Trump Just Fired FBI Director James Comey

Comments

1
No chance he nominates Christie, he's having too much fun ghosting him.
2
It will no doubt be some general. The cabinet is already basically a junta.
4

Comey was just bragging recently that we were stuck with him for the next few years til the end of his term, so he must be gobsmacked by this.

If a hard drive packed with damning evidence against President Rapist mysteriously appeared at The Washington Post, I wouldn’t pout.
5
@2 Gorka FTW
6
@ 3,

Ivanka, Sarah Palin, Roy Moore, and Strom Thurmond's zombie corpse are also strong contenders.

Which despicable shit-for-brains will win the challenge round?
7
Christie is on the outs with Jared because he was part of a team that sent his daddy to jail, so that's out. But Rudy might be just what the junta ordered.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/16/politics/t…
8
@ 5,

Can an immigrant, racist, neo-Nazi become FBI Director? Oh damn, we're not gonna like the answer.
9
Man, shoes just keep dropping, don''t they. Like some sort of weird . . many-footed ethereal beast . . . from beyond . . . bigger’n a barn . . . all made o’ squirmin’ ropes . . . hull thing sort o’ shaped like a hen’s egg bigger’n anything, with dozens o’ legs like hogsheads that haff shut up when they step . . . nothin’ solid abaout it—all like jelly, an’ made o’ sep’rit wrigglin’ ropes pushed clost together . . . great bulgin’ eyes all over it . . . ten or twenty maouths or trunks a-stickin’ aout all along the sides, big as stovepipes, an’ all a-tossin’ an’ openin’ an’ shuttin’ . . . all grey, with kinder blue or purple rings . . . an’ Gawd in heaven—that haff face on top! . . .
10
@9,

For FBI director? Seems like a pretty logical choice.
11
@9:

Sure, sounds suitably chthonic. But, my money would be on either David Clarke or Joe Arpaio, although even they would be a stretch since both have actual law enforcement experience, and therefore might be over-qualified...
12
None of the above. It'll be Inspector Lew Erskine. Or the winner of Donaldo's new reality TV show.
13
authoritarians consolidate their authority whenever possible. loyalty to the leader is paramount.

i wouldn't be surprised to see HRC arrested within the year. then we'll know we're in the shit.
14
Ed Murray.
15
@13
She should have contingency plans to leave USA
16
No Jack Bauer on the list? He seems like just the sort of guy Trump would like to see in that role, and he's even worked with the FBI!
17
Glad Eli thinks it all so cute.
18
The grossly inept RepubliKKKans have SO much to hide, don't they? Oooooh, they're scared, now! Fuck 'em.

I quote the late, great gentleman Gene Wilder (as Willy Wonka): "The suspense is killing me. I hope it'll last."
20
There's little chance Trump would pick Rudy. There's only room for one major egomaniac in the Trump Administration. Rudy may act loyal, but given a chance, Trump knows he'd happily not only stab him in the back, but decapitate him for the pure glory of it.
21
Trump (republican) gets to select new FBI director but Senate (republican) has to confirm. Special prosecutor can only be appointed by AG (republican) or congress (both houses republican).

Fuck America. Fuck this country. I wish I could easily reject my American citizenship and be a citizen of any other real country.
22
Joan Crawford's corpse
23
The statute that gave congress the authority to appoint a special prosecutor expired in 1999. Resurrecting it would not be easy. We all make mistakes, as the article did in this case.

But I, like commenter 17, am also disappointed in The Stranger for turning a lead story with the profound implications of this one into a faux jivey chucklehead celebrity poll.
24
@23

Yep.
25
@23 - Yes, good point. And I had played right along.
26
@19 if that is true, we're fucked.
27
@15: I guarantee you the Clinton Clan has had contingency plans to flee to US for years now. The left is required to pretend they are squeaky clean, but they are most assuredly not.

