Slashdot Mirror


Trump Fires FBI Director James Comey (washingtonpost.com)

The White House said today that President Trump has fired FBI director James Comey. Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement: "President Donald J. Trump informed FBI Director James Comey that he has been terminated and removed from office. President Trump acted based on the clear recommendations of both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. 'The FBI is one of our Nation's most cherished and respected institutions and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement,' said President Trump. A search for a new permanent FBI Director will begin immediately." The Washington Post reports: Earlier in the day, the FBI notified Congress that Comey misstated key findings involving the Hillary Clinton email investigation during testimony last week, saying that only a "small number" of emails had been forwarded to disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner, not the "hundreds and thousands" he'd claimed in his testimony. The letter was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, more than a week after Comey testified for hours in defense of his handling of the Clinton probe. In defending the probe at last week's hearing, Comey offered seemingly new details to underscore the seriousness of the situation FBI agents faced last fall when they discovered thousands of Clinton aide Huma Abedin's emails on the computer of her husband, Anthony Weiner. "Somehow, her emails were being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information," Comey said, adding later, "His then-spouse Huma Abedin appears to have had a regular practice of forwarding emails to him for him I think to print out for her so she could then deliver them to the secretary of state." At another point in the testimony, Comey said Abedin "forwarded hundreds and thousands of emails, some of which contain classified information." Neither of those statements is accurate, said people close to the investigation. Tuesday's letter said "most of the emails found on Mr. Weiner's laptop computer related to the Clinton investigation occurred as a result of a backup of personal electronic devices, with a small number a result of manual forwarding by Ms. Abedin to Mr. Weiner." The letter also corrected the impression Mr. Comey's testimony had left with some listeners that 12 classified emails were among those forwarded by Abedin to Weiner.

810 comments

  1. OMFG u have got to be kidding by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, how many in the White House were under indictment for Treason, then?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, how many in the White House were under indictment for Treason, then?

      Well, I don't really know but a wild hunch tells me just one. And he sits in the Oval office. Just sayin'.

    2. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      This may be one of the only good things Trump will do.

      Comey is a real piece of shit and criminal. He belongs in prison.

    3. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, I don't really know but a wild hunch tells me just one. And he sits in the Oval office. Just sayin'.

      Bo is still in the White House? What a naughty dog!

    4. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of them? Just a lucky guess.

    5. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Comey is a real piece of shit"

      The media agreed with you all day, writing about how he mislead Congress about the Abedin/Weiner emails. Right up until he got fired, that is. Now they're all about how this is a repeat of the "Saturday Night Massacre," firing a fine upstanding law enforcement officer for doing his job.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by grcumb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Comey is a real piece of shit"

      The media agreed with you all day, writing about how he mislead Congress about the Abedin/Weiner emails. Right up until he got fired, that is. Now they're all about how this is a repeat of the "Saturday Night Massacre," firing a fine upstanding law enforcement officer for doing his job.

      OH. EM. GEE. A contradiction!!!

      My head! My poor poor head!! Someone said something to defend someone they don't like?!? I can't even

      It's almost as if their morality isn't just for themselves and their friends! How could anyone defend someone they just called an asshole? What kind of a world would we be living in if there were some sort of... GAH!... objective morality that applies to everyone equally?!?

      Oh the humanity! Next thing you know they'll be calling it justice!!

      ...
      ...
      ...

      This FBI Director has sought for years to jail me on account of my political activities. If I can oppose his firing, so can you.


      -- Edward Snowden

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    7. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Who made Snowden the Pope?
      Come to think of it, Assange is way more honorable, and credible. Didn't betray his country either.

    8. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by grcumb · · Score: 1

      Who made Snowden the Pope?

      I'm so burned I might just have to gently place my coffee cup back in its holder and say, 'ow'.

      Or not. Probably not.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    9. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by skids · · Score: 1

      The media agreed with you all day, writing about how he mislead Congress about the Abedin/Weiner emails. Right up until he got fired, that is. Now they're all about how this is a repeat of the "Saturday Night Massacre," firing a fine upstanding law enforcement officer for doing his job.

      ...and that was totally predictable. Which makes you wonder what was in the media that this a was a preferable headline in the estimation of the White House. The health care bill was that big a steaming turd, eh?

      Also, given the non-partisan role Comey was trying to play (usually better done by keeping your mouth shut whenever you have that option) it's not a matter of hypocrisy to disagree both with his actions and with the timing and offered justification of his firing, if you don't see the world in black and white. Maybe next time we can elect a president with the moral fiber to fire justice department officials without leaving the country wondering.

      Also, the media has not changed the way they are portraying Comey... been watching news all day... pretty consistently they say that he was widely respected as a nonpartisan actor up until the campaign when he made questionable decisions (questionable from both partisan perspectives), but might be still mostly neutral... but nobody can be sure. So be honest. The news covers new controversies. Big surprise.

    10. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Comey is a real piece of shit"

      The media agreed with you all day, writing about how he mislead Congress about the Abedin/Weiner emails. Right up until he got fired, that is. Now they're all about how this is a repeat of the "Saturday Night Massacre," firing a fine upstanding law enforcement officer for doing his job.

      >implies the media is one person with one opinion
      >doesn't think he's gullible

    11. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Comey is a real piece of shit"

      Now they're all about how this is a repeat of the "Saturday Night Massacre," firing a fine upstanding law enforcement officer for doing his job.

      <citation needed>

    12. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

      You're making up the part about Comey being portrayed as fine and upstanding, so there's no conflict there. The issue is that the behaviour he's supposedly being fired for is something that Trump had praised him for multiple times in the past.

      What made me realize that James Comey is not actually an idiot as I had suspected, but a nasty crooked partisan operative, is that he felt compelled to reveal the fine details of the re-opening of the investigation into Hillary's emails...but did not feel compelled to make a peep about the FBI's investigation into the links between Russia and the Trump campaign which was happening at the same time.

      At this point I wouldn't even be surprised if Comey was hampering the Russia investigation, firing him may have the opposite effect that Trump wanted.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      this is a repeat of the "Saturday Night Massacre"

      It sure is, and unlike Nixon, Trump will go out in handcuffs because he is actually a traitor. As opposed to Nixon, who merely aspired to be.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    14. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Assange only raped some women and welshed on his deal to turn himself in when Bradley Manning is released in 8 more days.

      All Snowden did was selflessly and patriotically provide proof to the citizens of the United States that the US government was illegally spying on them and allied countries. That's not important at all...

      Yeah, Assange is TOTALLY more credible.

    15. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Beau1080p · · Score: 5, Interesting

      FBI Directors are traditionally non-partisan, and serve a 10 year term that is not at the pleasure of the President, unlike political appointees. This isn't to say that the President doesn't have the power to fire the Director, but it hasn't been done before, and would be a very unusual step. The question then is what is the cited reason for it, because given the current situation and ongoing investigations, it's really really suspicious, on par with the Watergate "midnight massacre" where Nixon fired both the Attorney General and the Deputy AG before getting to someone that would agree to fire the Special Prosecutor that was investigating Watergate.

      In other words, it had better be a really darn good reason.

    16. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by msauve · · Score: 1

      You're younger than the Nixon years, aren't you?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    17. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Informative

      [...] but it hasn't been done before, and would be a very unusual step.

      Bill Clinton fired an Attorney General William Sessions but that guy was under investigation for ethical issues that made his firing a foregone conclusion. The attorney general that came after him was the one who appointed the Whitewater special prosecutor that caused Clinton all kinds of trouble.

    18. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Snowden didn't betray anyone, the government betrayed the people.

    19. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      In exactly what way was Nixon a traitor, as opposed to a power mad egomaniac?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    20. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by haruchai · · Score: 1

      In exactly what way was Nixon a traitor, as opposed to a power mad egomaniac?

      This is how: https://www.commondreams.org/v...

      This has been known / suspected for a long time but not confirmed until relatively recently. LBJ decided to not reveal because he learned about it by illegal means

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    21. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      There is somewhat of a conflict here. Not necessarily a logical one, but it muddies the waters. Because so many put the blame on Comey, it's harder to say that Comey's actions are not worth firing him over. Trump is able to exploit the mixed messaging because the Dems can't admit that Clinton lost because she ran a horrible campaign and nobody wants establishment GOP-lite.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    22. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What a stupid comparison. Both Assange and Snowden are more credible than anybody holding office in Washington DC.

      Why counterpoise the two of them in anyway or fashion?

    23. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 0

      Nice 'View for the Progressive Community' website there.

      You couldn't find a Mother Jones article to link to instead??

    24. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      You realize that he was demonstrating incompetence long before Trump took office right?

    25. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why counterpoise the two of them in anyway or fashion?

      You are an idiot. Try learning how to read the thread.

    26. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Nice 'View for the Progressive Community' website there.

      You couldn't find a Mother Jones article to link to instead??

      Do you require one from the National Review?
      NYT, WaPo and other mainstream sites are typically not allowing you to read full articles without a sub or require you to whitelist them in your adblocker

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    27. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

      Are you going to post anything substantive, asshole?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    28. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which women did he rape?
      Or is that what the American Government told you in order to extradite him?

      Last I heard Bill Clinton raped some women too, how's his trial going?
      Or is being a democrat a free pass now?

    29. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      An investigation isn't going to find anything wrong that Trump did.

      Do you have any justification for the claim? Or is this another example of truthiness?

    30. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh no. There never was any evidence of wrongdoing by Clinton or anyone close to her on Benghazi. The same cannot be said with Trump and Russian interference.

      BTW, Trump advisers say Comey was fired because of Russia investigation.

    31. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Didn't Hillary just blame Comey for losing? The FBI director isn't supposed to play kingmaker in DC.

    32. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The good news is CNN are even dumber than I thought. Even the foolhardy wont rush to drink that kool-ade. Tbey might stop and think

    33. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by DrXym · · Score: 0
      Assange isn't honorable or credible. He got his buddies to stump up his bail while on extradition charges and rape and then high tailed it to the Ecuadorian embassy.

      Wikileaks might have started with naive but good intentions but now it's a Russian front. And Assange is their stooge.

      One other oddity is that Assange was recently paid a visit by Nigel Farage, ex-leader of UKIP and Donald Trump lickspittle. Farage "couldn't remember" why he was in the embassy for an hour or who he saw. It's hard to think of many reasons that don't raise far more questions than they answer.

    34. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by DrXym · · Score: 0

      Snowden is such a patriot that he's skulking in Russia after giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

    35. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      answer the question maybe??

    36. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Thats because NYT WaPo CNN FoxNews all spread bullshit. just like the one youre linking to. any purely political news sites are going to be poisoned by bias. dont trust them.and even some that arent purely political news sites have the same thing going on. take slashdot for instance.

    37. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Plenty apparently, otherwise Trump would not have resorted to this Nixonian coverup attempt. Trump is an inept looser! Which even more inept looser voted that idiot into office? Please step forward!

    38. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by butzwonker · · Score: 2

      Couldn't he just pardon himself, though? Technically, I believe he could but I'm not an expert on US constitutional law.

    39. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by LowTechSwede · · Score: 1

      Comparing Snowden to the pope is grossly unfair to Snowden.

    40. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm watching US congressional hearings as a past-time, even though I am no US citizen and believe that some of senators I've seen in the hearings are literally retarded, and judging from his questioning believe that he's neither an idiot nor a nasty crooked partisan operative. It's pretty clear to anyone who followed the case closely that he made a serious mistake in judgment, and that's it.

      There is no conspiracy either way, and it's obvious that Trump primarily fired him because of the ongoing investigation. If he managed to control the FBI by appointing a loyal lackey, that would be rather bad for the US, but I seriously doubt this is possible at all. All in all this case is blown totally out of proportion like almost everything in current US politics, no conspiracy anywhere, Trump doesn't think much and tries to run the government like the mediocre CEO that he is, which is not how politics works.

    41. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowhere in that article does it mention that Trump advisers said that. There is only one paragraph where the author of the article says that, and the reader should assume it is made up by the author.

    42. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by butzwonker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not what's going on - maybe you know that and try to make a partisan statement. It's indeed unlikely that any substantial evidence against him could arise from the Russia link issue, but that's not the reason why Trump worries about it. He's a pathological narcissist who truly wants to be loved by everyone, and this probe continues to cast a bad light on him. He absolutely cannot stand this, he's the most thinly skinned person I've ever seen in public life and, judging from his performance so far, only knows two reactions to critique: Either he tries to make friends with his critique on a personal basis to make the critique go away, or he responds with extreme, often irrational and out of proportion aggression.

      That's the reason why he fired Comey, he wants this probe to stop because it bothers him personally. Trump's hidden weakness and insecurity is also the reason why he likes strong, authoritarian personalities and the military so much and attempts to portray himself as a 'strong man' at every possible occasion.

      Don't get me wrong, I believe that Trump is after all a nice guy with overall good intentions. But his ego gets way to much in his own way. That's no problem when you're a billionaire and run your own company, but in politics both conflicts and compromises are unavoidable.

    43. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The FBI director isn't supposed to play kingmaker in DC.

      Seems like Trump is firing the FBI director not for playing kingmaker but not for backing up Trump's false accusation that Obama wiretapping him.

    44. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by guruevi · · Score: 2

      CNN and NYT op-eds have been calling for Comey's head since before the elections.

      They got it, this won't affect any investigations because Comey is not the one doing any investigations - that's just a red herring. It would be great news for drug dealers everywhere - FBI head fired, all investigations cancelled until we find a new FBI agent to do them.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    45. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I'm not a constitutional lawyer (or a lawyer at all) but I seem to remember someone saying that a sitting president can't pardon himself, because the president is not eligible to receive a pardon until after he leaves office. So to be pardoned for a crime, Trump would have to step down as president and his successor, presumably Mike Pence, would have to pardon him. However, I think Mike Pence might have reasons to not pardon Trump.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    46. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An investigation isn't going to find anything wrong that Trump did.

      Do you have any justification for the claim? Or is this another example of truthiness?

      "Truthiness"? This is the Trump Era. We deal in (alternative) Facts!

    47. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by lordmage · · Score: 1

      To underscore this is a reference:

      http://www.latimes.com/politic...

      --
      I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
    48. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that is why Ford pardoned Nixon once he stepped down

    49. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by tbannist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because so many put the blame on Comey, it's harder to say that Comey's actions are not worth firing him over.

      His actions were worth firing him over, but the time for that firing was January, not May, and the justification for that firing runs counter to what Trump has repeatedly said previously. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills knows that the justification for firing Comey is a lie. So the question is why is he really being fired, right now?

      Trump is able to exploit the mixed messaging because the Dems can't admit that Clinton lost because she ran a horrible campaign and nobody wants establishment GOP-lite.

      You conveniently forget that she actually won the popular vote, so considerably more people wanted her than wanted Trump. She may have run a horrible campaign, but I couldn't really tell you because I can't actually recall any coverage during the election of Hillary Clinton's actual campaign. Furthermore, even if she had run a horrible campaign, it doesn't change the fact the margin of victory for Trump was so small that both Comey's actions and interference from Russian operatives were, each and independently, enough to change the result of the election. There are a lot of different reasons why the election turned out the way it did, focusing on one reason to the exclusion of all others is myopic no matter who does it.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    50. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by tbannist · · Score: 1

      As far as I understand it, Nixon sabotaged the 1968 Vietnam peace talks because a peaceful resolution would have benefited his opponent.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    51. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Don't look back on the thread, fool. Just say " thank you, may I have another!"

    52. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then, cite this evidence.

    53. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does that mean he loosens things, or that you are an inept loser who can't spell for shit?

    54. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a load of shit that J Edgar Hooverites would have you believe.

      The FBI director serves at the pleasure of the president, period. The "10 year tenure" is pure fantasy.

      As if your type gave a fuck about american "tradition", even if it was one.

      FBI Directors are also "traditionally" from law enforcement, and not just political hack, but you weren't worried about that

      He was fired for the best and most obvious reason of all: incompetence

    55. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      judging from his questioning believe that he's neither an idiot nor a nasty crooked partisan operative. It's pretty clear to anyone who followed the case closely that he made a serious mistake in judgment, and that's it.

      Maybe, but this is one of those situations where sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    56. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      msuave answered a question with a question.. perhaps your ire should be placed on him

    57. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everyone says something you dont like, that doesnt mean its fake news, it means your confirmation bias is holding you back champ.

    58. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      False? They admitted that they tapped him. Whether Obama wrote out a direct order for it or not isn't really important, it happened under him and it's hard to believe it was accidental.

      The Russia thing was partisan political nonsense from the beginning. We saw the very start of it in the Wikileaks emails. It got fed by loads of nonsensical stories, like the Russian bank that a third-party marketing site was making DNS requests for. Another item that shows wiretapping, BTW. You'd think they'd have realized that Trump had nothing to do with it and that it was due to Russian spam, though.

    59. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      "Trump is just a dumb loser! Yeah, that's it! Give me anudder beer!"

    60. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      ...did you just straight up copy Fire_Wraith's comment?

      https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    61. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Whether Obama wrote out a direct order for it or not isn't really important, it happened under him and it's hard to believe it was accidental.

      It was incidental. Obama officials didn't force Trump staffers to call the Russian embassy to get recorded by the intelligence community. Anyone who calls the Russian embassy or has contact with an overseas official will get recorded by the intelligence community. For most people, this isn't a big deal. But General Flynn was a very big deal.

      The Russia thing was partisan political nonsense from the beginning.

      Remember that Nixon resigned after the lost support from 75% of Congressional Republicans. It won't be long before Pence gets sworn in as POTUS.

    62. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Nixon sabotaged the 1968 Vietnam peace talks because a peaceful resolution would have benefited his opponent.

      That makes Nixon an authoritarian abuser (worthy of impeachment) not a traitor (even more worthy of impeachment.)

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    63. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by Altus · · Score: 1

      But his replacement will be in charge of those investigations and who appoints his replacement again?

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    64. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by jbwolfe · · Score: 1

      It would certainly appear so- complete copy/paste.

      --
      Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
    65. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by whitroth · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. He wasn't quashing the investigation into Trump's huuuugggeee monetary links to Russia, and the treasonous coordination between his campaign and Russia.

      Tricky Dick tried something like this, too... the Saturday Night Massacre.

    66. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Oh for fuck's sake. Trump's "fake news" (what used to be called propaganda") has really poisoned weak minds.
      What it's come down to is that there are no unbiased sites; only ones you agree with or don't.
      Which plays very nicely into Mango Mussolini's hands.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    67. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      If there is any evidence, why would firing Comey even slow down the investigation?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    68. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by tbannist · · Score: 1

      According to the law:

      "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

      I suppose it depends on whether you think colluding with the North Vietnamese to prolong the war meets the definition of "giving them aid and comfort".

