile image95
            promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Can you imagine the humiliation of finding out on national TV that you have been fired? In front of your employees?

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      I would say Trump is now firmly ensconced in the beltway gang as controversy against controversy will create a wash of the entire mess. If enough smear is applied, no one will be able to get to the truth. This is Washington at it's finest, The Apprentice once again in prime time.

      The funny thing is trusting any of the politicians or the biased press from following this in any credible way. Some say if we had Hillary none of this would be taking place and I agree because she was such a smart politician and manipulator. I am glad Trump won even though I did not vote for either as maybe, just maybe the sliminess that is running our government might just get a little exposed and some people may wish to change this corrupt abomination of a government.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Good point.

    3. Don W profile image81
      Don Wposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      One of the biggest concerns is preservation of evidence.

      It's obvious Trump wants to make the investigation into connections between his election campaign and Russia go away. And it's obvious he will try to appoint a new Director who is willing to make that happen.

      Comey undoubtedly still has allies, and I'm certain there are people of integrity within the bureau. I hope they are acting now to preserve any evidence that has been gathered already, before the new director begins a purge.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Well, it's "obvious" to those so desperately searching for some kind of wrong doing, anyway.  Still, you get a +1 in that it is his campaign, not Trump himself that has nefarious and illegal "connections" to Russia.

        1. Don W profile image81
          Don Wposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          No, it's obvious to anyone who has heard Donald Trump say anything about Russia, the FBI, and the investigation.

          No, the FBI is not looking for "connections". No need. The "connections" are publicly available information. The FBI investigation is looking for collusion with Russia on its interference with the election. Such collusion would be, by definition, illegal.

          So you get a -1 I'm afraid, for not paying enough attention to what's going on.

    4. crankalicious profile image85
      crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      The firing of Comey is a massive abuse of power. In and of itself, it's probably an impeachable offense. Will Congress follow up? Probably not. Whether or not you agree with the Russia investigation, a President firing the head of an agency that's investigating him in order to replace him with somebody who will drop the case or speed it up, is simply an abuse of power. It doesn't matter what politics you believe in, that's the very definition of "abuse of power".

  2. Aime F profile image83
    Aime Fposted 3 months ago

    I mean at least he fired him instead of having him killed, I guess. That Donald Trump, such a nice guy.

    1. promisem profile image95
      promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      The article below from Politico is quite interesting. Trump's own aides said it was about the Russia connection.

      "He had grown enraged by the Russia investigation, two advisers said, frustrated by his inability to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia. He repeatedly asked aides why the Russia investigation wouldn’t disappear and demanded they speak out for him. He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe, one adviser said."

      http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/1 … sia-238192

    2. Live to Learn profile image83
      Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Good point. I suppose irritating Trump is safer than irritating the Clinton's.

  3. Will Apse profile image88
    Will Apseposted 3 months ago

    It will be a test of the US political system, Either you get a genuinely independent and powerful investigation of the Russia/Trump mess, or you are heading into tyranny.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      You think?  We had one of Clinton, found she was guilty...and failed to prosecute.  There isn't anything to find on Trump/Russia, and no one cares if his people go behind bars or not (except insofar as it might embarrass Trump, of course).  So, once more, nothing will come of it.

      1. crankalicious profile image85
        crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        "There isn't anything to find on Trump/Russia"

        You couldn't possibly know that. Seriously, if people can't at least see the potential for the puzzle pieces to fit together, then you have to be blind, which is why there needs to be an independent, non-partisan investigation. It might be all smoke, but I don't want to be told that by partisan hacks. Find somebody respected by both parties (oh wait, that was Comey) and have them lead an independent investigation.

        Michael Flynn was compromised by the Russians. Donald Trump and his administration was told about this and they chose not to do anything about it. That alone, is reason for serious concern.

        Nixon did something similar to this when he dismissed those investigating Watergate. That lead to his eventual impeachment. When a President fires the guy leading an investigation of him something is very suspicious.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          The comment was an investigation involving the Russia/Trump mess.  STRONGLY insinuating there are links between Trump and Russia, and I find dozens if not hundreds of comments about the "connections" between Trump and Russia.  Have you indicated that those writers can't possibly know that?

          Now, we could investigate him for possible links to the pineapple mafia in Hawaii, too, but I don't think we would find much.  We could investigate him for running a child pron ring in Jamaica, but again we don't have much hope.  The point here is that a handful of people have made claims they can't support (Trump colluded with Russia) and so we must spend millions of $$ investigating it.  I disagree, and I'm already sick of sore losers endlessly searching for something, anything, that Trump has done wrong.  We as a country have better things to do than simply vilify anyone that doesn't share our political posture.

