For the record . . .

[Sope Creek]

I haven't weighed in regarding the general advisability of firing Comey largely because INRanger and others have said early on what I was thinking. For the record, though, my sense has been for some time that the guy needed to go generally because (1) his fumbling of basic facts leading to a highly misleading revelation regarding the Clinton/Abedin/Wiener emails indicated a lack of competence, (2) his public reopening of the Clinton email investigation days before the election has undercut confidence in his judgment, at least from the general perspective of Democrats, and (3) his fumbling around with a public discussion of the Clinton email decision not to forward the case to the DoJ for a professional prosecutorial decision whether to file charges has undercut the public's general confidence in Comey's ability to perform the job of FBI Director.

So Comey needed to be fired . . . either last July (which would have undercut the public's confidence in the Obama administration and potential intent to influence the election) or on the day that Trump took the oath of office.

That said, as others have indicated in other threads, the timing and purpose of Trump's decision to fire Comey clearly is the result of factors beyond those discussed above, and the evidence we - and many including Krauthammer and Kristol - have noted is that those factors center primarily on Trump's and the Trump campaign's apparent ties/potential collusion with Russia. So Comey needed to go, yes, but not solely for the personal benefit of DJT.

Thank you for your attention. Back to your regular programming.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I haven't weighed in regarding the general advisability of firing Comey largely because INRanger and others have said early on what I was thinking. For the record, though, my sense has been for some time that the guy needed to go generally because (1) his fumbling of basic facts leading to a highly misleading revelation regarding the Clinton/Abedin/Wiener emails indicated a lack of competence, (2) his public reopening of the Clinton email investigation days before the election has undercut confidence in his judgment, at least from the general perspective of Democrats, and (3) his fumbling around with a public discussion of the Clinton email decision not to forward the case to the DoJ for a professional prosecutorial decision whether to file charges has undercut the public's general confidence in Comey's ability to perform the job of FBI Director.

So Comey needed to be fired . . . either last July (which would have undercut the public's confidence in the Obama administration and potential intent to influence the election) or on the day that Trump took the oath of office.

That said, as others have indicated in other threads, the timing and purpose of Trump's decision to fire Comey clearly is the result of factors beyond those discussed above, and the evidence we - and many including Krauthammer and Kristol - have noted is that those factors center primarily on Trump's and the Trump campaign's apparent ties/potential collusion with Russia. So Comey needed to go, yes, but not solely for the personal benefit of DJT.

Thank you for your attention. Back to your regular programming.

And I largely agree with that too.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I haven't weighed in regarding the general advisability of firing Comey largely because INRanger and others have said early on what I was thinking. For the record, though, my sense has been for some time that the guy needed to go generally because (1) his fumbling of basic facts leading to a highly misleading revelation regarding the Clinton/Abedin/Wiener emails indicated a lack of competence, (2) his public reopening of the Clinton email investigation days before the election has undercut confidence in his judgment, at least from the general perspective of Democrats, and (3) his fumbling around with a public discussion of the Clinton email decision not to forward the case to the DoJ for a professional prosecutorial decision whether to file charges has undercut the public's general confidence in Comey's ability to perform the job of FBI Director.

So Comey needed to be fired . . . either last July (which would have undercut the public's confidence in the Obama administration and potential intent to influence the election) or on the day that Trump took the oath of office.

That said, as others have indicated in other threads, the timing and purpose of Trump's decision to fire Comey clearly is the result of factors beyond those discussed above, and the evidence we - and many including Krauthammer and Kristol - have noted is that those factors center primarily on Trump's and the Trump campaign's apparent ties/potential collusion with Russia. So Comey needed to go, yes, but not solely for the personal benefit of DJT.

Thank you for your attention. Back to your regular programming.

Here's the problem with that. Since Trump didn't fire Comey in the hours, or days, after his inauguration, does that mean Comey had tenure? So long as Comey could say that some aspect of the Trump administration is under investigation, Comey had job security, is that right? Moreover, the fact that the Trump administration is under a criminal investigation is fake news, but you won't know that from the media. (The FBI is conducting a counter-espionage investigation which is under separate and specific statutory authority and isn't criminal). Similarly, the reporting that Comey asked the DOJ for more resources to do the investigation turns out the be faked news. You just can't keep up with all of that.

According to much of the reporting, Comey's investigation of Russia wasn't the issue, it was that Comey couldn't keep his yap shut about it. The best FBI director is the one who is effective, but most people couldn't name him or her if they were asked. Comey definitely wasn't that person. Along those lines, how many can name the CIA director without looking it up, and he was confirmed a few weeks ago.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Here's the problem with that. Since Trump didn't fire Comey in the hours, or days, after his inauguration, does that mean Comey had tenure? So long as Comey could say that some aspect of the Trump administration is under investigation, Comey had job security, is that right? Moreover, the fact that the Trump administration is under a criminal investigation is fake news, but you won't know that from the media. (The FBI is conducting a counter-espionage investigation which is under separate and specific statutory authority and isn't criminal). Similarly, the reporting that Comey asked the DOJ for more resources to do the investigation turns out the be faked news. You just can't keep up with all of that.