As James Comey can attest, most recently.
28
So...Trump did what Hillary most certainly would have done had she won the election?
29
No choice for Matlock? He's old enough.
31
@30: So the FBI did not state plainly that they found evidence Clinton and her state department broke the law when it came to handling classified data, and that others had faced prosecution for similar actions?

You should probably contact the FBI and let them know that hey have a several errors on their website then:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-…

I am not talking about Vince Foster bullshit here, but I am sure you stupidly assumed I was, in your rush to white knight for the rich and powerful. Isn't it sad that people like you have to do so since the Democratic party has literally nobody now that the Clintons are done?
32
@31:

Right, because the Clintons and only the Clintons comprise the core of the Democratic Party. Liberal Dems like Kamala Harris of CA, Chris Van Hollen (MD), Ed Markey (MA), who are all ranked above even Elizabeth Warren by progressive organizations, are literal nobodies. Then there's Mazie Hirono (HI), Corey Booker (NJ), Tammy Baldwin (WI), Jack Reed (RI), and Al Franken (MN) (it's worth noting that ALL the above are rated as more liberal than even your be knighted Bernie Sanders) - and that's just on the Senate side, and doesn't include the baker's dozen of Democrats in the House who similarly have higher progressive ratings than Sanders. And of course we won't mention the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest membership organization within the Democratic Congressional Caucus (DCC), made up of some 75 liberal Democrats who collectively work to advance liberal, progressive issues.

But yeah, you're clearly, indisputably correct: the Democratic Party has LITERALLY NOBODY...
33
@32: Did you honestly think I meant that that the Dems literally had no members left in congress? Damn, I really hope not.

What I mean to say is, who is the face, the leadership, and the future of the party? You have about two people on that list that people have heard of, one of whom is more famous for comedy, and the other is in the doghouse for selling out to big pharma.

This is like stating that the Browns finally have a franchise QB just because there are three guys on the bench who happen to play the position. I am not talking about some kind of "progressive score" here, I am talking about actually winning elections. But I understand if the Democratic party has forgotten that you are supposed to do that, and instead is focusing on some kind of bullshit "points."

Also, who the hell mentioned Sanders, and why is he "mine?" Sanders is not even a democrat. Pay attention.
34
He wont fill the position. How better to paralyze the agency? It doesent require the senate to confirm anyone or him to do anything. Easiest solution for him.
35
@33: 1) Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean others haven't, or that they won't get more coverage in the ensuing days. Everyone that we've heard of in DC started out as someone we hadn't, until something brought them to the attention of the public, after all.
2) If you literally don't want your words taken literally, maybe don't use the word literally.
36
@33:

Words have meanings. You said, "the Democratic party has literally nobody now that the Clintons are done". I simply pointed out this was not "literally" true. If you didn't intend to use the word in that context, then, you know, there are plenty of other words you could have used to more accurately convey your meaning.

As for leaders, Warren has been held up as the de facto progressive leader of the party even before Sanders decided to drop the (I) behind his name; likewise Franken, and many of the others I mentioned. Just because YOU - and presumably the proverbial "other people" for whom you have been chosen to act as collective spokesperson - have "never heard of them" doesn't mean other people haven't in point of fact heard of them. They are, after all, United States Senators, representing in many cases fairly populous regions of the nation, so it's not unreasonable to conclude that several tens of millions of people have in fact heard of them, hence their being elected to their positions in the first place.
37
@31, "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

The FBI was unable to find evidence that Clinton intentionally purged emails or leaked classified information, and ^stated plainly^ that they found no precedent for issuing charges based on similar investigations in the past. The only thing that is even remotely relevant about this statement from July of last hear is that it's what Trump is citing now - in May 2017 - for firing Comey, after spending months effusively praising him for his handling of Clinton's stupid email investigation. But private servers are table scraps compared to what the Trump team is being investigated for right now, and we all know that is exactly why he just fired Comey.
38
@31 et. al. -- If Ted "Backpfeifengesicht" Cruz can come from 'nowhere' to become a household name via the power of Cambridge Analytica's media strategy, as Alexander Nix stated, then literally any politician with enough bux$ can do the same. And because this is US politics, inevitably someone will make that move.