          1. crankalicious profile image85
            crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            When the director of the FBI and the former director of National Intelligence and the former acting Attorney General all say there's evidence of contact between Trump officials and the Russians and when the Trump people consistently make statements that are then directly contradicted by those same people, it seems worth looking into.

            I agree that many people are acting like sore losers, but this is about protecting the integrity of our country. Even if Trump is impeached, Mike Pence takes over and that hardly seems like a win for those sore losers.

            1. promisem profile image95
              promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              I favored Kasich or Romney for the White House. But I'll take a hard-right conservative like Mike Pence any day over a mentally unstable sociopath like Trump.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Tch tch.  Name calling, particularly assigning medical labels, is SO much more effective when accompanied with evidence.  Otherwise it's nothing but sour grapes and the spewing of hatred.  Don't you think?

                1. promisem profile image95
                  promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Not at all. It's a perfectly accurate description backed up by plenty of evidence. Do you really want to go through the entire laundry list including videos of his comments and behavior?

                  I'm sure psychiatrists who have commented on his behavior are wrong and you are right.

                  http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style … 54691.html

                  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic … -1.2957688

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    You're correct: the so-called "psychiatrists" that have commented are wrong.  They are wrong because their oath prohibits such comments.  They are wrong because they have never examined Trump.  They do not deserve the label of "psychiatrist", only "quack".  They are despicable examples of politics gone wrong and worse examples of the medical profession.

                2. promisem profile image95
                  promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Part 2: You are confusing hatred with contempt. You also are overlooking that people like me believe in the Constitution and will fight to protect it.

                  Our opponents only believe in the 2nd Amendment.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    Hmm.  Fighting for the constitution involves name calling?  It involves making public medical diagnosis without examination and without expertise?  How odd!

                    Why don't you provide information that Trump has violated the constitution rather than making faux diagnosis?

              2. dianetrotter profile image80
                dianetrotterposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                I was for Pence taking over also.  Now it looks like he knowingly participated in the "lie!" about Comey.  I sent him a tweet telling him he should not be standing up for Christian principles he touted during campaign.  Thou shalt not tell a lie!

            2. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              I'm sorry, but most of the people on the Hill have had "contact" with Russians. So have most leaders of giant businesses.  Shall we investigate them all or is it only Trump where 'contact" morphs into "collusion"?  On a side note, I see Trump is meeting with a Russian, Sergey Lavrov, - should we have a FBI attend the meeting to assure there is no "collusion" or nefarious deeds committed?  That seems to be the thrust here - any meeting with any Russian is bad...

              Sorry again, but our country has no integrity.  It's leaders are idiots, interested only in themselves and it's borders are as porous as swiss cheese.  As a constitutional republic, a nation of laws, it is a dismal failure as we no longer even attempt to enforce those laws unless it's politically expedient to do so.

              Only the individual citizens have any integrity at all, and after the last few months I being to doubt even that.

              1. promisem profile image95
                promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Redirections galore.

                Actually, plenty of people in this country have integrity. But not in the White House or among the zealots who voted for him.

                Love it or leave it.  smile

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  I used to agree with you.  Until I saw millions unwilling to abide by a country wide vote.  Until I saw thousands telling lies designed solely to vilify their president.   Until I saw more thousands ignoring the rights of others to jump on a perceived bandwagon to spread violence and hatred. 

                  Like those that declare anyone voting for their political opponent is a zealot and has no integrity.  It is (sadly) true that name calling convinces too many people that what is said is actually true, but not among those with integrity.  And those with integrity do not resort to such ridiculous practices, either.

                  1. promisem profile image95
                    promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    Really? Did we start a civil war? Did we not post links to news stories about FBI, NSA and CIA investigations? Did we march on Washington with our AK47s?

                    A zealot is any person from any political affiliation -- left or right -- who refuses the truth, attacks anyone who thinks differently than them and insists on supporting an unethical and mentally unstable politician of either party.

                    For them, the disrespect is well deserved.

              2. Marisa Wright profile image93
                Marisa Wrightposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Whether or not Trump is guilty is completely irrelevant, Wilderness.

                The point is that Trump fired this guy in the middle of an investigation which has been legally and legitimately entered into.  Having started that investigation, the FBI has to complete it.  The President does NOT get to fire their boss just because he doesn't like the investigation.  He has to let  it run its course.

                1. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Hello Marissa, I get the point of your comment, and it is also the main point of all the talking heads too.

                  And it is possible that squashing the investigation was motivating the decision to fire him, but...

                  ... I also heard a couple other perspectives to that point. One was that Director Comey wasn't doing the investigation, his FBI was, so his firing doesn't automatically mean the investigation is killed. Only the new director can do that. If he does, then there may be validity for your point.

                  Also, what about all the other currently on-going FBI investigations - Mr. Comey was head of those too, are they now quashed?