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    69. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills knows that the justification for firing Comey is a lie.

      True, but that metric eliminates a LOT of the voting public and virtually ALL of our politicians.

      You conveniently forget that she actually won the popular vote, so considerably more people wanted her than wanted Trump.

      Yeah, but Trump would have lost the popular vote to a wider margin to lice, had lice secured the Dem nomination.

      There are a lot of different reasons why the election turned out the way it did, focusing on one reason to the exclusion of all others is myopic no matter who does it.

      I'm focusing on the one that made the others matter. It takes EPIC failure to not beat Trump by 10 points.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    70. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by torkus · · Score: 1

      You conveniently forget that she actually won the popular vote, so considerably more people wanted her than wanted Trump. She may have run a horrible campaign, but I couldn't really tell you because I can't actually recall any coverage during the election of Hillary Clinton's actual campaign. Furthermore, even if she had run a horrible campaign, it doesn't change the fact the margin of victory for Trump was so small that both Comey's actions and interference from Russian operatives were, each and independently, enough to change the result of the election. There are a lot of different reasons why the election turned out the way it did, focusing on one reason to the exclusion of all others is myopic no matter who does it.

      That old gag...it amazes me that people are still fixated on the popular vote like it actually indicates something meaningful. Since individual votes don't matter and voter turn-out was only about 55% of the overall population, using that as some way to just who "really" won is disingenuous at best and outright stupid if you're even pretending to be objective. Change the law and let candidates go by popular vote, but expect a very different election process.

      The rest of your statement is pure conjecture or just nonsensical except the very last bit. Trump won 304 to 227 on electoral votes which are the only ones that count. That's hardly a small margin of victory.

      Yes, it's certainly myopic to think one reason changed the election. Overall, Trump connected with more people, while Clinton connected with more ideology ... ideology that not everyone subscribes to as strongly in reality as they claim in public. So yes, the "right" message that clinton gave was still the wrong one.

      This chart is hugely telling of just how badly Clinton missed the mark. Popular vote or not.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    71. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by torkus · · Score: 1

      The pros and cons of trump aside, if you don't think there's a huge amount of politics in being a billionaire businessman and running all those businesses you're sadly misinformed.

      He certainly has a different style of politics compared to what we most often see today. Considering most people don't approve of the way politicians behave today in general...maybe change is good even if it's different/scary/uncomfortable.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    72. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      That almost makes sense, except that it is an exaggeration to say that Nixon colluded with Hanoi. Prolonged the war, yes, but not by colluding. (Unless you have your own private definition of collusion, in which case, suit yourself.)

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    73. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      That old gag...it amazes me that people are still fixated on the popular vote like it actually indicates something meaningful. Since individual votes don't matter and voter turn-out was only about 55% of the overall population, using that as some way to just who "really" won is disingenuous at best and outright stupid if you're even pretending to be objective.

      Actually, poster said:

      You conveniently forget that she actually won the popular vote, so considerably more people wanted her than wanted Trump.

      Which is 100% accurate, not in any way trying to spin some kind of political meaning to that fact, and relevant in its own right.

      Fact is, you're just a fucktard trying to spin an argument you can't win away from its facts.

    74. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Chilling effect. It's real. Not saying it's guaranteed to apply here, but it's perfectly reasonable to consider that it might.

      Someone's got to do the investigating. Someone has been (at least generally perceived to have been) fired because of that investigation. Do you want to stand up for your ideals, or feed your 3 year old daughter?

      I am not saying that *is* the case here. But it *is* plausible, and it's not a conspiracy theory.
      Also not to equate this with the Saturday Night Massacre as has been done ad nauseum, but that is a perfect example of an attempt at apply a chilling effect to an investigation.

    75. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by guruevi · · Score: 1

      So what? Again, at what point does any organization stop operating because a manager gets fired? And even if the new guy stops an (at this point imaginary) investigation, you don't think there are plenty of people up and down the chain that will have some beef with that and leak it?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    76. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Christ, that's ignorant. I wish it were a capital crime to misuse the word 'traitor' while slandering someone.

      Nixon was a crook, no doubt about it. But a traitor to his country? Fuck you, both your literally, and my literally.

    77. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      If that is true, which isn't even relevant, and certainly not difficult to believe, it still doesn't make him a traitor. I think you're a traitor for treasonously misusing the word traitor.
      Violating the Logan Act makes you shady. Not a traitor to your fucking country.

    78. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      That makes him a violator of the Logan Act, not a fucking traitor.
      Now if he had opened the doors to a Vietnamese invasion of the United States, or turned coat on the battlefield to command Vietnamese Armies against the US, we could talk treason. But he didn't do that. Instead, he broke rules to get ahead politically... which is kind of what he was known for. Makes him a shitty and shady politician. Doesn't make him someone who was hellbent on seeing the fall of the United States.

    79. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Except where the part where you invented yet another charge. Collusion? Aligned interests is not collusion. If they were, we wouldn't be investigating Trump right now, we would be arranging the firing squad.

    80. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Wow. ThE denial is strong in this one. "In his letter dismissing Comey, Trump said the FBI director had given him three private assurances that he wasnâ(TM)t under investigation." Why bring this up if it isn't in response to being investigated after all?

    81. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Some more so than others. I have lost faith in humanity and honestly couldnt care less anymore. im going to continue living my life and change or try to help change what i can. but the partisan politics of the last 2 years have showed me that even know my thoughts align more with republicans. as a person i dont align with either crazier every day party. were all americans, we should act like it and not try stabbing eachother in the back at every opportune moment. Mod this post up or down or fucking delete it for all i care. but this shit is getting out of hand and we need to sit back and realize that we all live under the same roof. so if it can leak on me it can leak on you also. we need to put the biased bullshit aside and patch the fucking holes.

    82. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      You're asking an irrelevant personal question instead of making your point. And then when your supposed point is questioned, you circle back to irrelevant question. In other words, you're being a cunt. GTFO.

    83. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Not relevant? WTF?
      "Violating the Logan Act makes you shady. Not a traitor to your fucking country"

      Undermining the Commander-in-Chief in wartime is very much treason

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    84. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "but the partisan politics of the last 2 years "
      ??The last TWO years?? What about the preceding THIRTY-FIVE??

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    85. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      So, how many in the White House were under indictment for Treason, then?

      Well, when you appoint a Leninist to the Security council you kind of make your intentions pretty clear.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    86. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by walterhpdx · · Score: 1

      Remember that Nixon resigned after the lost support from 75% of Congressional Republicans. It won't be long before Pence gets sworn in as POTUS.

      If Pence isn't implicated as well...

    87. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They never admitted to taping him. What was said was that they were collecting on foreign nationals and Trump Campain campers where then heard in said collection. NOT the same.

    88. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      If Pence isn't implicated as well...

      I hope not. I believe Paul Ryan is next in succession.

    89. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where he was involuntarily stranded. Fucktard.

    90. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Undermining the Commander-in-Chief in wartime is very much treason

      No, it very much is not. You're trying to redefine what Treason is, federally, in the United States of America- which, btw, was drafted specifically to avoid some of the abuses of the word in other countries (namely, Great Britain). Fortunately, some gentlemen back in the late 1700s decided to set it in stone-

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

      Undermining the President, or the government, or anything is punishable by many other statues (with lesser burdens of proof even) but they are NOT treason.
      In the United States of America, to be a traitor, you have to collude with a declared enemy of this country. You can stretch the definition of Aid and Comfort until you're frothing at the mouth, but you'll still be wrong.

    91. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The only dem who can't admit that is Hillary Rodham Clinton and she's been getting blasted throughout even far-left publications like New Republic over that. The left in general is adamant that while Comey certainly made things worse - her campaign was terrible, she was a terrible candidate (above all - she didn't inspire or represent the base of her own party) and that she made a series of incredibly stupid blunders: like failing to campaign in the rust belt.
      Sure Russia deserves a bit of blame, Comey deserves a bit of blame but the bulk of the blame and ALL the responsibility lies with Clinton. Here's hoping that this fuckup finally gets the dems to slowly start to realize that their survival depends on actually BEING a leftwing party whom the liberal majority will bother to show up at the polls for.
      The base is energized, they want to fight back -they want to end the current republican monoparty government - all they need to do so is inspiring, leftwing, candidates who represent them.
      And Sanders/Warren (or better yet Warren/Sanders) in 2020.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    92. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      because it was almost tolerable before the last election cycle. now its downright out of hand.

    93. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      also im only 30.. so theres that

    94. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      It's worth remembering one of the few things that Trump has repeatedly said which I believe (Indeed I am utterly convinced it is the unadulterated truth): the he thinks Andrew Jackson was his favorite past president.

      Nevermind that a lot of what he thinks he knows ABOUT Jackson is plain old bullshit, I believe him when he says that Jackson is his favorite past president.

      A genocidal maniac ? Yep, Trump would LOVE to be that. The question is whether the USA will let him.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    95. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      It is accurate, but it also doesn't preclude Clinton having run a horrible campaign, which was the main point. Both Trump and Clinton were unpopular at record levels, and had Clinton not been so deeply unpopular, the potential effects of Comey would not have been able to swing the election, let alone running a candidate that wasn't under FBI investigation.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    96. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by walterhpdx · · Score: 1

      He is. And then Orrin Hatch. While I find Ryan reprehensible, it would take him out of House leadership and his flawed agenda (privatize Medicare, etc) would be on an even bigger stage for people to see. And he would end his term as 46th POTUS, handily drubbed out in 2020.

    97. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Aligned interests is not collusion.

      Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

      How does Nixon convincing the North Vietnamese to continue the Vietnam war until after the election, in order to secretly influence the results of that election, not meet the definition of collusion?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    98. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I know there are *some* who think Clinton should have won because of the popular vote. I'm not one of them. I think the poster isn't, either.
      But to act like the winner of the plurality of votes out of the majority of people who voted isn't in any way significant, particularly toward assessing what the public wanted... That's ridiculous, and a lot of people are making that claim, or trying to frame the fact that he did lose the popular vote as an attempt at saying he shouldn't have won.

      He did win. He won fair and square. Clinton lost fair and square. If you ask me, it indicates our system has a slight margin between votes and electoral weight that allows for shit to go sideways and be broken. I think it should be fixed. But I don't think Trump "stole" the election or something. He won, by the rules. But the people wanted someone else. That is a fact.

    99. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Because that's not what Nixon did.
      Nixon directed his campaign staff to speak with the South Vietnamese and convince them (or rather, play into their fear) that Johnson was going to sell them out, and to keep fighting.

      The effect may be essentially the same, but in cases of treason and use of the word collusion, actual Treason, or actual Collusion must exist. It did not in this case.
      You can say he colluded with the South Vietnamese, an not-declared non-enemy of the United States to prolong a war that the United States was involved in. And that's a terrible and shitty thing, and there are laws designed to make him account for that. But it's not Treason, and it's not collusion with an enemy of the United States.

    100. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by haruchai · · Score: 1

      also im only 30.. so theres that

      I'd already concluded that but thanks for confirming.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    101. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by haruchai · · Score: 1

      because it was almost tolerable before the last election cycle. now its downright out of hand.

      Thresholds for what is & isn't tolerable vary. What was so bad about the past 2 years that wasn't at your breaking point before?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    102. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      But to act like the winner of the plurality of votes out of the majority of people who voted isn't in any way significant, particularly toward assessing what the public wanted.

      It's significant in undermining Trump;s legitimacy and claims of anything resembling a mandate. It's not significant in validating Clinton. She won the popular vote, but not because she was popular. Both of them had an enormous chunk of their votes coming from people who wanted to keep what they perceived as the "lesser evil" out. Both of them were at record levels of unfavorable views from the public, and we had record numbers of people leaving the presidential candidate blank on their ballots. So, the thing to take away is that Trump did not win. Clinton lost.

      If you want to talk in terms of what the American people actually wanted, it could be basically surmised as taking a rocket, putting Clinton and Trump on it, sending said rocket in to the sun, and starting over with a new presidential election.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    103. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You conveniently forget that popular vote means nothing since exactly ZERO US elections were ever based on popular vote. You also forget that when they DID do a recount, they were finding votes in TRUMPs favor, not Clintons. With outright voter fraud (more votes for Clinton than total voters in some counties outside Detroit for instance). But do continue pretending the country wanted her.

    104. Re: OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a metric ton of supposition on your part and it's sad that you were voted up so high for this comment.

    105. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Well that lessened my opinion of Snowden. Its the first thing that has so far.

      Let's face it, Comey is a class A shitbag any way you want to look at him. The things he didn't do are even worse than the things he did do while he was at the FBI, and those things he did that make him unpopular are pretty heinous. If people can't agree on this now because they hate Trump that is just more thoughtless emotional partisan insanity.

      Don't fall for it. Don't participate in it. Don't be a fool.

      Comey needed to go. Hillary would have fired him months ago, Trump should have done the same, but better late than never.

      Now one can only hope that the next head of the FBI will do things like instruct their officers to listen and follow up relentlessly when they have explicitly specific leads about stateside terrorist threats passed to them by other countries and other three letter agencies. If the person doesn't meet that standard, fire them too.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    106. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Yes, the notorious rapist Assange, who is called a rapist by everyone except the people he is accused of raping.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    107. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Probably the fact that I used to be a moronic thug and didn't care. Got older and wiser over the years saw the error in my ways and changed them. As they happened it opened my eyes to the stupidity of the world.

    108. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      If you want to talk in terms of what the American people actually wanted, it could be basically surmised as taking a rocket, putting Clinton and Trump on it, sending said rocket in to the sun, and starting over with a new presidential election.

      Can't argue that one bit.

      So, the thing to take away is that Trump did not win. Clinton lost.

      Also agreed, entirely.

      It's not significant in validating Clinton.

      I can't speak for everyone, but for me... it has nothing to do with validating Clinton. I was never on Clinton's side. She was just my choice. She wouldn't be able to call me loyal. For me, pointing out that she did in fact win the largest share of votes cast does more to validate my choice. Maybe to validate the country. That at the end of the day- the largest amount of votes went to the far less fucked up choice, even though the system hoisted the one we didn't choose upon us.

      Clinton lost because of Clinton. But Trump won because our electoral system is kind of stupid, and highly outdated. It doesn't even make sense without the 3/5ths Compromise to anchor it with context anymore, given that 96% of states are winner-take-all, and thus, simply popular vote proxies with a fudge factor for state electoral weight. There is simply no good reason for an individual voting for the country's executive in some states to be worth the votes of me and 2 of my friends in my state. If we can't reform the system, then we need to add more representatives to narrow the spread in population per elector.

    109. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Tell John Dean, tell George Will, tell the NYT that they're wrong.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    110. Re:OMFG u have got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      didn't Nixon fire FBI Director Archibold Cox following the Saturday Night Massacre?

      Or am I misreading something?

  2. How's that for gratitude by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Informative

    After all it was Comey who got him elected.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:How's that for gratitude by chispito · · Score: 3, Interesting

      After all it was Comey who got him elected.

      Are you complaining because the President didn't keep him in office to return the favor? Or are you just complaining to complain?

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    2. Re:How's that for gratitude by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are you complaining because the President didn't keep him in office to return the favor? Or are you just complaining to complain?

      I, for one, made the same observation immediately. That's pretty poor payback. I don't think Comey got him elected singlehandedly, the DNC did most of it, but still

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:How's that for gratitude by Koby77 · · Score: 0

      I take it as sarcasm, considering that the lastest "Hillary lost the 2016 election because of ______" meme has been "James Comey re-opened the investigation against Hillary just days prior to the election"

      http://www.washingtontimes.com...

      So now, all of the Democrats are happy, right?

    4. Re:How's that for gratitude by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The timing seems a bit odd, doesn't it? Now that it's pretty clear that the endless attacks on Rice and Yates haven't prevented Congress from continuing to investigate the links between his campaign and Russia, it's time to start putting friendly faces in charge of the three letter agencies.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:How's that for gratitude by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Odd timing? Perhaps. But maybe -- just maybe -- Trump is a lot better at campaigning than he is at governing.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically didn't he re-close the investigation days before the election. He had reopened it in October.

    7. Re:How's that for gratitude by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      After all it was Putin who got him elected.

      FTFY

    8. Re:How's that for gratitude by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      After all it was Putin who got him elected.

      FTFY

      I, for one, (am being forced to) welcome our new Russian overlords.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    9. Re:How's that for gratitude by Koby77 · · Score: 1, Funny

      After all it was Racist-Misoginists who got him elected.

      FT-FTFY

    10. Re:How's that for gratitude by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      By giving Hillary a pass on her emails in July? Funny way of going about it.

      That aside, this is probably a correct decision on Trump's part. Comey definitely put his thumb on one side of the scale and maybe the other side (intentionally or not). He could no longer be credible as a neutral agent of the law.

    11. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh bullshit! The DNC's corruption in grooming Hillary for the presidency got him elected. The democrats deserved to lose. The are the party of gangsters.

    12. Re:How's that for gratitude by bobbied · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The timing is ODD? The whole thing is ODD if you ask me, just not in the way you are implying.

      Come on, the timing would have been "odd" regardless of when Trump did this. Of course the Democrats will decry how this is evidence of something "odd" going on that we need to investigate... Maxine Waters and Nancy will be spouting off about impeachment again because it doesn't matter what Trump does or when he does it, it's always suspicious to them..

      I think this is all odd in that Comey lased this long after inserting himself into an election twice then tried to explain away his actions by claiming he had no choice. I think it's ODD that Comey decided that no charges where appropriate for Hillary and that E-mail thing, but then again he didn't want to impact the election, then turns around and sticks his foot in it again????

      Comey did this to himself. I don't know if he was playing political games with the facts, playing one side or the other, nor do I care. What's really odd is that Trump let this circus go on as long as he did...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    13. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he just up & admitted that Clinton broke the law but he didn't charge her for all the classified data shared with her uncleared maid, Wiener and everyone else. And it's not like he sent that letter to the media, he sent it to the people in Congress overseeing things.

      But you probably think it was "just emails" and never looked into the classified stuff in there. There's a discussion of a top secret photo of North Korea in the Wikileaks dump even. Or maybe you still think the docs were "altered" even though Brazille & co. were totally busted on that one by DKIM keys pulled from Hillary's own DNS server?