According to much of the reporting, Comey's investigation of Russia wasn't the issue, it was that Comey couldn't keep his yap shut about it. The best FBI director is the one who is effective, but most people couldn't name him or her if they were asked. Comey definitely wasn't that person. Along those lines, how many can name the CIA director without looking it up, and he was confirmed a few weeks ago.

It seems most of Comey's talking came at congressional hearings. Like the one last week that supposedly angered Trump. Do you recommend the FBI director not testify before congress? How often did you see him on the talk show circuit the past few months?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It seems most of Comey's talking came at congressional hearings. Like the one last week that supposedly angered Trump. Do you recommend the FBI director not testify before congress? How often did you see him on the talk show circuit the past few months?

No I don't recommend he not testify and as far as I know he hasn't been on talk shows.

That said the reason he has been called to testify before congress is because of FBI leaks, his prior unnecessary public comments, and his running at the mouth with his prior testimony. He certainly isn't tight lipped in any sense. His faux pas about the Weiner laptop is a case in point.

 

[Fro]

My main problem is with the timing/process of the firing (which is troubling if the reporting is true) and the fact that we have no reason to trust Trump to appoint an impartial, non-partisan FBI director.

Granted Comey was put in a no-win situation with two Presidential candidates both being under investigation before an election, but he certainly didn't handle that well (and IMHO, probably swung the election to Trump).

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No I don't recommend he not testify and as far as I know he hasn't been on talk shows.

That said the reason he has been called to testify before congress is because of FBI leaks, his prior unnecessary public comments, and his running at the mouth with his prior testimony. He certainly isn't tight lipped in any sense. His faux pas about the Weiner laptop is a case in point.

I would say he answered congressional questions without concern for the optics -vbg. I do note that Trump now admits he was planning on firing Comey before the recommendation. Which now gets back to the timing issue. Comey served at the pleasure of the President, so the firing isn't a problem. But again, those optics are bad and getting worse by the hour.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I would say he answered congressional questions without concern for the optics -vbg. I do note that Trump now admits he was planning on firing Comey before the recommendation. Which now gets back to the timing issue. Comey served at the pleasure of the President, so the firing isn't a problem. But again, those optics are bad and getting worse by the hour.

I noticed that. What remains unclear to me is if Trump used the Rosenstein memo to merely provide cover, or as a means to test his intentions by somebody who knows about the law and ethics.

 

[DrHoops]

Thanks for clearing up that the Tump Campaign isn't under an FBI "Criminal" Investigation...they're only under an FBI "Counter Espianage" Investigation. That makes me feel better.

I'm trying to decide which is the better kind of FBI investigation, one for a crook or one for a spy.

Here's the problem with that. Since Trump didn't fire Comey in the hours, or days, after his inauguration, does that mean Comey had tenure? So long as Comey could say that some aspect of the Trump administration is under investigation, Comey had job security, is that right? Moreover, the fact that the Trump administration is under a criminal investigation is fake news, but you won't know that from the media. (The FBI is conducting a counter-espionage investigation which is under separate and specific statutory authority and isn't criminal). Similarly, the reporting that Comey asked the DOJ for more resources to do the investigation turns out the be faked news. You just can't keep up with all of that.

According to much of the reporting, Comey's investigation of Russia wasn't the issue, it was that Comey couldn't keep his yap shut about it. The best FBI director is the one who is effective, but most people couldn't name him or her if they were asked. Comey definitely wasn't that person. Along those lines, how many can name the CIA director without looking it up, and he was confirmed a few weeks ago.

 

[DougS]

Thanks for clearing up that the Tump Campaign isn't under an FBI "Criminal" Investigation...they're only under an FBI "Counter Espianage" Investigation. That makes me feel better.

I'm trying to decide which is the better kind of FBI investigation, one for a crook or one for a spy.

You can execute spies, can't you?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

You can execute spies, can't you?

If you can, it's generally bad practice. You don't want your own caught spies executed.

 

[DougS]

If you can, it's generally bad practice. You don't want your own caught spies executed.

I think we would be most likely to do it if they were traitorous Americans, not foreign professionals.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You can execute spies, can't you?

No you can't if they are foreigners and live in a sanctury city.

 

[Ladoga]

You can execute spies, can't you?

The last American civilians executed after conviction of espionage were Julius and Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg in June of 1953.

 

[Optimist13]

should have been Robert Hanssen but he took a plea deal

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/us/robert-hanssen-fast-facts/

I don't think that the death penalty was
ever officially sought against Jonathan Pollard