                  I am not defending Pres. Trump's action. Nor am I attributing to it the motives of Nixon's firing of that Special Prosecutor - which is what you, and most of the pundits are doing.

                  Will you retain confidence in your current perspective if a new Director picks up where Comey left off - and continues the investigation

                  GA

      2. Will Apse profile image88
        Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        She was found to be 'guilty' of carelessness/poor procedure not potentially being compromised by a hostile foreign power.

        This all comes back to scrutiny.

        Trump wants blinkers on the entire nation. Why?

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          She was found guilty of putting official government correspondence on a private server - something against the rules.  She was also found guilty of putting secret information on those same servers, which is against the law.  And finally she was found guilty of using non-secured devices for government correspondence in areas known for hacking.  So we ignored it all, concentrating desperately on trying to find something, anything, that Trump has done wrong.  Why?  (Yes, I know the answer was that we've never prosecuted for that crime, but that was an outright lie).

          (As usual you are applying intent when there is no evidence of any, and after being given a perfectly plausible reason for what he's done.  Why?)

          1. Will Apse profile image88
            Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            This is a very thin smokescreen for obscuring the interference in the Trump/Russia investigation.

            It simply won't work. There are plenty of conservatives in America who put the democratic process, truth and their country before partisan politics. They are the ones who will eventually get to the bottom of this mess.

            Trump is just not clever enough to avoid the steam roller heading his way.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              No, it's pointing out that the only thing that could happen is that Trump suffers a small amount of embarrassment for a short time.  And loses some of his inner circle, to be replaced with another.

          2. crankalicious profile image85
            crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Found guilty by whom?

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              The FBI.  It was they who produced the evidence and gave it to Congress.  Remember when that was done, and the evidence showed that Clinton had lied to Congress (just as her husband did), along with using private servers for official and secret govt. emails?  Remember that?

              1. crankalicious profile image85
                crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Interesting that the FBI, under Comey, investigated that case and proved guilt, but the investigation into Trump's team is a not worth investigating even though the FBI has said the Russians meddled in the election.

                And the evidence showed carelessness, not proof of guilt for intentionally hiding anything. Remember the whole question about the fact that the emails weren't labelled "classified" in the header? They did not prosecute any case.

                The only place where Hillary was proven guilty was in the court of public opinion and the right-wing media. Why isn't Trump pursuing a case against her? He's got everything he needs now.

          3. promisem profile image95
            promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            I don't believe people are automatically sent to jail for "breaking the rules".

    2. promisem profile image95
      promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      I suspect it comes down to what the Republicans in Congress do because they control both houses. If they continue to look the other way, the future is scary.

      1. MizBejabbers profile image88
        MizBejabbersposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        That's the best comment I've seen so far.

      2. Live to Learn profile image83
        Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Not necessarily. The democrats consistently looked the other way with Hillary, the DNC rigged the primaries and the White House probably shared inform on Trump, gleaned from sitting, with the Hillary campaign. Our democracy survived that. If Trump is in illegal territory it will come out and we'll survive the fall out.

        1. MizBejabbers profile image88
          MizBejabbersposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          You have proof from a reliable source that the DNC rigged the primaries, etc.? Who are "we", the Republicans or the U.S. Republicans do have a tendency to speak in ambiguity and fake news.

          1. Live to Learn profile image83
            Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            'We' refers to we, the people. And we all know what the brass at the DNC did. Well, we who aren't blinded by party affiliation.

            1. MizBejabbers profile image88
              MizBejabbersposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              "...aren't blinded by party affiliation." Well said for an ultra conservative.

              1. Live to Learn profile image83
                Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Lord have mercy. If I'm an ultra conservative am I to assume you are a monkey's uncle?

        2. promisem profile image95
          promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Help me understand your first comment. If the Dems are in the minority in both bodies, especially the House that is crucial to impeachment, how can they wield as much power in this as the Repubs?

          1. Live to Learn profile image83
            Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Because if Trump is guilty of an impeachable offense he will be impeached. Do you think if the American public is made privy to evidence clearly showing him to be guilty that they would stand quietly while it was shoved under the rug? If he is guilty he will be held accountable.

            1. promisem profile image95
              promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              If the evidence is clear and compelling, then yes. But I suspect you will agree that politicians on both sides have become very good at muddying everything.

              1. Live to Learn profile image83
                Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Yes, they do muddy the waters pretty well.

  4. abwilliams profile image83
    abwilliamsposted 3 months ago

    There wasn't a lot of confidence left in Comey, not from the Dems, not from the Reps and not from the People. It was past time for him to move on.

    1. promisem profile image95
      promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Should Trump stop the FBI investigation?

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Did he stop the investigation?

        GA

        1. promisem profile image95
          promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          That's not what I asked. Do you mind staying on topic? smile

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Oops...

            GA

 
working