    14. Re:How's that for gratitude by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      How quaint. You think Comey was fired because of the Clinton Investigation.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:How's that for gratitude by presidenteloco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He lobbed the "voter attention redirection" handgrenade 11 days before the election, which had the effect of making non-committal swing voters think "damn, the person I'm thinking of voting for is probably a criminal - the FBI is investigating her."

      From that moment to the election day, the "poll question" became "is Hillary criminal or not?" as opposed to "can we risk that Trump bozo?".

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    16. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far, the only thing that has come out is that there is no evidence of any sort of wrongdoing except for Flynn. Even the Trump-hating media are starting to move away from this story line.

    17. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFLMAO. A co-worker just said the exact same thing to me. How's that for gratitude?

    18. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep ---THEDONALD should have put-down Trotsy-bitch Ginsberg instead!

    19. Re:How's that for gratitude by Rakarra · · Score: 0

      I, for one, made the same observation immediately. That's pretty poor payback. I don't think Comey got him elected singlehandedly, the DNC did most of it, but still

      Comey got himself fired for basically, being bad at being Director of the FBI. I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier, but I would guess that Trump felt he had to dangle this idiot around a little longer until much of the Russia conversation passed, then he got shit-canned.

    20. Re:How's that for gratitude by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Bingo.
      I got conservative bullshit bingo.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    21. Re:How's that for gratitude by dywolf · · Score: 1

      you misspelled republican.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    22. Re:How's that for gratitude by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      Feed a dog and he'll never bite you. That's the difference between a dog and a man.

    23. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was done more for the humor factor but you're probably a humorless sack of shit so I wouldn't expect you to get the joke.

      Go suck turds.

    24. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just goes to show you: Trump is an opportunist asshole, but he is an honest asshole.
      In contrast, Hillary wouldda kept the guy!

      The pussy-grabber-in-chief got rid of Comey because of the FBI's investigation into the Russian connection that doesn't exist. Say what you will but Russia will be the downfall of the idiot-in-chief.

    25. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd read it like this: people should know better than to do any favours for Trump, he's an asshole who'll throw you under a bus at the first opportunity.

    26. Re:How's that for gratitude by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Because Carter Page just fell of the face of the Earth?

      Congress certainly isn't acting as if there's nothing to talk about.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    27. Re:How's that for gratitude by Koby77 · · Score: 1

      From that moment to the election day, the "poll question" became "is Hillary criminal or not?"

      Actually, it didn't stop at election day!

    28. Re:How's that for gratitude by gweihir · · Score: 2

      It's Trump. Do not expect gratitude, respect for others or any recognition. Trump does not understand these things.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    29. Re:How's that for gratitude by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      He lobbed the "voter attention redirection" handgrenade 11 days before the election, which had the effect of making non-committal swing voters think "damn, the person I'm thinking of voting for is probably a criminal - the FBI is investigating her."

      And in particular, it didn't affect her "unfavorable rating" much, but her "favorable rating" took a dip. That resulted in many Democrats staying home because they didn't want to vote for Clinton, so they didn't vote for anyone.

    30. Re:How's that for gratitude by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      I'm all for the Trump hate, but wasn't it some senator who "leaked" Comey's private memo to the press?

    31. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Trump wanted to get rid of him and was happy (well his handlers were happy to agree with his random thought to maybe fire him) to have a reason that the media would support. Yes.

    32. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody has published polling statistics showing how many Clinton supporters reversed course because of the original e-mail investigation or the announcements made just 11 days before the election. If polling statistics demonstrating Clinton lost a significant number of voters because of the e-mail investigation I am sure the information would have been trotted out by now. During the campaign the only ones making a fuss over the e-mail investigation came from committed Trump supporters.

      And how many top secret and classified documents can be sent to people with no security clearance before it is considered a felony? She may have not have forwarded thousands but the number was not zero either. And that doesn't count the thousands of e-mails that were deleted off her server and never found during the original investigation.

      The biggest reason Clinton lost was she acted as if the rules really didn't apply to her. She has been a member of the governing elite insiders ever since she held the position of Co-President with her husband. She was so enamored with her own power that she just took it for granted she would win the election and stopped campaigning in several key states. Her supporters also took it for granted she would win because they knew without a doubt their positions were 100% correct in every way and everyone else would see things the same way. Their biggest contribution to the campaign was just to call any Trump supporter stupid. It's hard to win over support to your cause after calling them stupid. A lot of people voted for Trump not because the really liked him but they sure as hell hated the people calling them stupid so voting for Trump was just away hitting out at those calling them names.

    33. Re:How's that for gratitude by Bartles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And John Podesta. He helped a lot. So did Carlos Danger.

    34. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much ideal in a President, no?
      Try to bribe him == end under the bus. Exactly what we need...
      Now with Clinton, there would be no "betrayals" like this: you would get a well-greased, hand-washes-hand, pay-for-play bribe cartel running the White House... Good for the Clinton Foundation, horrible for the country.

    35. Re:How's that for gratitude by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's strong indication that Comey wasn't really on either side during the election, that instead his weird behavior was merely a manifestation of incompetence.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    36. Re: How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Meh. Russia didn't cast any votes and they sure didn't force the DNC to subvert Sanders and keep an email chain about it. They also didn't force Hillary to run a private email server for years and accept money into a shady foundation run by her family. Nor did they force Obama to ignore local parties for grassroots buildup of his successor. Hillary and DNC have themselves to blame for the loss, Russia is just a convenient scapegoat down by Putin's power grabs over the last 8 years.

    37. Re:How's that for gratitude by sphealey · · Score: 1

      = = = Nobody has published polling statistics showing how many Clinton supporters reversed course because of the original e-mail investigation or the announcements made just 11 days before the election. If polling statistics demonstrating Clinton lost a significant number of voters because of the e-mail investigation I am sure the information would have been trotted out by now. = = =

      Nope, nobody:

      https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

    38. Re:How's that for gratitude by sphealey · · Score: 1

      I'm eagerly awaiting the Breitbart crowd roaring after this clear violation of national security law and document classification regulations:

      = = = https://apnews.com/b1097747055...
        The outgoing White House also became concerned about the Trump team’s handling of classified information. After learning that highly sensitive documents from a secure room at the transition’s Washington headquarters were being copied and removed from the facility, = = =

    39. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is honest, but he is also weak and insecure. You keep hounding him with the fake Russia story, he will probably push the Nuke button to prove you wrong.
      Is this what you faggits* truly want, for all of us to die because "it's her turn"?

      Do you even believe the Russian bullshit yourself? Or perhaps you do, given how a couple of lolfags on 4chan convinced you a green cartoon frog is also Hitler.

      --
      *this word has nothing to do with homosexuals, and everything to do with the "enlightened" snowflake libtards with their head far up their ass, because The Daily Show and Russian Trump Literally Hitler, apparently.

    40. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No I didn't. Unfortunate as it may be, the republicans are winning. But you're just a fanboi, so I expect the truth will only have you digging in your heels. You and your kind are the best argument against the concept of majority rule.

    41. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I figured, no matter who won, that Comey was screwed either way, telling or not telling the public.

    42. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      538's other headlines:

      http://i.imgur.com/kv1VTDD.jpg

      Highlights:

      Aug 2015 "Donald Trump Won't Win a War Against Fox News"
      Aug 2015 "Donald Trump is winning the polls- and losing the nomination!"
      Nov 2015 "Dear Media, Stop freaking out about Trump's polls"
      Jan 2016 "The Republican party may be failing"
      Mar 2016 "Ted Cruz Might Still Be Able To Stop Donald Trump"
      Mar 2106 "Trump Will Have A Hard Time Turning Blue States Red In November"
      Sep 2016 "Clinton's Leading In Exactly The States She Needs To Win"
      Oct 2016 "Clinton Probably Finished Off Trump Last Night"
      Oct 2016 "Trump May Depress Republican Turnout, Spelling Disaster For GOP"

      Quoting them is laughable. They have been wrong about EVERY claim about Trump. EVERY Claim. They claimed Trump would lose the nomination, they claimed Republicans would lose Congress, they claimed Clinton would not just beat Trump, but DESTROY him.

      EVERY claim.

      EVERYTHING wrong.

      Not one thing right.

      Link at your own risk.

    43. Re:How's that for gratitude by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      From that moment to the election day, the "poll question" became "is Hillary criminal or not?" as opposed to "can we risk that Trump bozo?".

      While true, you can't blame that all on Comey. The shill media did their jobs keeping the plebes in line on that one. What's sad is that it's a dumb basis upon which to decide. Is Hillary criminal or not? Who gives a shit, when the alternative is Trump? Virtually all politicians are criminals. Once it was clear that we couldn't have Sanders, and that the only choices were between Clinton and Trump, the only question which mattered was can we possibly sustain having Trump as our president? And uh, we're seeing how that's turning out now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    44. Re:How's that for gratitude by will_die · · Score: 2

      No it was very much hillary who got him elected, Anyone who was not a completely worthless human or clump of grass would of won over him; and the grass would of been in the running.
      Comey just provided protection, allowing the AG to keep her word of not putting hillary in any danger while at the same time stopping her political future.

    45. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly did Flynn do? Got paid for an interview with Putin? Discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador?
      Big F..ing deal
      Killary took millions from the radical Islamists (Saudi, etc.), and NOTHING.

    46. Re:How's that for gratitude by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      The DNC did screw up, however the Russians hacking the DNC and exposing there plan to stop Sanders really turned off a lot of people who may had sided with Clinton if she won in a fair fight. The emails scandal was pure stupid because it is such a minor offense it wasn't really worth anything. But with people on the sidelines from the leaked info Colmy opening the investigation was enough to turn a few states red.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    47. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're asking that question of someone who isn't even complaining.

    48. Re:How's that for gratitude by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The DNC did screw up, however the Russians hacking the DNC and exposing there plan to stop Sanders really turned off a lot of people who may had sided with Clinton if she won in a fair fight.

      The DNC thought they could have everything. They were wrong, because they aren't good enough at security. They're going to have to embrace some actual justice and fairness if they want to win elections, now. Not holding my breath here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    49. Re: How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try but you wasted your time: sphealey posted an analysis of the past, not predictions of the future.

    50. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't so much staying home, as voting third party...

      https://blogs-images.forbes.com/realspin/files/2016/12/thumbnail_Slide1.jpg

    51. Re:How's that for gratitude by sphealey · · Score: 1

      Bzzzz.... bzzzzz.... bzzzz

      (for those who aren't really old like me, that is the sound of an old-fashioned electric football game when the goalposts come unclipped and start moving)

    52. Re:How's that for gratitude by Boronx · · Score: 1

      How was OP a complaint?

    53. Re:How's that for gratitude by Boronx · · Score: 0

      There's was a discussion about a news article about a leaked satellite photo. Somehow the Clinton bashers always leave that part out.

    54. Re:How's that for gratitude by Boronx · · Score: 1

      He lied about it to investigators, that's the big deal.

      There's some evidence of a quid-pro-quo. There isn't any such evidence in Clinton's case.

      Clinton was soliciting donations to a charity, albeit one she controlled. Flynn was directly paid by foreign governments.

      Also, if Clinton had won, I'm sure you'd be hearing about it!

    55. Re:How's that for gratitude by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Or that he's changed his mind on Trump.

    56. Re:How's that for gratitude by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Trump is literally friends with mobsters.

    57. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comey got himself fired for basically, being bad at being Director of the FBI.

      Let's see, Flynn was hired after Obama told him not to hire him, that it was a really bad idea. He wasn't fired until 18 days after various people told him he is liable to blackmail and all the rest. In short, he wasn't fired until the news became public. The only conclusion you can make is he was fired when he became a political liability, not when he was an actual liability.

      Yates was fired after she refused to implement his first unconstitutional order. Again, her position was a valid position as later checked by the courts. He fired her when he didn't get his way, as opposed to actually failing to do her duties. Her duty was not to be a simple rubber stamp.

      The US attorney that was told he had a job, who also had the potential to investigate Trump was fired, along with the others appointed under Obama. That again looks like political rather than poor work results.

      Trump praised, repeatedly, over and over and over again Comey for his actions on Hillary, and to be fair those actions probably tipped the election. (It was fairly close.) So, now we are to believe that Trump was so upset at him being mean to Hillary that Comey had to go?

      Really?

      Seriously Really?

      The only logical conclusion based on previous firings is he did it for political reasons, and used the letter the deputy attorney general made as an excuse. Perhaps he was scared Comey was getting too close.

    58. Re:How's that for gratitude by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Comey's hands are clean, eh? The only reason that particular branch of the Hilary Clinton tale was worth telling is because they got to tie Clinton Emails in with Anthony Weiner for the ultimate stupid pressgasm.

    59. Re: How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No goalposts have been moved.

      The endless litany of terrible data analysis this election regarding Trump pretty clearly shows that 538 will say anything to hurt Trump; massage numbers to reach their predetermined conclusion, and have an often perpendicular relationship with the truth. They are full of shit. Any analysis they do about Trump is full of shit. They are propaganda, not math.

    60. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was Comey that kept Hillary out of jail. He magically decided to hold a press conference, rewrite the law to equate intent and negligence, and then dismiss a prosecution that it wasn't his decision to even comment on.

    61. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Hillary might have been involved somewhere along the line with getting Trump elected.

    62. Re:How's that for gratitude by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Comey got himself fired for basically, being bad at being Director of the FBI.

      Says you. Says me and the rest of the world: Comey'sinvestigation is getting uncomfortably close to disclosing details of the Trump family alignment with Putin's thugs.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    63. Re:How's that for gratitude by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Which, tbh, would really be another sign of incompetence lol.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    64. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's pretty much a certainty.

    65. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all it was Illiterate Racist-Misoginist Rednecks who got him elected.

      FT-FTFY

    66. Re:How's that for gratitude by Uberbah · · Score: 0

      After all it was Putin who got him elected.

      There's more evidence to support the conspiracy theory about Obama's secret FEMA concentration camps than there is that Russia had Jack or shit to do with the election.

    67. Re:How's that for gratitude by TWX · · Score: 1

      After all it was Comey who got him elected.

      Comey is apparently a poor student of history, there are lots of examples of kingmakers being destroyed by the kings they've made. Oldest example I can immediately think of is Claudius having the men of the Praetorian Guard that killed Caligula and put him into power, and I'm sure that there are examples older than that. In many revolutions this also happens; the French had a degree of it in their revolution, the Russians had plenty that were eventually killed by Lenin's regime, etc.

      If you put someone into power through some kind of nefarious means then you are a threat to them once they're in power. As they will take steps to cement their power, you will come on the chopping-block in-time. It was Comey's turn.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    68. Re:How's that for gratitude by judoguy · · Score: 1

      After all it was Racist-Misoginists who got him elected.

      Wrong. Here is an astute analysis of the racism factor from someone who can't stand Trump but can still reason: You are still crying wolf

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    69. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same Clinton investigation Trump praised Comey for weeks after being elected? Trump's brain was in a jar labeled Abbey Normal.

    70. Re:How's that for gratitude by judoguy · · Score: 1

      After all it was Comey who got him elected.

      By shilling for Hillary. He screwed up big time originally by unilaterally declaring her innocent because she didn't "intend" to do wrong. Not his job. When an FBI investigation is ordered, the agents make report to the grand jury who then determines whether to proceed with an indictment or not.

      Comey took an almost unprecedented action by stopping that and declaring that there was "nothing to see here, move along". According to my retired FBI friend that was shocking. In his and his network of retired agent friends, opinion, enough agents had the balls to confront Comey about this outrageous behavior and force him re-look at the charges. He still screwed that up. If he had simply let the machinery run, Hillary would have been vindicated by the grand jury if she was innocent. I believe this was a frantic effort by the justice department to prevent just that.

      Comey and the AG had a long working history including her dropping investigations of companies on which he served as a board member before being appointed FBI director.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    71. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    72. Re:How's that for gratitude by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      There's some evidence of a quid-pro-quo. There isn't any such evidence in Clinton's case.

      Do a search for "Hillary pay to play" and you'll see plenty of evidence. There was even an NYT bestseller on the topic in the last months before the election.

      I don't know how real the evidence is, and don't particularly care to know anymore, either.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    73. Re: How's that for gratitude by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "They also didn't force Hillary to run a private email server for years"

      There's a long list of Republicans who've run private e-mail servers but they were all very quick to condemn HRC for doing it too.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    74. Re:How's that for gratitude by haruchai · · Score: 1

      After all it was Putin who got him elected.

      There's more evidence to support the conspiracy theory about Obama's secret FEMA concentration camps than there is that Russia had Jack or shit to do with the election.

      Stay tuned. It's only getting started & there are an awful lot of links on the chains tying Trump & cronies with shady Russians. Even Flynn's supposed work for Turkey appears to be really a Russian front.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    75. Re:How's that for gratitude by haruchai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No it was very much hillary who got him elected, Anyone who was not a completely worthless human or clump of grass would of won over him; and the grass would of been in the running

      Trump went up against umpteen senior GOP candidates incl 1/2 a dozen former governors and beat them like rented mules, garnering the most votes ever in a Republican primary.
      Seems there were a lot of completely worthless humans both running against him & voting for him.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    76. Re: How's that for gratitude by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a long list of Republicans who've run private e-mail servers but they were all very quick to condemn HRC for doing it too.

      In fact, she herself did it on the advice of Colin Powell. On the other hand, she clearly did it for the purpose of hiding evidence, and other data which was supposed to be recorded as it pertained to her work as sec. of state. So yeah, those Republicans are hypocritical fucks, as one expects, but incompetently running her own email server was still an unacceptable act. It wasn't worth electing trump over her or anything ridiculous like that, but stop defending her. It was a stupid thing to do, it was a criminal thing to do, and if the only defense you can come up with is "everyone else was doing it" then it's indefensible.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    77. Re:How's that for gratitude by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Exposing the truth isn't part of a fair fight? Look, the way to take down Trump is to throw Clinton under the bus. The Dems picked the only person in the country that could have lost a general election to Trump. The man is less popular than lice, and if he wasn't running against the Republican party's Emmanuel Goldstein, he would have had a historic loss.

      Excommunicate everyone within a certain proximity to Clinton, go back to being Democrats instead of GOP-lite, and you'll kick Trump's ass. Sanders, Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, and Marcon all point to a very clear populist, anti-establishment trend. If you aren't playing a populist angle, you're going to lose to someone who will.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    78. Re:How's that for gratitude by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's hard to tell whether the Trump team are some of the most malicious individuals who have ever occupied the most powerful position in the world, or are simply arrogant halfwits. I'm leaning towards the latter.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    79. Re:How's that for gratitude by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Maybe the lesson is, when picking candidates, pick one of the hundreds of millions of possibilities that DON'T have ongoing FBI investigations? We knew far sooner than 11 days before the election that she was one of the most hated politicians in the country.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    80. Re:How's that for gratitude by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      After all it was Comey who got him elected.