Although, given the short-sightedness of the Dems over the past 12+ months I don't have a huge amount of confidence in their decisions on these matters. To say nothing of the huge wall of gerrymandered-in-favor-of-the-GOP districts around the country that they'd need to fix.

It still sickens me that we only have "two" parties. Fucking B.S.

TweedleDem and TweedleDumbo.
39
@35. 36, Man, you guys are a trip. No one is so dumb to think that I meant there are no Democrats left on Earth, or that no one person on Earth had heard of any of these people. Have you never talked to humans before? Why pretend to be so dumb? Very odd behavior. But to focus 100% on such a benign turn of phrase tells me you have no real argument.

@37: I was referencing the handling of classified information, not the purging of evidence, which is a separate issue, which I am assuming you are intentionally misconstruing, based on your ignoring the multiple paragraphs in the link that stated many times exactly how many classified documents were mishandled. Intent does not matter when it comes to the handling of classified data. Not all crimes require intent, just like not all crimes are made into cases for various reasons. They should not have brought a case. The DC elite never pay for anything, so why waste the time just to piss off the person who may be the incoming boss?

@38: Two parties sucks, but no one is looking to make Ted Cruz the face or leadership of a party, nor do voters accept him as presidential material. Which is my very point.
40
@39, I'm focusing on the part where they stated plainly that they found no precedent for pressing charges based on similar cases in the past.
41
It's Gowdy, come on.
42
@39:

If you didn't mean to convey the statement "the Democratic party has literally nobody now that the Clintons are done", then why did you phrase it in such a poor manner? If you don't intend for a word you use to mean LITERALLY what it means, choose a better one - there are LITERALLY scores of them that would mean what you say you meant instead of the one you chose.
43
I suspect whatever we believe this firing was about, it's really not about that at all. We might never know the real reason behind it no matter that we think we do.

Comey looks to me like someone whose naked ambition finally overreached his grasp. His clumsy efforts to become a major power broker and king maker/breaker (maybe he aspired to be another J. Edgar) backfired.

Despite his bad acting and disingenuous comments before Congress, it's hard to see Comey's actions in regard to the Clinton e-mail investigation in any other light other than an attempt to influence the election. No matter who you supported or voted for, if you look objectively at WHAT Comey did, he engaged in election tampering.

I bet this firing is only tangentially connected to Trump and Russia, although Trump haters (and yes, I'm one of them) will try to paint it that way. But I have my doubts about that. It might well be Comey finally crossed a line his ego wouldn't allow him to see was a line too far.

My lingering question about Comey is why didn't Obama fire him? The former President was strangely reticent about Comey's obvious use of a federal investigation to manipulate a Presidential election. I’d like to know why.
44
@39 - What? I'm not proposing that TedCruz be anything; but the point that a 'nobody' can become a household name in a matter of a few months with the right media strategy, stands.

And do you think that Donald J. ⊥rump is presidential material? Do "voters" accept him as such? Amusingly, his team used Cambridge Analytica's media strategy as well...

Q.E.D.
45
@43 - That line you're talking about was likely "loyalty" to ⊥rump. Continuing an investigation against the Dear Leader, no matter how accurate or far-fetched, will obviously get you on his bad side, and he's a dealer in cold shit.
46
@27- The Clinton's aren't criminals. Bill Clinton managed to perjure himself when a neverending witchhunt managed to figure out he got a blowjob in the White House. That's it.
He tried to cover up an unseemly affair. Hillary Clinton's unethical actions regarding donations and conversations are completely legal. The DNC didn't break any laws in it's behavior towards Bernie. I'm not fond of the Clinton's, but they're squeaky legal and part of a dirty system, which is a good chunk of why the Democrats lost this past Presidential election.

But stop repeating nonsense from Brietbart.