      Actually, it was Hillary who got him elected.

      But let's pretend she was the best possible candidate the Democrats could have come up with.

      Oh, and let's go to the speech Chelsea is giving!!!

    81. Re:How's that for gratitude by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 0

      Her zealot supporters are just as irritating as she is. They just don't grasp that HRC holds the most culpability for her loss. Hillary lost to a guy who could not keep his promises consistent within the same speech, refused to reveal his tax returns (but his voters are to blame for that), and most of all, was taped talking about how he would sexually assault married women.

      Her supporters can't comprehend the most basic obvious fact: any competent politician should have crushed him in an election. Why couldn't HRC crush Trump? Because she and her supporters couldn't grasp that HRC politically was damaged goods! HRC still had to persuade the majority of voters (across 270 electoral votes) she would be a better PotUS than Trump. And she failed! She failed to grasp she created a perception problem with her email server, she failed to actually address it (other than say, "yeah, I made a mistake, now ignore it", rather than show actual remorse), she failed to convince a significant part of the population (Midwest/South/Southwest) she was a better agent their issues (jobs & whatever), she failed to get Democrat voters off their fannies and vote. Her whole campaign was "Look at this loser. You have no choice but vote for me." Yeah, that's brilliant marketing.

      Comey recanted the investigation the day before the election. Hillary voters think independents stopped listening to the news and didn't know that when they went to vote. The only way Comey could have swung the election was the four states that had a margin less than 1% before the election. Putin probably had an influence on voter perception, but HRC had months to address it. The only way Comey could swing that election was for HRC to skip out on Michigan and Wisconsin and say, "vote for me, despite that I give you the impression I am above the law, because Trump is so much worse than me." This is how a loser loses an election against an amateur politician with a narcissistic personality disorder.

      Comey is a one time thing. But dummy Democrats can't grasp they are still screwed in 2020. Because they will still put up a shitty candidate, rather than a candidate that truly inspires the majority of the US population, and they will still find ways to make excuses when their Wall Street funded, politically correct, uninspiring candidate only has a marginal advantage to Trump, and learns nothing when they lose in an electoral college voting system by a battleground state. It could be Tim Kaine, it could even be Biden; it will probably be the same result as HRC.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    82. Re:How's that for gratitude by turkeyfish · · Score: 2

      Yes, no doubt the embarrassing part of the "sensitive" information that keeps leaking about Trump campaign ties to Russia is actually coming from foreign agents within the Russian Intelligence Services. This makes it rather awkward for those on intelligence committees, who nominally are supposed to know what's going on.

    83. Re:How's that for gratitude by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      "What's really odd is that Trump let this circus go on as long as he did..."

      Its only odd because many of the "leaks" about the investigation seem to be coming from foreign agents embedded within the Russian Intelligence Service.

    84. Re:How's that for gratitude by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      They probably don't have time for that. They are too busy celebrating the soon to be announced appointment of Steve Bannon as the new FBI director.

    85. Re: How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it OK to use the phrase grab him by the balls?

      And not OK to say grab her by the pussy?

      It seems a bit hypocritical and sexists to SPEAK on phrase and not the other.

      I purpose we arrest any and all women that have ever claimed to do so, even in hyperbole, because that is rape culture.
      And Feminism is about EQUALITY!

    86. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Timing seems just about right; Congress has finally approved some of the assistant directors appointed, so there are now people in place to pick up the job.

    87. Re: How's that for gratitude by haruchai · · Score: 1

      If it were criminal, why were charges not filed?
      Unlike Trump, HRC had no power to muzzle or fire Comey.
      But there was definitely some gross incompetence in its handling.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    88. Re:How's that for gratitude by Maritz · · Score: 1

      After all it was Comey who got him elected.

      Are you complaining because the President didn't keep him in office to return the favor? Or are you just complaining to complain?

      Today we learned that chispito doesn't know what a 'complaint' is.

      Try 'wry observation'.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    89. Re:How's that for gratitude by Maritz · · Score: 1

      In terms of end product the difference is probably moot.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    90. Re:How's that for gratitude by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Apparently Carlos Danger didn't, that's part of the official reason Comey is being fired.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    91. Re:How's that for gratitude by LowTechSwede · · Score: 1

      This, I really don't understand. Once the election was over, Hillary is irrelevant. Now it's only about Trump. There is no scenario where Hillary will ever be President.

    92. Re:How's that for gratitude by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      No, by not giving her a pass. Comey stated that the evidence wasn't sufficient to prosecute (a statement of fact that would have been vetted by numerous lawyers, Comey wouldn't have had any room there) but then proceeded to criticize Clinton in a forum where Clinton had no way to contradict and disprove Comey's allegations.

      This is actually part of official reason Comey is out. Had Comey kept his mouth shut, passed on the evidence to the DoJ, and let the DoJ review the evidence, presumably dropping the case, Trump would have had much more difficulty finding a justification to fire him.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    93. Re:How's that for gratitude by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Putin... Racist-Misogynists... These are the same thing aren't they? Might add homophobic and transphobic too, of course. Putin is a really nice guy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    94. Re: How's that for gratitude by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      incompetently running her own email server was still an unacceptable act. It wasn't worth electing trump over her

      So it wasn't entirely unacceptable then... I mean, you could accept it if the choice was Clinton or Trump.

      The interesting thing is that if Clinton had won, there would likely be a very similar investigation into his campaign's links to Russia right now anyway. Blackmail seems likely, as there is basically no way he could have avoided this eventually catching up with him and his only real hope was to become POTUS and somehow weasel out of it like Nixon did.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    95. Re: How's that for gratitude by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If it were criminal, why were charges not filed?
      Unlike Trump, HRC had no power to muzzle or fire Comey.

      Not this again. What Comey said was that no prosecutor would seek charges in his position. What he later said was that there was not sufficient evidence to seek a conviction. IOW he could not prove that Clinton was involved in the willful destruction of evidence. He could waste everyone's time eventually nailing some poor staffer to the wall, or not.

      What I want to know is what convinced him he needed to speak up before the election. Was he working for Trump, and this is just cover? Or was he really trying to do the right thing, and in that case, who pushed him into doing precisely what he did, and how?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    96. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was the Russian who got him elected. ???? Are you changing your story? Or don't you know that the USA voters elected him (through the rules of the Electoral College)?

    97. Re: How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Colin Powell has denied publicly that he gave HIll the advice to use her own, private, non-secure server. This has been stated many times in the media. Please don't lie about it. OOPS, forgot that it's /. here – Liberality Rules not Facts.

    98. Re: How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of Republicans also incompetently run their own email servers. How funny how you only seem to care when Democrats do it

    99. Re: How's that for gratitude by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So it wasn't entirely unacceptable then... I mean, you could accept it if the choice was Clinton or Trump.

      No. You can't just accept it. You have to hold people accountable. But you also have to hold Cheeto Combover accountable for being a rapist, for running a visa mill, for being a lifetime con man who has cost the American people hundreds of millions of dollars. Compared to that, Hillary could wait.

      To my mind, both candidates should have been disqualified for their criminal activities.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    100. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is no honour among thieves."

    101. Re: How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your hatred of Russia is getting pretty close to ... xenophobic.

    102. Re:How's that for gratitude by jbengt · · Score: 1

      And how many top secret and classified documents can be sent to people with no security clearance before it is considered a felony? She may have not have forwarded thousands but the number was not zero either.

      Actually, the number was zero. The only "classified" materials found on Huma Abedin's computer were not classified at the time, but were re-classified after the fact. And, they were not sent to Abedin's computer by Cinton, they were sent by Abedin.

    103. Re: How's that for gratitude by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Her use of the private server per se isn't what caused her the damage. It was looking people (including lots of Democrats) in the eye for months after it came out, and lying to them about why she did it, what happened afterwards, why she deleted all sorts of records FROM it (even while under subpoena), and then all of the other slop (also lied about repeatedly) that became obvious as it was all getting looked into. Essentially, it was just another occasion for the usual Clintonian dismissal-of-the-little-people-and-their-pesky-rules condescension and smarmy, patronizing attitude that did her more harm than simply having been caught being way too casual with - among other things - classified material while trying to obscure her access-selling money machine.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    104. Re:How's that for gratitude by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Exposing the truth isn't part of a fair fight? Look, the way to take down Trump is to throw Clinton under the bus. The Dems picked the only person in the country that could have lost a general election to Trump. The man is less popular than lice, and if he wasn't running against the Republican party's Emmanuel Goldstein, he would have had a historic loss.

      I think you're deluded. Trump has a knack for taking down his opponents. Did you not pay attention during the primaries, when Trump defeated every one of his opponents? Sometimes with a single phrase? When it came to television coverage, the entire election was about Trump. No matter who ran against Trump, a scandal would have been invented to attack them, and Trump would have pigeon holed them with a pithy epithet. I seriously doubt Bernie or anyone else that the Democrats could have chosen would have fared much better against Trump. Of course, the election was so close that they might have actually won with a slightly different strategy... My point is that I seriously doubt replacing Hillary Clinton with a different candidate wouldn't have been the sure thing that you seem to think it would have been.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    105. Re:How's that for gratitude by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I think Trump wanted to get rid of him and was happy (well his handlers were happy to agree with his random thought to maybe fire him) to have a reason that the media would support. Yes.

      Of course, the real reason Trump wanted to get rid of him is because he hasn't stopped the investigations into Trump's ties with Russia...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    106. Re: How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea was to investigate, then exonerate her just before the election. It was just a really dumb idea that backfired.

    107. Re:How's that for gratitude by tbannist · · Score: 2

      Do a search for "Hillary pay to play" and you'll see plenty of evidence. There was even an NYT bestseller on the topic in the last months before the election.

      I did the search and I see accusations, let's see they're posted on a site, donaldjtrump.com, seems to me like a totally unbiased source for information on Hillary Clinton... Of course, there's also a denial from the FBI that there is any evidence of pay-to-play, but we don't trust the FBI unless they agree with our pre-determined views, right?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    108. Re:How's that for gratitude by will_die · · Score: 1

      However during the primaries he was treated like hillary was treated during the entire election. Trump had protection from the majority of the press and the only few places attacking him and his messages were some conservative sites and some of the people on foxnews. During the primaries any time any of the other people running started to look like they could get ahead the press started misrepresenting items they said just look at Carson and Rubio.
      Once it was finalized that he was going to be the candidate that changed.

    109. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he is so insecure that he pushes the button its not the liberals fault, they did not put him into office. Quit projecting.

    110. Re: How's that for gratitude by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're right. But enough Progressives voted for Jill Stein to have brought about the shitstorm that is President Donald Trump - all else being equal. Those Stein voters might have cared about Hillary's private email server (though it's hard to imagine why, since there was very little there there). They definitely cared about the DNC favoring Hillary over Bernie, which, yep, they did. But Bernie got over it (mostly because he realizes he wouldn't have won the nomination even if the DNC hadn't favored Hillary), but those purists didn't get over it. Ultimately those Pure Progressive voters voted against Hillary because they didn't like her personally - and most of them thought she'd win anyway. It's as simple as that. Big mistake that they have a lot of trouble owning up to.

      Instead of Hillary (who, the bullshit goes, "never saw a war she didn't like"), they got Donald the MOAB dropper. Instead of Hillary the "pawn of Wall Street", they got Goldman Sachs in the White House. And Gorsuch. And Trumpcare. And huge tax cuts for the rich on deck. And the dismantling of the EPA. And on and on...

      So, Putin, Facebook bots (on Putin's payroll), Comey, Stein and her 'pure progressive' voters, and for good measure, an Electoral College slanted toward low population states. It took a lot to bring her down. Yes, maybe because Trump was so bad that she should've won despite all that. But it took a lot, nonetheless.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    111. Re:How's that for gratitude by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      An NYT bestselling hit job - based on innuendo and very little, y'know, evidence.

      I don't know how real the evidence is, and don't particularly care to know anymore, either.

      Well, then why are you bothering to comment on it, moron?

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    112. Re:How's that for gratitude by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The Atlantic isn't really a bastion of conservatism, and now they are one of the most respected news sources: not because they've changed, but because the quality of almost everything else has dropped dramatically.

      As for the FBI, I don't trust them, period lol. Add the NSA and CIA into that category. You can add Trump into it, too.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    113. Re:How's that for gratitude by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Well, then why are you bothering to comment on it, moron

      Mainly to annoy you.
      Anyway, there is no question that people donated money to have access to the Clintons. If you don't know that, you're ignorant, and probably dumb, too. That's a standard politician bribe: you donate to the campaign, get access, then persuade them to do what you want. Lots of politicians do it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    114. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >FT-FTFY
      "FT-FTFY-FY".
      ft-FT-FTFY-FY-fy. yw.

    115. Re: How's that for gratitude by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I don't know much about Comey but what he said sounds like standard investigator / prosecutor talk - always say just enough to leave a smidgen of doubt in the minds of listeners. Otherwise, you may come off as having conducted a witch hunt.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    116. Re:How's that for gratitude by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Ever consider that the obvious liberal media might have been attempting to tilt the Republican field to have the least desirable candidate come out on top? Not such a difficult thing to do with such a large field. Have the best candidates lose support early, when the monetary support was still spread thin.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    117. Re:How's that for gratitude by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      So, Flynn's transgression was that he took the money directly instead of setting up a phony "charity" trust in Canada and funneling the money through that? I understand now.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    118. Re:How's that for gratitude by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Ever consider that the obvious liberal media might have been attempting to tilt the Republican field to have the least desirable candidate come out on top? Not such a difficult thing to do with such a large field. Have the best candidates lose support early, when the monetary support was still spread thin.

      Yes, and it doesn't hold water. The media just has a love-hate relationship with Trump because he's outrageous. It was Republican primary voters, who mostly don't watch the liberal media anyway, who executed all of Trump's opponents one after another.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    119. Re:How's that for gratitude by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt Bernie or anyone else that the Democrats could have chosen would have fared much better against Trump.

      Oh please, Bernie is the most popular politician in the country by a wide margin, while Trump is the least popular, with basically the only politician close to him in unfavorability being Clinton. Trump didn't beat anyone. Trump let his opponents beat themselves. And because everyone else was a clearly bought off whore, he could just call them out for being bought off whores.

      My point is that I seriously doubt replacing Hillary Clinton with a different candidate wouldn't have been the sure thing that you seem to think it would have been.

      Take a look outside. Voters are going populist all around the globe, and left or right is secondary to populism. Clinton was the establishment queen, so she is the worst candidate that could have possibly been picked. She also picked a useless VP that lost debates to Mike Pence, didn't even visit the Rust Belt, and ran the least issue based campaign this century.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    120. Re:How's that for gratitude by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Even that article says there is no actual evidence of any pay-for-play, and then they complain that there may be the appearance that there could have been.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    121. Re: How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She had a server running out of her home closet. Many people opt for a hosting company with a semblance of cyber security.

    122. Re: How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernie would have won if it weren't for superdelegates that were in the bag for Hillary from the start. It was party elites that kept Bernie out.

    123. Re: How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be gender neutral and grab them by the short hairs

    124. Re: How's that for gratitude by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Hillary won the nomination by a big margin without the superdelegates, who surely would've gone with Bernie had he won the rest - just like they did with Obama in 2008. Yes, they helped create an aura of inevitability early on. But they weren't decisive in terms of the delegate count. Bernie might have won - but you're saying this in the light of hindsight about Hillary's ultimate loss in the general. He certainly came nowhere near close to winning the nomination (not even as close as Clinton did in 2008).

      But the fact that you're still re-litigating this is the problem we're discussing. Even if it were true, it would not change the fact that Trump is a disaster. Are you happier with Trump than you would've been with Hillary? If so, you had no real stake in any of the progressive positions Bernie stood for - or you don't know what your stake was. Number one among them was winning control of the Supreme Court so that money could ultimately be taken out of politics - or at least unmasked and rendered less useful.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    125. Re:How's that for gratitude by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      I can't believe you're making me actually research this stuff. The circumstantial evidence is strong, for example, this:

      Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

      Then there is this, cash flowing to the Clinton foundation from donors. Since it's the New York Times though, that's probably just a conservative hit piece.

      From the emails (and you'll have to stop being lazy and look this one up on your own), it's apparent that the donors were expecting things in return, even if Clinton wasn't offering anything. Whether she is guilty or not probably depends on the quality and quantity of evidence that can be found, the precise details of the law, and the mood of the jury, but to say there is no evidence is to just close your eyes. There is definitely evidence.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    126. Re: How's that for gratitude by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Your hatred of Russia is getting pretty close to ... xenophobic.

      Dislike for Russia's government actions is not xenophobia.

    127. Re:How's that for gratitude by left00coaster · · Score: 1

      Comey got himself fired for basically, being bad at being Director of the FBI. I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier, but I would guess that Trump felt he had to dangle this idiot around a little longer until much of the Russia conversation passed, then he got shit-canned.

      What you wrote is nonsense. The "Russia conversation" is just beginning. Comey was fired two days after he requested funds to extend the FBI investigation into Trump campaign dealings with Russia. Yeah, I'd say he was fired for performance. This smacks of Nixon's canning his Attorney General as the Watergate investigations got rolling. Didn't stop the train. If there's a flaw in my analogy, it's that what passes for the GOP is much lower than dogshit on the shoes of those 70s-era Republicans.

    128. Re:How's that for gratitude by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Comey got himself fired for basically, being bad at being Director of the FBI.

      Says you. Says me and the rest of the world: Comey'sinvestigation is getting uncomfortably close to disclosing details of the Trump family alignment with Putin's thugs.

      The way that Comey handled Hillary's emails was incompetence of the highest order, especially exemplified with his huge announcement right before the election, and then later retraction, about Anthony Weiner's laptop.

      The only thing that should have given Comey immunity is something unrelated, the Russia collusion investigation. Otherwise, this would be a highly unusual, but entirely justifiable firing (another poster rightly pointed out that President Hillary Clinton would have been totally justified in firing Comey, and she would have certainly gotten away with it. It would have fueled the right-wing paranoia conspiracy machine, but anything Hillary would have done would do that). One angle that I haven't seen people address is that Comey's job security had a vested interest in ensuring that the Russia investigation continue. Or at least, it would have been reasonable to assume so, even if that didn't turn out to be the case. Because even if the firing was justified, it's going to cause major obstruction-of-justice problems for Donald Trump.

    129. Re:How's that for gratitude by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      You were kidding yourself. Comey knew he would likely be fired on day one of this administration. All of them know they an be fired at any time. Even as far back as Janet Reno, she even said that she rented her apartment month by month because she knew she could be out anytime.

      If I were POTUS? First day I'd call him into the oval office and say - "You're FIRED!"
      Probably why I'm not the POTUS.

    130. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read it as an observation, not a complaint. Or are you trolling just to troll?

    131. Re: How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the defense is "everyone else is doing it" then one can reasonably surmise that whatever "it" is, should not be criminal.

    132. Re: How's that for gratitude by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Honest I don't think that word means what you think it means.

    133. Re: How's that for gratitude by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You seem awfully sure of her motives.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    134. Re: How's that for gratitude by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    135. Re:How's that for gratitude by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Stay tuned. It's only getting started & there are an awful lot of links on the chains tying Trump & cronies with shady Russians. Even Flynn's supposed work for Turkey appears to be really a Russian front.

      Ah, the "where there's smoke, there's fire" argument batshit insane Republicans have used against the Clinton's for 25 years, on everything from having state troopers running drugs through Arkansas to having Vince Foster killed. Democrats have become what they have hated.

    136. Re:How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's dangerous to assign to malice that which can be accounted for by stupidity.

    137. Re: How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In fact, she herself did it on the advice of Colin Powell.

      More precisely, she asked Colin Powell how he got away with it and he told her. You can read the exchange in the PDF attachment to this email.

    138. Re: How's that for gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The podesta emails confirmed it was true and he didn't deny it. It was dirty tricks that subverted Bernie from the start. The DNC wanted to choose their candidate and Bernie wasn't it despite having far more draw than Hillary. It they were truly neutral, we could very well have president Sanders right now. He had a platform and goals, where Hillary just wanted her turn. Self enrichment isn't a good platform.

    139. Re:How's that for gratitude by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      What's really odd is that Trump let this circus go on as long as he did...

      Evidence provided by the FBI to federal prosecutors has just recently resulted in two people close to Trump's cabinet receiving grand jury supoenas. Do you think maybe that is what made Trump fire him and not any of the Hillary/Email crap?

      http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/

    140. Re:How's that for gratitude by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      It's hard to tell whether the Trump team are some of the most malicious individuals who have ever occupied the most powerful position in the world, or are simply arrogant halfwits. I'm leaning towards the latter.

      They can't be both?

    141. Re:How's that for gratitude by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      No it was very much hillary who got him elected, Anyone who was not a completely worthless human or clump of grass would of won over him; and the grass would of been in the running

      Trump went up against umpteen senior GOP candidates incl 1/2 a dozen former governors and beat them like rented mules, garnering the most votes ever in a Republican primary.
      Seems there were a lot of completely worthless humans both running against him & voting for him.

      Well, not to mention that none of this came about because of a single factor. Everyone likes to try to find the 'one true cause', but this election cycle just seemed like a perfect storm of some truths, lots of lies, a general authoritarian+populist rise across the globe, massive increase in use of disinformation systems (facebook, etc..), please even possible things like personal grudges Putin had against Hillary. No one factor.

    142. Re:How's that for gratitude by bobbied · · Score: 1

      So... You somehow think that a grand Jury talking to the fired national security adviser (fired for LYING to Pence) is evidence that Trump was colluding with the Russians or what? Flynn was a mistake to hire, we know that, but that he gets called into a grand jury doesn't imply there is anything here that involves Trump or his campaign. Of course you can draw your wild conclusions if you choose, but you are grasping at straws in my book. We don't have any knowledge about what the grand jury is investigating and they COULD be looking into some other allegations (like who was doing surveillance on Flynn's phone calls). You don't know, I don't know and we won't know unless they charge somebody for something.

      But more to the point here.. How does this have ANYTHING to do with the firing of Comey? Trump cannot impede the grand jury investigation in any possible way. Firing Comey has exactly ZERO impact on this, so it would be a brain dead move to fire Comey in an attempt to stop this...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    143. Re:How's that for gratitude by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Any argument or reason can be wrongly applied. That doesn't make it invalid in a specific case.
      Fact is that Flynn - a fucking former general & director of national intelligence - kept his meeting with Kislyak a secret and "forgot" to register as a paid foreign agent.
      And Sessions also "forgot" meeting Kislyak.

      Have Republicans forgotten that Putin used to be a Colonel in the KGB back when it was still Reagan's Evil Empire?
      And that he's engineered ways to keep himself in power while running the world's largest kleptocracy?
      They've been fawning over him for so long I'm surprised they haven't sent Larry Craig or Phil Hinkle to suck him off

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    144. Re:How's that for gratitude by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Fact is that Flynn - a fucking former general & director of national intelligence - kept his meeting with Kislyak a secret and "forgot" to register as a paid foreign agent.

      So.....exactly the same sort of "where there's smoke, there's fire" reasoning deranged right wingers have used against the Clinton's for 25 years, from everything to having state troopers running drugs through Arkansas or having Vince Foster murdered.

      Like I said.

      Have Republicans forgotten that Putin used to be a Colonel in the KGB back when it was still Reagan's Evil Empire?

      Have you forgotten all the lessons of the lies told to justify the invasion of Iraq? This time, the neocons have skipped the step of offering (fake) evidence to the UN and are now offering unsourced claims to the CIA-funded WaPo, and people like yourself are eating that shit up with a giant spoon.

      And that he's engineered ways to keep himself in power while running the world's largest kleptocracy?

      Are you completely out of your goddamned mind? Name the last democratically elected government overthrown by Russia without going to Google. I'll name you two overthrown by the U.S., just under Obama: Ukraine in 2014 and Honduras in 2009.

      American exceptionalist assholes whining about Russia is like Biff Tannen whining about the paraplegic kid in the corner who he thinks made a face at him. While Biff is actively beating some other kids brains in with a baseball bat, after shoving a teacher down the stairs and setting neighborhood cats on fire with kerosene. Every day for the last 200 years.

    145. Re:How's that for gratitude by haruchai · · Score: 1

      If you're not Russian, let us know when you plan to emigrate.
      Don't accuse someone else of being insane when you're ignorant of the fact that Viktor Yanukovych was Putin's MiniMe & kleptocratic student par excellence or that the charges levied against Yulia Tymoshenko were bullshit.

      Yes, the justification for the Iraq War was founded on lies - as I and many others said at the time and even after Hussein's head was nearly ripped off at his hanging.
      And guess what? Those assholes, while not in prison as they deserve, are largely gone from the government & have been for nearly a decade.
      Meanwhile your little buddy Vlad had been in power since the start of the 21st century and kids born when he took office have reached voting age which would have play very nicely into the soulless smurf's plans as he's very popular with the young'uns.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  3. Verification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this right?

    1. Re:Verification by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      CNN and FoxNews both have the story.

      Haven't checked NetCraft yet.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Verification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's alt-right.

    3. Re:Verification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is this right?

      Sort of. It's hard to say exactly why he got canned, really. The only thing really news-ish here is that the number of emails that involved Clinton were laughably small, so small that breaking the investigation news ahead of the election was certainly the wrong thing to do. And that even today, Comey is trying to claim that it was hundreds of thousands (actually only two, per the sources. Not two thousand... just two.) But then that kind of flies in the face of Trump's claim that Comey was too soft on Clinton.

      So I'll go with the tinfoil hat folks on this one, and tend to believe it's more because he's been investigating Trump & Company's financial ties to Russia (etc.)

    4. Re:Verification by PatientZero · · Score: 1

      It's hard to say exactly why he got canned, really.

      Trump said it himself.

      “And it took guts for Director Comey to make the move that he made in light of the kind of opposition he had where they’re trying to protect her from criminal prosecution. You know that. It took a lot of guts.”

      “I was not his fan,” he added, “but I’ll tell you what: What he did, he brought back his reputation. He brought it back.”

      “A lot of people want him to do the wrong thing,” Trump suggested. “What he did was the right thing.”

      So he obviously had to go.

      --
      Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
      I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
    5. Re: Verification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've only read the slashdot comments obviously - but what's the deal now ? IT sounds like only a few were forwarded but the 100s or 1000 s were there from a backup process ?

      Does that even make sense?

  4. How Nixonian of him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who's next?

  5. Had it comming by Steve-Oh · · Score: 0

    Cue the Trump haters! Surprised this took so long. Guess the Donald had to get some ducks in order to, block the J. Edger Hoover style internal backlash to minimize beltway fallout. Also, why is this on Slashdot?

    1. Re:Had it comming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a moron you must be lol. "Oh, you're investigating Russian collusion that I constantly insist doesn't exist, despite repeated factual intrusions to the contrary? Well you misstated the number of emails and I can't stand inaccuracies like that. You're fired."

    2. Re:Had it comming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump needs to get rid of this guy because he was having funny ideas about investigating that whole Trump-Russia affair.

      I can guarantee you that Trump is just going to put some puppet with 0 experience in his place. Probably one of his white supremacist buddies.

    3. Re:Had it comming by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      Also, why is this on Slashdot?

      Because it's news for nerds (and everyone else).

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:Had it comming by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Except the Senate has to confirm whomever his pick is, so while the Senate is wearing the same team jersey as Trump, I don't think you're going to find it is in fact Trump's biggest fan. That's the real irony here, that Congress doesn't like the man at all, and while they're going to put up with him to a point, if they get enough intelligence to draw a line between the Kremlin and the President, you're going to watch support melt away as it did for Nixon.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Had it comming by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Funny

      the Senate is wearing the same team jersey as Trump

      No, Trump grabbed a T-shirt the same color as the GOP's jersey, spray painted '00' on the back, then snuck into the Team party, and when asked who invited him, pointed to the guy that just left the room to use the can, then scurried away to talk to someone else before anyone could question him. By the end of the night everyone thought everyone else invited him. By the next morning he was already POTUS and everyone wondered what the hell happened.

    6. Re:Had it comming by bobbied · · Score: 1

      NO, Comey was playing the Hokie Pokie over the last election and kept putting his hand in and out. He may have been a victim of circumstances and truly thought he was doing the right thing but after his last congressional testimony he really turned out to be damaged goods. Right or wrong, he needed to go.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Had it comming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the GOP are going to regret hitching their wagon to that particular orange dwarf.

    8. Re:Had it comming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "*groannn* WTF happened last night?????"

      "You guys elected me POTUS!"

      *stares....while thinking* "I have no mouth and must scream....."

    9. Re:Had it comming by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      No, Trump grabbed a T-shirt the same color as the GOP's jersey, spray painted '00' on the back, then snuck into the Team party, and when asked who invited him, pointed to the guy that just left the room to use the can, then scurried away to talk to someone else before anyone could question him. By the end of the night everyone thought everyone else invited him.

      I think it's a little more like.. you can show up at the party as long as you hold up your hand at the doorway and pledge not to trash the place. No one needs invites, and when people saw him, they rolled their eyes and said "oh god, that guy's here too? Why couldn't he have stayed home? He's a total party ruiner."

    10. Re:Had it comming by youngone · · Score: 1

      if they get enough intelligence to draw a line between the Kremlin and the President

      Isn't that what the New York Attorney General is doing right now?

    11. Re:Had it comming by Boronx · · Score: 1

      That's true, however nobody believes Trump thinks badly of those antics. So what's his real motive?

    12. Re:Had it comming by dbIII · · Score: 1

      you're going to watch support melt away as it did for Nixon

      I should remind the younger readers that it took three years to get rid of Nixon, and that's only because he "prepared a parachute" to jump before he could be pushed.

    13. Re:Had it comming by kqs · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, but he wasn't fired for doing the Hokie Pokie during the election. He was probably fired because he won't close the Russian investigation, and Trump has no patience with anyone who is not a yes-man.

    14. Re:Had it comming by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      why is this on Slashdot?

      Wait... why are you on Slashdot?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    15. Re:Had it comming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, despite his outrageous behavior - trashing the host of the party, and the host's house, bringing his thuggish posse with him, making passes at people's wives and daughters, and so on - no one thought to kick him out. Instead, they gave him the house and started going out of their way to protect him from the consequence of his actions.

    16. Re:Had it comming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it wasn't unintentional ignorance, but greed that got him there. A party member asked who invited him, and Trump said he'd get the waiter to slip the party member fifty bucks to tell people it was they who invited him. The member never got the $50. Later Trump tried to make a deal with another member to get him a seat at the head table. The member said "No, you're bad for this party and I heard you screwed the last guy you made a deal with." Trump said "Tell you what tho, I'll get the waiter to slip you a HUNDRED bucks out of his own pocket" and the member said "Deal!"

  6. first a russian mole in the white house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    next a russian mole as head of the FBI.

    Next up: NSA.

    1. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But none of this is going to make the problem go away. He can't fire Congress, and he can't stop Comey and the other directors (or ex-directors) from testifying. I guess he could start trying to interfere with their investigations, but then that would generally be considered abuse of power, and that would give Congress grounds to impeach him.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He doesn't have to sorry about impeachment. It would be a humiliation to the Republican party beyond imagining if that happened - they simply cannot allow it, and they have a majority.

    3. Re: first a russian mole in the white house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft. Easy solution. 22nd Amendment.

      Pence just sends a letter that Trump had a stroke, and he's marginalized.

      He's no Geena Davis, but he'll do.

    4. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      No one is that loyal. It's almost certain that Nixon would have been removed from office if he'd clung on to power long enough for the impeachment proceedings. While the Democrats controlled Congress at the time, the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate would still have required sufficient Republicans to cooperate, and it was largely the understanding that Republican Senators were not going to save Nixon's hide that drove him out.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have to sorry about impeachment.

      You have got to be kidding. If Trump were impeached, who would replace him? That's right, Pence. That would be the Republican's wet dream scenario.

    6. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and he can't stop Comey and the other directors (or ex-directors) from testifying.

      Oh yes he can. It's called polonium 210. He's had a good teacher.

    7. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      He would certainly be a more conventional President, that much is certain.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by phorm · · Score: 1

      It would be even more humiliating if they all went down together. Giving up Trump as a sacrificial lamb would probably please more than a few Republican congresspersons...

    9. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the plus side, if they get rid of Sean Spicer then Comical Ali could find himself back in a job.

    10. Re: first a russian mole in the white house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had a stroke. Yes. Of course. After all, his personal physician already stated that all of Trump's medical tests were positive. One of those diseases must have led to the stroke, poor guy.

    11. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not that they're loyal to him, it's that their afraid of their party's voters (and donors). The Republicans in Congress have been either running scared of, or riding the wave of, their extremist base. As such, they're more afraid of being defeated in a primary than they are of moderate voters. Look at what happened after the Access Hollywood tape came out - a few of them reflexively disavowed him, only to come crawling back after they realized that their voters were with him, not them.

      Now, that may change if they start to sense a rising tidal wave coming to wipe them out in Congress. But we're not there yet, by far - just look at how most of the Republican Senators acted at the Yates hearing yesterday for instance.

    12. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so it's a no-win scenario for anyone that's remotely closer to the center than the "religious right"

    13. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      No one is that loyal. It's almost certain that Nixon would have been removed from office if he'd clung on to power long enough for the impeachment proceedings.

      That was forty years ago, and the parties require much more loyalty now. The amount of polarization between two distinct camps is so strong, I'm not sure that the Republicans are interested in opening hearings, regardless of whether there's evidence of anything. I don't think Democrats would have allowed hearings for emails or the Clinton Foundation, etcetc.

    14. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      guess he could start trying to interfere with their investigations, but then that would generally be considered abuse of power, and that would give Congress grounds to impeach him.

      He is already interfering by tampering with witnesses via Twitter threats (https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/861596946708017152) and further violating the Presidential Records Act by deleting incriminating and/or embarrassing tweets.

    15. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem Republicans in congress have right now isn't the president, it's themselves.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I would say the biggest problem the voters have right now isn't the republicans, it's themselves. They keep reelecting these people. Unless that changes, there can be no improvement.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah I agree with you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re: first a russian mole in the white house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But THE BRAIN, did you check for a brain? It was the obvious thing to do, how could you miss it? Oh no, you mad fools, you've doomed us all! Aieeee!!

    19. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      Don't count on it.

      Politicians will do ANYTHING to ensure they (themselves) stay in a powerful position, so that they can get on the track towards committee membership, and then industry contacts, and then the big money that they can wallow in before and after leaving office, thanks to the gratitude and patronage of their powerful backers.

      Trump is the least popular president ever at this stage of the presidency. He is somewhere between "a liability a mid term risk" and "enough of a liability that impeachment is less of a risk" and only heading in one direction. And politicians will do ANYTHING to save their purses.

      Let me relate what happened in Australia. The current "government" (the blue shirts) came to power after the previous disaster of a government (the red shirts) panicked and knifed their leader - only to knife the new one 3 years later. The blue shirts came to power swearing on all that is holy and eternal, on the lives of their ancestors, that they would never turn against their chosen leader. Except they did. And now there is talk of doing it again. Why? Because it's understood that liability to yourself is the paramount concern and sometimes it's better to move early and risk a public remembering it than to ride the disaster into the ground, and have the disaster in play when elections occur. This gamble is certainly on the minds of republicans right now.

    20. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about that. The last President to be impeached was Clinton, and the Democrat party wasn't "humiliated beyond imagining" there.

    21. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      He can't fire Congress...

      I think he's hoping to be able to arrest them, much as Erdogan does.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    22. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by istartedi · · Score: 1

      The saving grace of a Pence administration is that he'd have a weak mandate for saving grace.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    23. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, Trump likes redundancy. He's keeping Bagdad Kellyanne even though he's proven again and again that he's his own Bob.

    24. Re:first a russian mole in the white house by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It isn't all their fault, given the job the Republicans did at gerrymandering.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. I think I saw this on the Apprentice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    episode 3, season 2. amirite?

  8. Investigation down the toilet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well there goes that year long FBI investigation into Trump/Russia connections down the toilet.
    You would think After Flynn and Julian Assange, others would learn to not help men like trump. He will use you and then throw you under the bus. I guess it is Comey's turn to fall on his sword for 45.

    1. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'm curious as to how you can say this? Since the investigation is ongoing, doesn't it seem a tad premature to declare "Nope, nothing to find here?"

      Maybe this is Trump getting rid of a crappy FBI director, or maybe it's his own Saturday Night Massacre. I guess we'll find out.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump called. He said thanks for the blowjob.

    3. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      An exceprt from Trump's letter to Comey:

      While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgement of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.

      Trump went out of his way to mention -- in a letter he knew would be at the top of the news cycle -- that Comey told him three (count 'em, three!) times he wasn't under investigation. We'll be hearing that repeated by Trump surrogates ad nauseum in the days to come.

      Trump is afraid. He's getting rid of Comey on a flimsy pretense of mishandling his Clinton e-mail testimony, but his real concern is that he may not be personally under investigation at present, but he might be in the future.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by quonset · · Score: 4, Informative

      Comey has found NOTHING after over a year of trying to prove a link between Trump and the Russians.

      It hasn't been a year yet (July or August of 2016 is when the investigation started) so it hasn't been over a year.

      There are plenty of links between Trump and Russia when you look at the folks on his campaign and their own connections. Roger Stone bragged on several occasions he was in communication with Guccifer 2.0 and knew when the next batch of emails was going to be released. Guccifer 2.0 is part of the Russian intelligence services.

      Flynn, well, we know about his numerous ties to Russia and that he lied about not having any.

      Carter Page, who at first said he never helped the Russians with classified or other such materials, then changed his tune to "no comment" when asked about the investigation into his dealings with Russia, and now is saying, "No I'm not going to hand over evidence of my dealings with the Russians so you can hang me with it."

      As we saw a day or so ago, Eric Trump bragged that it was Russians who were financing his father's golf courses during the Bush recession. This on top of other financial dealings Trump has with Russia.

      Then today, the Senate committee investigating collusion between Trump and Russia during the campaign has asked the Treasury Department's criminal division to hand over any and all documents related to Trump, his campaign and campaign aides.

      That doesn't sound like "nothing important".

    5. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by grcumb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, the next director cannot do any worse for you... Comey has found NOTHING after over a year of trying to prove a link between Trump and the Russians.

      The Watergate scandal took 26 months from the day the burglars were arrested to the President's resignation. Just because you watched it all in 140 minutes doesn't mean that's how it actually played out.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    6. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by bobbied · · Score: 0

      . He's getting rid of Comey on a flimsy pretense of mishandling his Clinton e-mail testimony, but his real concern is that he may not be personally under investigation at present, but he might be in the future.

      Wait.... Wait...

      Did you just admit that, although Comey indicated that the Trump Campaign WAS under investigation for more than a year, that he is NOT NOW under investigation? Doesn't it follow that they then didn't find anything on this Russian Trump Collusion investigation we've been hearing about since before January 20th as both the reason Hillary lost and the thing that would bring Trump down?

      Are we ready to admit that this whole Russian Collusion charge was (to coin a phrase) "trumped up"? That the investigation is over and has turned up nothing over at the FBI?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by bobbied · · Score: 0

      The FBI found noting that implicates TRUMP... Isn't that the point? Are you not looking for something to impeach him over? Otherwise why all the pretense?

      Congress has their investigative ability to follow up the FBI's investigation, which they are doing now. However, given the FBI has done all this from a criminal perspective, and has failed to produce charges (Comey says Trump is not now the target of any FBI probes and there are no charges) anything that congress may uncover, assuming they don't catch somebody in a "process crime" (like Scoter Libby) it's going to be as much imagined smoke as one political party can produce and very little else. Remember the Benghazi hearings, it will be like that. Lots of talk, as much political damage as possible and no criminal charges..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It was helluva long ways into Watergate before anyone could say "Nixon must have known..." I wouldn't put the deposit down on the "Trump's Innocent" parade yet.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by bobbied · · Score: 0

      The Benghazi hearings went on longer than that and produced nothing but smoke too... Remember Ken Star? Of course you do, how long was Clinton under investigation? It was a LONG time and would have come to nothing w/o that blue dress and the attempt to cover up what it showed.

      Congressional hearings and investigations rarely ever find anything but process crimes like lying under oath. In fact, that's what got Clinton impeached. Not to mention that I don't think congress can actually produce charges. All they can do is pass the evidence they find over to prosecutors when they find a crime, or the house can impeach if they decide they want to (if it's a president).

      Now I guess you can invent scenarios where the house would vote to impeach Trump, but right now, it isn't happening, nor will he be convicted in the Senate if you managed to turn enough house votes (remember that takes 2/3rds by constitutional rule).

      This isn't going anywhere... Trump isn't stupid enough to get caught up in a process crime and the FBI isn't finding anything after all their looking. This is nothing more than partisan bickering and trying to do as much political damage to Trump as possible... Which, I guess, is enough of a reason to keep this circus going round for another 3+ years for some..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by bobbied · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yea, and Ken Star didn't find anything after years of trying, until Clinton lied about the blue dress like a stupid idiot. Congressional investigations of criminal activity rarely find anything more than process crimes (lying under oath and such). It's all political theater, a show you put on for the supporters who send you cash.

      The odds say they won't find anything... Although they will continue to try for years and yeas. Remember Benghazi? How long was that?

      This is about appearances and the political damage you can inflict with all the investigations, innuendo and rumors, not about reality or truth. The FBI did their investigation and didn't find anything. They could have missed something, but I doubt it. Comey's FBI did a fine job of investigating Hillary's E-mails and Anthony Weiner's issues, and I bet they did the same for Trump.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    11. Re: Investigation down the toilet. by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      No, it means nothing of the kind. The FBI investigation into Russian interference and links with the Trump administration continues.

    12. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by Boronx · · Score: 3, Informative

      They have some evidence now. At the time of Flynn's firing, Trump said that he'd just learned about Flynn's problems, but now that appears to have been a lie. If so, Trump is implicated in the cover up at least.

    13. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Comey says Trump is not now the target of any FBI probes

      You are aware that congress asked Comey under oath if he was investigating the trump administration and comey testified under oath that he in fact was investigating the trump administration.

    14. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by grcumb · · Score: 2

      The Benghazi hearings went on longer than that and produced nothing but smoke too... Remember Ken Star? Of course you do, how long was Clinton under investigation?

      Yep, no argument from me. You're more or less making my point, which is that how long an investigation takes is no indication—one way or the other—of its outcome. I have no opinion on the likelihood of Donald Trump's personal involvement in corrupt collusion with a foreign power. I believe he's stupid enough to do it, but nobody has yet shown any plausible evidence that he actually did.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    15. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by dbIII · · Score: 2

      until Clinton lied about the blue dress like a stupid idiot

      It was semantics (though it did indeed make him look like an idiot). At what point do you redefine kissing to be sex? Clinton seemed to be arguing never, and seemed to be arguing that only intercourse was "sex with that woman".

      The really strange thing is we are still talking about it today as if it was important enough to waste all that time in court. Clinton was already known to be sleazy, it was just his political opponents trying an "angle" to damage him and progress their own careers and the country be damned.

    16. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      personally under investigation at present, but he might be in the future

      The operative word is "yet".

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    17. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1
      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    18. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      how long was Clinton under investigation?

      And Clinton was impeached, as Trump surely will be. Clinton's transgressions are ridiculously minor compared to Trump's treasonous selling out of America.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    19. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton wasn't impeached.

      The only president you can argue was ever impeached was Reagan, but even he resigned before he could be impeached properly.

    20. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But of course, the links to Russia on Hillary's side are much more egregious and much more money changed hands, right up to the big Uranium deal. We will see how fair any Russia investigation is if it ignores those issues, or fails to follow up on the leaks of classified information from the Obama administration.

    21. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton was impeached in the house for perjury and obstruction of justice. The trial in the senate ended in his acquittal on both counts. But he was absolutely impeached.

      People claiming Trump will be removed from office are either claiming that massive and unquestionable evidence of criminal activity will emerge, or they have no idea how it works. Only in the first case will he be removed from office. The house seems very unlikely to impeach, and the senate very unlikely to convict (a 2/3rds vote in the senate, which can't even pass a budget without everyone screaming at each other on camera). In order for something like that to happen, you'd need to show actual treason, and I doubt even collusion with Russia would count.

      Anything that makes Trump have to testify on camera would be a huge win for the Democrats, of course, because they would get to use that visual during their (otherwise helpless and useless) 2020 campaign. So there will be plenty pushing for it- but it will likely go nowhere. Most likely, nothing will come out showing any real evidence, and Republicans will be able to tell their base "better get out and vote, these guys aren't even remotely interested in the law- they'll tear your guys down if you don't vote for team red!". And it'll work.

    22. Re: Investigation down the toilet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And trump has always been known to be sleezy. One is ok and one isn't ?

    23. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Did you just admit that, although Comey indicated that the Trump Campaign WAS under investigation for more than a year, that he is NOT NOW under investigation?

      Your reading comprehension is astonishingly lacking. He admitted that Trump has claimed that Comey told Trump that Trump is not under investigation. A claim that many people dispute is based on any factual basis.

      Are we ready to admit that this whole Russian Collusion charge was (to coin a phrase) "trumped up"? That the investigation is over and has turned up nothing over at the FBI?

      Absolutely not. Only a god damned fool would say "I guess they didn't find anything" immediately after the man being investigated fires the man investigating him.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    24. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by tbannist · · Score: 1

      This isn't going anywhere... Trump isn't stupid enough to get caught up in a process crime and the FBI isn't finding anything after all their looking.

      On, the contrary, I think Trump is exactly that stupid, but time will tell...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    25. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I was saying this on Monday.. BEFORE Comey got the ax.. Based on Comey's testimony last week before congress.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    26. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      If Trump really is that stupid, he's really lucky to have escaped so far and the longer he's president the chances of what you think being true continue to fall.... Eventually you will have to start thinking that perhaps the truth isn't what you hoped it was.

      I suggest you put away the partisan glasses and at least consider the possibility that Trump isn't stupid, nor has he done what you clearly think he has...I'm not asking you to believe in Trump, only to engage in some critical thinking about what's being said about him and realize that a lot of what you are hearing is partisan rhetoric from folks who hate him (and folks that love him).

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    27. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I suggest you put away the partisan glasses and at least consider the possibility that Trump isn't stupid, nor has he done what you clearly think he has...

      I don't know what you think that I think he's done, but I think Trump has poor impulse control and that's why he may get caught up in a process crime.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    28. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Clinton was impeached...on a party line vote, by an opposition majority
      With the Gerrymander safe behind the 5-4 wall of Federalists, there will BE NO opposition majority.
      And America will be sold to Putin, so much the pound
      Trump is just negotiating the price.

    29. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Fair enough.... However, it's a pretty bad position when you depend on your opponent to make a mistake before you can possibly have any advantage...

      BTW, He's been showing remarkable restraint with a number of issues from my perspective. All I'm really seeing from him are hiccups which are a result of his not caring about political correctness. He's brash, bold and unpolished, but I don't see him as impulsive or stupid, he just doesn't care about the politically correctness of what he says, tweets or does. (Which, by the way, is EXACTLY why he was elected..)

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    30. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI found noting that implicates TRUMP

      How do you know that? Comey has never stated Trump is not an investigation target, it is Trump who said Comey said that. The fact that Trump feels the need to put that claim in the letter is very telling.

    31. Re: Investigation down the toilet. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      And trump has always been known to be sleezy. One is ok and one isn't ?

      Funny isn't it.

    32. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Fair enough.... However, it's a pretty bad position when you depend on your opponent to make a mistake before you can possibly have any advantage...

      That's not at all what I said.

      BTW, He's been showing remarkable restraint with a number of issues from my perspective. All I'm really seeing from him are hiccups which are a result of his not caring about political correctness.

      Your bias is clearly preventing you from coming to an accurate assessment of the situation. Your evaluation of Trump may be affected by the a Halo effect, because impulsiveness seems to be one of Trump's defining character traits. Note, despite what I wrote, don't actually think Trump is stupid*, but I won't be surprised if he gets caught committing a larger crime while trying to cover up (or punish) some other lesser transgression.

      * I do think he's a corrupt, vindictive, and petty narcissist who cares very little for his country. Sure, he loves the adoring crowds, but he seems to have little interest in the actual business of running the country from everything I've seen and heard from both his friends and his enemies. But he's clever enough to manipulate both his partners and his opponents to get what he wants, most of the time, and to generally leave someone else holding the bag when things fall apart.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    33. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      * I do think he's a corrupt, vindictive, and petty narcissist who cares very little for his country.

      Where you think my preconceived notions cloud my judgment of Trump, I think yours do. You don't like him, so you are ascribing all your perceived faults as further evidence of why you are right. It's the same charge you make about me, so who's right? First, your assumptions about me are wrong....

      I don't hold Trump up as some ideal person, far from it. What politician is? None that I know of. Trump is many of the things you claim. He's brash, unpolished, braggart that cares little for political correctness or being nice. He doesn't take garbage or suffer foolishness (from his perspective) or play games. However, none of that disqualifies him from holding office and I support him because of his policies, which I agree with more than Hillary's.

      Corrupt? You are going to have to come up with proof of that... He's a rich business man who's been in the public eye for decades, surely you have proof of this charge by now...

      Vindictive? I don't think so, but I won't argue the point because so what if he is?

      Narcissist? Fine, I'll give you this. However, most politicians and well known people have similar characteristics... This isn't unusual. I think Obama is one too, but it's not something I'd use to bash him with.

      Cares very little for the Country? LOL.. Really? Sounds like a typical political "I don't like him" laundry list item...

      Who's bias is showing? Mine may be, but yours surely is too..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    34. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by tbannist · · Score: 1

      The difference is I see both his strengths and his weaknesses, while you excuse obvious faults with inane platitudes like "he's just not politicaly correct". No, that's not it at all, and you're wilfully blind if you actually believe that.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    35. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      So you don't wish to debate my point that you are biased too and I can assume you agree with me on that? Fine, we are done here then.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    36. Re:Investigation down the toilet. by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Your point is irrelevant, it doesn't matter whether or not I'm biased. In fact, you can like Donald Trump all you want, but you should stop trying to ignore or dismiss the actual facts, to suit your positive view of him. Either accept Trump, flaws and all, or recognize that you refuse to deal with reality.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  9. ya faiyahhd! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it'll be yuuge!

  10. I want to believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they can find him maybe they can appoint Fox Mulder to be the new Director. In Trump's world there isn't much difference between reality and TV fantasy.

    1. Re:I want to believe... by Miamicoastguard · · Score: 0

      That Skinner

  11. Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by marcgvky · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This guy bent and broke the law sooooo many times. There is no "intent" test in the statue nor CFR regarding violation of the espionage act. I know that a lot of OTHER READERS OF SLASHDOT hold a clearance, for their jobs. If you had done one 1000th of the shit that Hillary and Huma had done, do you have ANY DOUBT that you wouldn't be pounds rocks into gravel, in Leavenworth? Go eff yourselves, liberal monkeys. The law matters.

    1. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know that a lot of OTHER READERS OF SLASHDOT hold a clearance, for their jobs. If you had done one 1000th of the shit that Hillary and Huma had done, do you have ANY DOUBT that you wouldn't be pounds rocks into gravel, in Leavenworth?

      Pounding rocks into gravel? In Leavenworth? Doubtful. On the other hand, I have no doubt if any one of us were caught doing half the shit they got up to that we would be losing our clearances and our jobs. No doubt about that.

      Go eff yourselves, liberal monkeys. The law matters.

      Yeah, yeah, yeah! Whatever. In case you hadn't noticed, we now live in the age of Trump. Laws don't matter much any more. It's much more important to confidently double down on your own alternative facts...and to look chic and stylish while doing so!

    2. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Republicans have spent a billion tax payer dollars trying to find one thing Hillary is guilty of other than being a power hungry bitch.

      No one. Not even Donald Trump can stay free under that kind of scrutiny unless they are not guilty of legal wrong doing. No one can hide with that many private and public investigations going againist them.

      Morally she might be bankrupt, but we don't try people for being morally bankrupt or trump would have been executed for his crimes decades ago. Crimes like never paying back contractors what they are owed. Like hiding money from legally owed taxes. Oh and running more companies into the ground than airlines have crashed planes.

      So name one legal thing she has been found guilty of in a court of law?you can't all you know is propaganda heresey and lies told by Fox news and other conservatives. The fact you use liberal monkeys shows you are too stupid to use reason and logic.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, I've seen at least two people do it in the time I was in the government, holding a clearance. I'm not talking about hearing a rumor second or third hand, I'm talking about a guy who sat two desks over, that I knew on a first name basis, and worked with daily. Neither were anyone of remote importance, just average joes, and these were in two separate offices/commands, separated both by hundreds of miles and several years.

      Both of them did exactly that - they sent classified information via an unclassified email system. In one case, I was one of the recipients. Want to know what happened? There was an investigation to determine just what happened, and when. The investigators then wiped all the unclassified systems that touched those emails, including the servers they passed through. The guys who sent the email? They received a reprimand (I'm not sure if it was verbal or something more formal), and had to retake the security training on handling classified material.

      That was it.

      Neither was fired. If they did it again, they might have been, or if they violated security procedures some other way (bringing a cellphone into the secure area, or leaving a vault door unlocked or something). They sure as sh*t weren't sent to court, let alone jail over it.

      Now, if the unclassified email was their own system? They might have gotten fired/lost their clearances, sure, but unless the investigators determined that there was intent to leak classified information, a la Manning/Snowden/etc, or worse, sell it to someone a la Ames/Hansen/etc, that's almost certainly all that would happen to them.

    4. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back to your handler, holster boy.

    5. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both of them did exactly that - they sent classified information via an unclassified email system. In one case, I was one of the recipients. Want to know what happened? There was an investigation to determine just what happened, and when. The investigators then wiped all the unclassified systems that touched those emails, including the servers they passed through.

      They wiped your system too. And you probably had to get a new system, reinstall software, redo settings.

      I've been in IT having to deal with a "spill" as it's called. Another company sent us stuff. We had to wipe all kinds of stuff.

      We almost did the same when something was labeled & sent to us.

      We wasted hundreds of man hours on mistakes by another organization. It could be quite an effective DoS attack

    6. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Interesting anecdote, but you left out what level of classification that the information was. I'm guessing if it had twenty two instances of top secret information or anything even resembling SAP level confidentiality, as was the case with Secretary Clinton, that things would have ended differently for them.

    7. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      While we are at it, can anyone "name one legal thing" that Trump "has been found guilty of in a court of law?"

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    8. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Stop confounding 'not guilty' with 'innocent'.

      It is much more likely to have a conviction when key witnesses such as Vince Foster or Ron Brown can show up to court and not die under mysterious circumstances. There also isn't much hope for due process when deeply entrenched political interests run interference every chance they get.

    9. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Did it occur to you that maybe I'm not inclined to go talking about exact clearance levels and such on the open internet where gods only know who's reading?

      I'll simply say that this wasn't some low level operational crap - I was an intelligence specialist, and did intelligence work in a building that even the rest of the intelligence folks at the site weren't allowed in without special escort.

    10. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huma didn't have access to any confidential email or email systems. Nor did she hold a confidential clearance of any sort.

    11. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no "intent" test in the statue nor CFR regarding violation of the espionage act.

      A testable claim! Oh God, I love testable claims about the law. No "could be this" or "could be that," just it's there or it's not.

      18 U.S. Code sec. 798 - Disclosure of classified information

      (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information...

      My criminal law class taught that "knowingly and willfully" are intent elements. If you didn't know it or didn't will the act to happen (e.g., the information that you were given was unmarked and only later retroactively classified), then it's not a crime.

      Your claim that there's no "intent" test in the statute is false. Yes, the law matters, but your flawed understandling of the law does not.

    12. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Uberbah · · Score: 1, Informative

      18 U.S. Code sec. 798 - Disclosure of classified information

      As if that's the only law or statute on classified information.

      Your claim that there's no "intent" test in the statute is false. Yes, the law matters, but your flawed understandling of the law does not.

      Cough espionage act cough. Intent is irrelevant - ask any of the whisteblowers prosecuted for mishandling classified evidence. I have yet to see any of the "nothing to see here, move along" partisans come up for an explanation for why Kristian Saucier is serving hard time for having classified information on his unsecured, unauthorized cell phone - despite zero intent to distribute them - while Hillary remains free. Despite having a vastly larger amount of classified information on her unsecured, authorized email server.

    13. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Republicans have spent a billion tax payer dollars trying to find one thing Hillary is guilty of other than being a power hungry bitch.

      Hand waiving. They could easily prosecute her for war crimes, obstruction of justice, and mishandling classified information. They don't because those are the things they love doing themselves.

    14. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did it occur to you that maybe I'm not inclined to go talking about exact clearance levels and such on the open internet where gods only know who's reading?

      Nice avoidance.

      I'll simply say that this wasn't some low level operational crap - I was an intelligence specialist, and did intelligence work in a building that even the rest of the intelligence folks at the site weren't allowed in without special escort.

      Uh huh. Were they Original Classification Authorities? Did they also destroy evidence without authorization, or set up their own unsecured, unauthorized email servers at their homes which they used for all electronic correspondence?

    15. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And OJ Simpson isn't a murderer.

      Just because someone wasn't proven guilty in a court of law does not make them innocent.

    16. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I followed your well written argument up to the point you threw it away by becoming abusive, pity.

    17. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this massive and very likely illegal (but never brought to court - surprise surprise) abuse of power:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...

      I always thought she was the ones with ties to Russia until Trump got elected. Maybe Putin had everyone in check?

    18. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, if the unclassified email was their own system? They might have gotten fired/lost their clearances, sure, but unless the investigators determined that there was intent to leak classified information, a la Manning/Snowden/etc, or worse, sell it to someone a la Ames/Hansen/etc, that's almost certainly all that would happen to them.

      Unless they were named "Wen Ho Lee"...

    19. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      They could easily prosecute her for war crimes, obstruction of justice, and mishandling classified information.

      And my dad could easily beat up your dad. Any reason we should believe your [so far] unfounded assertions?

    20. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Posting as AC, 'cause I still have a job and a clearance and I don't need the hassle.

      Fire_Wraith is right - this is what usually happens with inadvertent disclosure of classified info over an unclassified system. I too have seen this happen exactly as described.

      However, once you get beyond "accidental disclosure" and go to deliberately sending this info knowingly over unclassified networks onto unsecured systems - and later destroying the materials yourself instead of reporting it promptly to the appropriate people to cover up the act - that gets into very dangerous territory, from lose your clearance and get fired to throw your ass in jail territory.

      I cannot believe anyone who holds a clearance and saw what Clinton did would think for a moment that they could get off so easy too if they did the same thing.

    21. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I can't. It's perfectly legal to defraud investors through corporatised entities. A normal person declaring bankruptcy = bad for them. Trump declaring like 5 times = good for him.

      Let's face it, declaring bankruptcy is a means of reneging on dept or in other words a means of defrauding the people you borrowed from. Trump has managed to declare bankruptcy a half dozen times and use it as a tool to enhance his wealth rather than have the punitive measure it is for the rest of us. He's not good at managing money at all, he's just good at losing other people's money and then saddling them with the bill.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    22. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Informative

      As if that's the only law or statute on classified information.

      He called out the Espionage Act. That's the classified information section of the Espionage Act. Is there another Espionage Act?

      It's called "moving the goalposts." You've just done it.

      Cough espionage act cough. Intent is irrelevant - ask any of the whisteblowers prosecuted for mishandling classified evidence.

      That IS the Espionage Act. Tell you what, why don't you specify the section of the U.S. code that you're referring to and we'll test that claim as well.

    23. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are commending Hillary for getting special treatment. I hope you realize that. It's sad if you don't.

      Nobody really cares if she was not found guilty. Everyone knows that she isn't innocent. People committing the same crimes have gotten years in prison, yet she was given a free pass. Why do you suppose that is....because she is innocent?

      We don't need propaganda heresy or lies from Fox news. We have leaked documents. Did you forget already?

    24. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same. I've seen the shit-show that happens when someone accidentally leaks classified data onto unclassified systems. It's not pretty, but it's not usually career-ending.

      However, that's what happens when you immediately report it to security and clean-up starts immediately. I have never seen what happens when you intentionally remove classified markings and send over public email systems, something Clinton was discovered to have done in her emails.

      The fact is that what Clinton did was far more serious than accidentally send classified email on an unclassified system.

      And assuming you take the same annual refreshers I take, it's clear that the people in charge of the system want to make sure that everyone damned well knows that, given the multiple questions on handling email, not removing classification headers, and sectional classification marks.

    25. Re: Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to start that off saying you couldn't say , but apparently could allude very strongly.

    26. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, you can't say that the offense and the punishment would be similar and then bury the lead with how the cases have nothing in common.

      Accidentally sending classified information on an unclassified email is NOT the same thing as setting up a home server, deleting evidence, and routinely asking for this to be a standard practice with them. So stop pretending they're the same thing, with one glaring difference.

      Unless the guys who sent the unsanitized emails specifically were asking to remove the marking to pretend everything is okay, it's not the same and you're missing something in order to defend Clinton.

    27. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, because working at the Pentagon I saw a guy get taken away in hand cuffs for connecting to his home VPN.

      There are different levels of classified, and different clearances. You are post office-tier.

    28. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by tbannist · · Score: 1

      While we are at it, can anyone "name one legal thing" that Trump "has been found guilty of in a court of law?"

      Interestingly, according to Wikipedia's summary of Trump's legal affairs the only thing he seem to have actually been convicted of appears to be "circumventing casino financing laws". Trump appears to have settled almost every other case against him with gag orders to prevent the plaintiffs from discussing the settlement and without publicly admitting fault.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    29. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I have yet to see any of the "nothing to see here, move along" partisans come up for an explanation for why Kristian Saucier [dailymail.co.uk] is serving hard time for having classified information on his unsecured, unauthorized cell phone - despite zero intent to distribute them - while Hillary remains free.

      Because he had intent to distribute them, and he was explicitly warned before taking the pictures that what he was doing was illegal?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    30. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      What would happen if those employees had asked to use their own Blackberries like the President had, were denied, but decided to set up their own servers instead?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    31. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Why did you not scroll down to Title 18, 793(f)?

      (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
      Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    32. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by mjwx · · Score: 2

      While we are at it, can anyone "name one legal thing" that Trump "has been found guilty of in a court of law?"

      If we're using Hillary standards here, shouldn't we be judging him on all the things he's just been accused of... and there's been a lot of that in the last 2 years alone... Lets not even mention potential links to organised crime with suspicious payments to several crime families.

      Trump == Innocent until well and truly proven guilty, then give him the benefit of the doubt.
      Clinton == Mere accusation is evidence of extreme wrongdoing.

      No double standards there.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    33. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Why did you not scroll down to Title 18, 793(f)?

      (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officerâ"
      Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

      Beyond the basic fact that 793(f) applies only to national defense information, and instead these were state department materials?

      Gross negligence is "carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil."

      Colnaghi, U.S.A., Inc. v. Jewelers Protection Services, 611 N.E.2d 282 (N.Y. 1993) defines gross negligence as "conduct that evinces reckless disregard for the rights of others or 'smacks' of intentional wrongdoing," and "represents an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care to the extent that the danger was either known to the defendant or so obvious that the defendant must have been aware of it."

      That's essentially intent, but eliminates the requirement that there be contemporaneous consciousness of the nature of the action. Combine it with the requirement that it be national defense information and you're still behind the eight ball if you attempt to bring a charge.

      Finally, the proposition was "There is no 'intent' test in the statue nor CFR regarding violation of the espionage act." Well, there is. You're merely attempting to move the goalposts, like the others before you.

    34. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like your "testable claim" line of thinking, and I appreciate you'll call out some dudes on their unfounded belief that Clinton is a criminal. I wonder what you'd think of my contention that 18 USC 793(f) and 798 can't possibly apply to the Secretary of State in any meaningful way. "Unauthorized" being the key word- who can authorize? Are we to believe that the current Secretary of State, in meeting with South Korean leaders, has to stick to publicly-available information about North Korea? If told specifically by the President, sure... but if not, I don't think Congress can so easily step on the Executive's power to conduct foreign affairs. Given Obama never indicated any disclosure was not authorized, and Clinton never indicated any disclosure was not authorized, how can we say that any disclosure was in fact unauthorized?

    35. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot believe anyone who holds a clearance and saw what Clinton did would think for a moment that they could get off so easy too if they did the same thing.

      They probably cant, but then again, they're not Secretary of State. You know, the 3rd-ranking Executive Officer of the United States... third, not because the Vice President is the Secretary of State's boss, but because the VP would become President before the SoS did. Charged with conducting foreign affairs, no less, a power wholly within the Constitutional powers of the Executive and thus least subject to restriction by Congress or the judicial branch.

      Are you saying the President cannot go on TV and disclose classified information? (Cause that's batshit crazy.) If the President can disclose, so can the Secretary of State, unless the President says 'hey that's not authorized.' And that happened when?

      There is simply no way any of the relevant statutes could possibly be viewed as applying to the Secretary of State. Can the current SoS really not tell the incoming French president 'don't worry, we have a mole in North Korea'? That's classified information, nobody in Congress or otherwise has "authorized" the French president to hear about it... but any reading of the statute that implicates Clinton would necessarily make such communication between allies similarly illegal.

    36. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      I have yet to see any of the "nothing to see here, move along" partisans come up for an explanation for why Kristian Saucier is serving hard time for having classified information on his unsecured, unauthorized cell phone - despite zero intent to distribute them - while Hillary remains free. Despite having a vastly larger amount of classified information on her unsecured, authorized email server.

      Your own link says that he was charged with "one count of unauthorized retention of defense information" and "one count of obstruction of justice."

      Was the information on Clinton's server defense information? Was she not authorized to have it? Did she destroy defense (or classified, or U.S. government-owned) information to thwart investigation?

      And no, her lawyers decision to withhold personal emails does not qualify as Clinton herself destroying information that is relevant to the investigation.

      One of these things is not like the other...

    37. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      unsecured, unauthorized email servers

      There was no requirement to authorize them. Clinton had the authority to do that herself.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    38. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      There was no requirement to authorize them. Clinton had the authority to do that herself.

      Pure, unadulterated nonsense, but I'll give you points for brazenness.

    39. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Willfully obtuse. Sailor was prosecuted for having classified information on an unauthorized device. Hillary had far, far, far more classified information stored on an unauthorized device. The math here isn't hard.

      And no, her lawyers decision to withhold personal emails does not qualify as Clinton herself destroying information that is relevant to the investigation.

      You mean delete thousands of emails. You're going from being willfully obtuse to being willfully stupid or dishonest - which is it? What do you think the sailor was charged with obstruction of justice for....hint, it was trying to dispose of the evidence after he realized he had screwed up.

    40. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Because he had intent to distribute them

      No, he had no intent to distribute them for espionage, as even the prosecutors will tell you.

      and he was explicitly warned before taking the pictures that what he was doing was illegal?

      Hillary was explicitly told of her responsibilities as an Original Classification Authority, and a mere two years earlier lambasted the Bush Administration for.....conducting business over private email. So you can add naked hypocrisy to her already established corruption and negligence.

      Next excuse?

    41. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      He called out the Espionage Act. That's the classified information section of the Espionage Act. Is there another Espionage Act? It's called "moving the goalposts." You've just done it.

      Are you really this incompetent? The Espionage Act DGAF about intent, which was the point that was made, that you skipped over.

    42. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Until Congress changed the law a year after Clinton left the State Department, there was no reason the Secretary of State couldn't use an outside email service for official business. Her server may have been ill-advised and badly administered, and there were certainly things on it that shouldn't have been, but the server itself was legal and needed no authorization.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    43. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pure, unadulterated nonsense, but I'll give you points for brazenness.

      Pure, unadulterated constitutional ignorance, but I'll give you points for sticking to your partisan talking points.

    44. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Now you're just engaging in willful dumbfuckery. Do show where in the Constitution where it says cabinet appointments may flout federal law?

    45. Re:Thank the Universe (I don't believe in a god) by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Until Congress changed the law a year after Clinton left the State Department, there was no reason the Secretary of State couldn't use an outside email service for official business.

      zombie Sandy Berger is fascinated by your alternative facts and would love to subscribe to your newsletter:

      On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report....Berger was fined $50,000,[23] sentenced to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and stripped of his security clearance for 3 years.

      Hillary had the same amount of authority to set up her own email server as Berger had to take out classified information in his pants, as much Petraeus had to show classified information to his mistress. Hillary is also a hypocrite of Newt/Bob/Denny proportions as she had blasted the Bush Administration for using a private email service two years before setting up her own private email server.

      "Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," Clinton said. "It's a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent."

      It's also fascinating to watch Dems continue to defend Hillary's email server as a great idea, at the same time they are seeing Russians hiding under every bed trying to hack into computing systems and engage in shenanigans. But her unsecured server was still a great idea!

  12. Meet the new boss... by zawarski · · Score: 1

    ... you know the rest.

  13. Comedy gold! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what get you with this guy: used and thrown away. Sounds like Comey wasn't willing to help bury the investigation into the mango-in-chief's ties to Russia. With the way the swamp is being "drained" in DC, I expect the new head of the FBI to be someone from the mob. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Comedy gold! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Given Trump's picks so far? I expect the new head to be either a businessman worth a few hundred million dollars at least, or a former head of an anti-immigration pressure group.

    2. Re:Comedy gold! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand our Fearless Leaders' Grand Plan: The swamp is being drained to make way for the new cesspool. Rumor has it that he expects Mexico to pay for it.

    3. Re:Comedy gold! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It'd be pretty cheeky even for Trump to try to float an appointment to head up the FBI who doesn't have a law enforcement background.

      I actually feel a little pity for the GOP right now. They backed Trump because in their eyes any other choice was worse, and I'm sure they thought they could control him adequately via being his 'advisers', since he's new to politics, but what they got instead is like a demented self-driving clown car with the throttle jammed wide open and a full tank of gas: can't control it, can't really stop it without completely destroying it, and guaranteed to end up in the ER for their trouble.

    4. Re:Comedy gold! by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What choice did they have? The GOP isn't the Democrats, there are no superdelegates to block a bad choice. I'm sure if the Republican establishment had had their way Jeb Bush would have been the nominee. Once he was nominated, there was little choice but to back him. The GOP's nomination process is pretty damned democratic, and the Democrats learned that having it too open can lead to candidates like McGovern.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Comedy gold! by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      It'd be pretty cheeky even for Trump to try to float an appointment to head up the FBI who doesn't have a law enforcement background.

      Why? Obama did it. James Comey is a lawyer.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    6. Re:Comedy gold! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there's that whole thing about "lawyers" and the "law". I don't think it's generally seen as a requirement of being an FBI director that one start out as a beat cop or something.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Comedy gold! by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      My money's on Erik Prince. He's no less qualified to lead the FBI than his sister is to run the Department of Education.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    8. Re:Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What choice did they have?

      Standing up to the crazies on talk radio earlier would have helped. Ending dog whistle politics could have helped, but no, they wanted to ride the tea party into power and they did.

    9. Re:Comedy gold! by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      Swap drained....???? he's turned into a Bayou.

      And everyone is going to want to see his current tax return compared to his next one so they can see how much money the tax payer spent propping up his business , you don't think all those security people are staying for free, hell he's probably trying to figure out if he can charge them membership fees to be there.

    10. Re:Comedy gold! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      But too many downticket races rely on the dog whistle tactics. Sure, that might kill the run of a candidate like Trump, but just how many local, state and federal GOP candidates rely upon such tactics to give them the edge?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:Comedy gold! by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is what get you with this guy: used and thrown away. Sounds like Comey wasn't willing to help bury the investigation into the mango-in-chief's ties to Russia. With the way the swamp is being "drained" in DC, I expect the new head of the FBI to be someone from the mob. ;)

      Didn't you read Trump's letter? He says that Comey told him three times that he (Trump) wasn't under investigation. Since Trump would never lie, and the FBI would never lie to a target of investigation, you can take it as gospel truth that that wasn't what happened.

      </sarcasm>

      Was I the only one that found it utterly bizarre that Trump chose to mention that in his letter firing Comey?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:Comedy gold! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I suppose every political party that loses needs its conspiracy theories. For Republicans, it was birtherism under Obama. For Democrats, it's Russian conspiracy theories under Trump.

    13. Re:Comedy gold! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I actually feel a little pity for the GOP right now. They backed Trump because in their eyes any other choice was worse, and I'm sure they thought they could control him adequately via being his 'advisers', since he's new to politics, but what they got instead is like a demented self-driving clown car with the throttle jammed wide open and a full tank of gas: can't control it, can't really stop it without completely destroying it, and guaranteed to end up in the ER for their trouble.

      On the other hand, the Republican faithful really like what he's been doing. The GOP might wish that his house was a little more stable, but they're pretty happy with what he's been doing. Don't make the mistake of thinking they're wringing their hands and saying "god, this fucking guy. What are we going to do?" I doubt they're even doing that behind the scenes.

    14. Re:Comedy gold! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      I suppose every political party that loses needs its conspiracy theories. For Republicans, it was birtherism under Obama. For Democrats, it's Russian conspiracy theories under Trump.

      Considering Russia's interference (confirmed fact) during the election, it's only prudent to investigate any possible links. Even republicans know that.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    15. Re:Comedy gold! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      'People liking what someone is doing' and 'what someone is doing being overall good' are not the same thing.
      At the rate things are going it's possible that none of it will matter before the year is out.

    16. Re:Comedy gold! by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Probably the head of a militia that doesn't believe in the authority of the FBI or any other police department if one where to go by how other department heads were filled.

    17. Re:Comedy gold! by Nethead · · Score: 1

      All FBI agents have law degrees. It's a pre-req.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    18. Re:Comedy gold! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Confirmed?? Where? They may have tried to influence the voters, but there is no confirmation of interference. But the democrats won't admit that maybe the contents of the DNC's correspondence is what cost them the election, so of course they will continue to grasp at straws to distract attention away from what they did.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    19. Re:Comedy gold! by fnj · · Score: 0

      confirmed fact

      Utter bullshit.

    20. Re:Comedy gold! by Ferretman · · Score: 2

      About time.

      Harry Reid demanded he resign back in December, for example:

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/the......

      So did the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks later in January, 2017:

      http://thehill.com/policy/nati......

      It's about time Trump cleaned out that bit of the swamp.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    21. Re:Comedy gold! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      They may have tried to influence the voters, but there is no confirmation of interference.

      Any attempt to influence the outcome of an election (easily) qualifies as interference.

      But the democrats won't admit that maybe the contents of the DNC's correspondence is what cost them the election

      If you want to wallow in the failings of the Democratic National Committee, that's fine as I have no love for them. However, the concern here is Russia's ties to the current administration.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    22. Re:Comedy gold! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Given Trump's picks so far? I expect the new head to be either a businessman worth a few hundred million dollars at least, or a former head of an anti-immigration pressure group.

      Or, maybe, DB Cooper. I hear he's doing well - or as well as Frederick Douglass anyway - and knows how to keep the FBI on its toes.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    23. Re:Comedy gold! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Harry Reid demanded he resign back in December...

      I'll one up you, I said he should have resigned a year ago.

      It's about time Drumpf cleaned out that bit of the swamp.

      The only problem is that the people he chooses are making it all the more swampy. Or did you not notice he's only hiring the 1%?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    24. Re:Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no russian ties. Get over it Trump is the President. Stop the witch hunt already.

    25. Re:Comedy gold! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Any attempt to influence the outcome of an election (easily) qualifies as interference.

      That's bullshit, unless you want to include all the advertising and campaigning.

      Oh wait, whoosh, right?

      the concern here is Russia's ties to the current administration.

      When you come up with evidence, let me know, okay?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    26. Re:Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What choice did they have? The GOP isn't the Democrats, there are no superdelegates to block a bad choice.

      Yeesh! What you are describing sounds quite a bit like battered wife syndrome.

      DNC: <wailing> I'm sorry! I'm sooooorry!!!

      GOP: <yelling at DNC> Look what you made me do!!! Look what you made me do! Goddam bitch! <smacks DNC in the face>

      Comey: OK, Ms DNC, do you want to file charges or not?

      DNC: <sniffling back tears> Oh, no! No. Really GOP is a good man, when he isn't drinking.

      GOP: Believe me, bitch, we will be discussing this more when we get home.

      DNC: Yes, dear. Let's just go home and put this all behind us. I just want to go home.

      In case you missed it, yes, we all had a choice in this election. Even the Republicans. Unfortunately, the Republicans apparently chose party over country. Now we are all paying the price for that. The next four years are going to be loooooong.

    27. Re:Comedy gold! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Considering Russia's interference (confirmed fact) during the election

      Sure, if they did, they did it in the same way in which Mark Felt "interfered" with President Nixon, Daniel Ellsberg "interfered" with the Vietnam War, or Linda Tripp "interfered" with Bill Clinton's presidency. Why would any reasonable person have a problem with truthful information about the malfeasance of US presidential candidates being released?

    28. Re:Comedy gold! by ooloorie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Any attempt to influence the outcome of an election (easily) qualifies as interference.

      Well, yes. Kind of like not wanting to pay for a woman's abortion "qualifies as" denying her the right to control her own body, or how not wanting to pay for other people's college education "qualifies as" denying access to education, or opposing the presence of illegal Mexicans in the US "qualifies as" racism, or opposing "gay marriage" qualifies as homophobia.

      You people are really good playing word games.

    29. Re:Comedy gold! by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Was I the only one that found it utterly bizarre that Trump chose to mention that in his letter firing Comey?

      Autocrats do that sort of thing. Personal issues become the most pressing State issues. Expect a lot more of this sort of thing.
      It's new for the US Presidency but extremely common in various regimes. It's the sort of thing that inspired George Washington to refuse a crown and ensure that his power was balanced - he's fought against leader that was a lot like Trump and didn't want one running America again.

    30. Re:Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until they lose their jobs, pay more for healthcare, and pay higher taxes...

    31. Re:Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would expect either a lawyer or on the outside chance a judge since it looks like historically that's where they come from, maybe some lawyer who has big corporate or law firm connections. He doesn't seem to trust the intelligence community, so the pick isn't coming from there.

    32. Re:Comedy gold! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Any attempt to influence the outcome of an election (easily) qualifies as interference.

      That's bullshit, unless you want to include all the advertising and campaigning.

      If Russia was involved in advertising and campaigning for either candidate, then it would be interference.

      the concern here is Russia's ties to the current administration.

      When you come up with evidence, let me know, okay?

      Isn't the the point of investigating?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    33. Re:Comedy gold! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      You should argue without resorting to obvious fallacies. ;)
      Russia is external to the US which is why it's interference.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    34. Re:Comedy gold! by sjames · · Score: 1

      OTOH, the Ds sandbagging Sanders to coronate Clinton may have cost them the presidency.

    35. Re:Comedy gold! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      If Russia was involved in advertising and campaigning for either candidate, then it would be interference.

      Well then, there certainly is no point in singling them out, is there? Unless of course you're trying to distract attention.

      Isn't the the point of investigating?

      Yes, investigating is nice. People should wait until it's completed if they want to be taken seriously with their accusations.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    36. Re:Comedy gold! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      You think so? Because the impression I got from comments from House Republicans when Bannon went in full of bluster and went after the Freedom Caucus with threats was "Who do you think you are?"

      I doubt few House or Senate Republicans would cry if Trump was tossed out. They're fear would be the inevitable blowback.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    37. Re:Comedy gold! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And considering Russia has been caught red handed meddling in other elections suggest that there is an intensive campaign in buggering up any mainstream status quo candidate in a Western, and in particular NATO nation. Mind you, I'd say that both the push back in Congress against Trump's Russian love affair and the failure to get Le Pen elected in France shows the limits of the strategy.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    38. Re:Comedy gold! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      They'll just blame Obama for all that.

    39. Re:Comedy gold! by bongey · · Score: 1

      And still nominated the worse candidate ever that could actually lose to Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton (ba-dum ching
      )

    40. Re:Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    41. Re:Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean like how Vice President Biden did with his security detail?

    42. Re:Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you upset when Obama interfered with Israel's election?

    43. Re:Comedy gold! by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I'm sure if the Republican establishment had had their way Jeb Bush would have been the nominee.

      lol. If the US ever crumbles into a monarchy, for sure the Bushes will be your Windsors.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    44. Re:Comedy gold! by Maritz · · Score: 1

      You people are really good playing word games.

      I lost brain cells reading that shit you posted. You are not good at playing word games.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    45. Re:Comedy gold! by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Timely and deliberate leaks of stolen emails unreservedly count as interference. I'm sure they are not the only way the Russians interfered either.

    46. Re:Comedy gold! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I lost brain cells reading that shit you posted.

      When you have so few left, that is indeed tragic.

    47. Re:Comedy gold! by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm still not understanding the "Sanders would totally have won" mentality, even though I voted for him. He's a self-described socialist, and the bulk of the Republican party never even bothered to campaign against him, seeing him as an easily defeated candidate, much as there was little or no campaigning against Trump by Team Hillary until he actually got the nomination.

      People who turn around and say "Ah, but anti-establishment!" forget that Trump did a pretty decent job of convincing people that he was anti-establishment, and the "establishment" they were referring to was more of a phantom "center left" group that supposedly was going to force everyone to gay marry Prius driving black Muslim transexuals, than the white, rich, male establishment that actually runs the country.

      Sanders was never going to win because you don't actually win fights against that establishment, it's the establishment for a reason, it would not survive unless a majority of the population actually propped it up.

      Trump won because he represented the fear by that establishment that it was losing power. Sanders would have lost even more easily than Clinton did. People had to hate Clinton for Clinton to lose. Sanders merely needed to say what he represented.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    48. Re:Comedy gold! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It hasn't been proven the Russians had anything to do with the emails. All of you are getting your info from tabloid press.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    49. Re:Comedy gold! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      And considering Russia has been caught red handed meddling in other elections

      Where? It would be nice to see a link with actual proof. And broadcasting propaganda doesn't count. Show me where they actually buggered the count, hacked a machine, anything more than speculation from the tabloids.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    50. Re:Comedy gold! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You people are really good playing word games.

      :-) Too bad you aren't. That shtick was pretty obvious...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    51. Re:Comedy gold! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You're perfectly free to call Russia's actions "interference", but if you do, then the term "interference" only amounts to "engaged in free speech and provided relevant information". That kind of interference is not objectionable to me. In fact, most countries, including the US, do that all the time.

    52. Re:Comedy gold! by DrXym · · Score: 1

      No, Clapper said it outright. Comey said it outright. Short of obtaining clearance to drawn conclusions based on the same evidence they saw I must surmise that the Russians did it. As would any reasonable person.

    53. Re:Comedy gold! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      :-) Too bad you aren't.

      I don't find it bad at all that I am not good at misleading people.

    54. Re:Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to pay for repairs to streets in parts of my city that I never visit. And yet I still have to. Strange how government (any government - not just the US) gets me to help the group as a whole instead of being able to hunker down in my selfish "screw you! I got mine, you can't have it! And I'll fight you if you do anything I don't like!" natural inclinations. It's almost as if it were designed to do that...

    55. Re:Comedy gold! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It'd be pretty cheeky even for Trump to try to float an appointment to head up the FBI who doesn't have a law enforcement background.

      Trey Gowdy would be perfect, but it would probably derail any path to the presidency for him.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    56. Re:Comedy gold! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      If Russia was involved in advertising and campaigning for either candidate, then it would be interference.

      Well then, there certainly is no point in singling them out, is there? Unless of course you're trying to distract attention.

      distract attention from what? besides, don't you have an article to correct?

      Isn't the the point of investigating?

      Yes, investigating is nice. People should wait until it's completed if they want to be taken seriously with their accusations.

      If there was no opposition to investigating then there would be no problem and this would fade away quickly as the truth is revealed. Unfortunately, there has been great resistance to investigating and this abrupt dismissal which only fuels suspicion. The greater the resistance the longer the investigation will take and the more you will hear about it. The more people involved in investigating that are abruptly fired, the more you will hear about it.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    57. Re:Comedy gold! by greythax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I love word games! Let's play some madlibs with your post!

      >Kind of like not wanting to pay for a _ "qualifies as" denying her the right to _
      I choose "Breast cancer" and "life". Sounds right.

      >or how not wanting to pay for other people's _ education "qualifies as" denying access to education
      "Public."

      > or opposing the presence of illegal _ in the US "qualifies as" racism
      "Immigrants". See, I just made it not racist! Why are you only after the Mexicans?

      >opposing "gay marriage" qualifies as homophobia.
      Uhhhh.. I got nothing. Turns out that opposing something that isn't your business and doesn't effect you just because it is icky is a phobia.

    58. Re:Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's address those in reverse order.

      opposing "gay marriage" qualifies as homophobia

      The scare quotes strongly suggest that in this case, at least, it probably does.

      opposing the presence of illegal Mexicans in the US "qualifies as" racism

      Being concerned about illegal immigration is not racist. However, suggesting that the issue is solely Mexican is ignorant at best. Maybe you just used "Mexican" to refer to anyone from south of the Rio Grande (including Central America and South America), but I'm not sure that helps your point either.

      not wanting to pay for other people's college education "qualifies as" denying access to education

      Do you support a U.S. that's closer to a meritocracy than an aristocracy? How about the idea (or ideal) that hard work, intelligence, and persistence can lift someone out of an impoverished background? If so, then public funding for higher education is essential. This has nothing to do with whether you personally get a degree; it has everything to do with the kind of society you want to live in.

      Also, it's a tiny portion of your overall taxes. Looks like about 13% of your state taxes, and less than 3% of your federal taxes, go towards higher education.

      not wanting to pay for a woman's abortion "qualifies as" denying her the right to control her own body

      This is largely a moot point, and seems almost like a straw man.

      To the extent that it's not, though: abortion is one of many legitimate medical practices that some people question on moral grounds. (Other examples: birth control for unmarried people; permanent sterilization; palliative care for patients who might be cured with more extreme treatment.) Singling abortion out for de-funding in government health programs makes it effectively inaccessible for many patients.

      And yes, removing an option in a largely-binary choice (carry vs. terminate a pregnancy) takes control away from the patient.

      You people

      ... seriously?

    59. Re:Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you could say that Trump is the GOP's pre-existing condition....

    60. Re:Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      opposing "gay marriage" qualifies as homophobia.

      Though these two things are not exactly the same, as you (sarcastically) pointed out, I have yet to see anyone provide a reasonable and objective justification to oppose gay marriage that isn't based on (at the very least) distaste for homosexual people (or their lifestyles). The ones who are not simply overtly homophobic usually use either vague and nebulous justifications (such as "the necessity to protect the institution of the Traditional Family"), personal (and, thus, meaningless) justifications (such as "I simply don't agree with it") or justifications based on religion (again, personal justifications and, thus, meaningless).

      But... hey... feel free to prove me wrong and provide a reasonable objective reason why we should not let two arbitrary adults join together in a family. It will surprise me if you manage to come up with something, I'll tell you that...

    61. Re:Comedy gold! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'm going to put some faith in the intelligence community here. You don't have, and can continue to imagine that the Kremlin is somehow a nice friendly teddy bear if you like.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    62. Re:Comedy gold! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously, you're as dishonest and deluded as the Democrats.

    63. Re: Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What idiot modded this up? You think attempting to do something doesn't show intent. Just showing you don't understand English. Not attempting to do something is not the same as not funding the opposite. This is called intent in law.

    64. Re:Comedy gold! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The needed distractions are to cover up our own political corruption.

      Their 'conclusions' are still speculation. Something that cops do every day to close out cases, frequently getting the wrong guy (that list is much longer than what is published on that page). We already know how easy it is to fake the hack and plant evidence. I've been watching this campaign build up for a long time. So please, save your breath. The contents of the wikileaks reveal much more than your tabloids ever will. But here again people must be distracted from that. And of course we have people just following the story they want to believe. And what we really have is a big case of the proverbial sore loser after spending all that effort over the last 15 years being groomed for the job. The story you choose to ignore is the contents of the leaked info. Only there will you find something resembling the truth.

      You conspiracy theorists have a good game going this time, but it's still bullshit, just like the birther thing. Don't believe the tabloids. Try your case in a public court and let's see how it turns out. Only then can you confirm the Russians did it. So far this is nothing more than*burning the witch*

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    65. Re:Comedy gold! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Ah, Clapper, and Comey? Please! Stop digging... Word!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    66. Re:Comedy gold! by DrXym · · Score: 1

      It's not digging, just a statement of a what any reasonable, thinking person would conclude on the basis of what's known to the public.

    67. Re:Comedy gold! by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      I'm going to put some faith in the intelligence community here.

      You go right ahead! Deny deny deny...

      continue to imagine that the Kremlin is somehow a nice friendly teddy bear if you like.

      Damn! What is the name for that kind of crap? Are you one of those people who believe that unless you voted for Hillary, you voted for Trump? Well, you can *continue to imagine that the democratic party is somehow a nice friendly teddy bear if you like*. They still will never get my vote, or the republicans (just so you don't twist that one into a vote for them too)

      Eh, this isn't politics here, the problem is psychological. Keep the faith, babe

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    68. Re:Comedy gold! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      There is nothing 'reasonable' about making and believing accusations without evidence. Wake me when you find some. *Trust me* doesn't count.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    69. Re:Comedy gold! by quantaman · · Score: 1

      What choice did they have? The GOP isn't the Democrats, there are no superdelegates to block a bad choice. I'm sure if the Republican establishment had had their way Jeb Bush would have been the nominee. Once he was nominated, there was little choice but to back him. The GOP's nomination process is pretty damned democratic, and the Democrats learned that having it too open can lead to candidates like McGovern.

      The problem isn't that they didn't have superdelegates, the problem is they spent 8 years paving the way for someone like Trump.

      Remember birthers, death panels, imaginary voter fraud complaints, or a constant stream of contradictory rhetoric about the ACA?

      The GOP spent years pushing crazy rhetoric as theatre, they passed bills dismantling the ACA but didn't expect them to become law, the encouraged the conspiracy theories but didn't believe them.

      Trump seems so extreme because he actually believes a lot of what the GOP and Fox News has been saying, and he built a base out of the Republican voters who were looking for a GOP candidate whose rhetoric matched their actions.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    70. Re:Comedy gold! by DrXym · · Score: 1

      There is more than enough information in the public domain to convince any reasonable person. You can pretend it doesn't exist if you like, such as your handwaving exercise about emphatic statements by intelligence officials. More fool you. You're clearly not a reasonable person.

    71. Re:Comedy gold! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      If you have a case, then try it in court, until then it's all hearsay and circumstantial.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    72. Re:Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% False.

      Tons of experts predicted that Sanders vs Trump would've been the biggest landslide victory for Sanders in US history. The vast majority of polls back this up. Every Trump voter I personally know was a Sanders supporter that voted against Hillary, and that sentiment has been mirrored hundreds of thousands of times in political discussion groups. Close to 50 million unique people attended Bernie's rallies, that's 1/6th of America!

      The sad fact is: if the DNC had not cheated Sanders out of the nomination, America actually would be great again, instead of rapidly devolving into a fascist state. I'm sorry vast reams of data don't support your position, but at least you're not alone.

    73. Re:Comedy gold! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      They'll just blame Obama for all that.

      They voted for a health bill they didn't read, that was passed 24 hours after it was drafted. These are the people who loudly cried "we have to pass the bill to know what's in the bill (sic)" yet Obamacare got far more Congressional scrutiny than this new health law got.

    74. Re:Comedy gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only need to look at where each candidate drew support from to see why Sanders was a better option vs. Trump. Hillary appealed to the Democratic base (essentially the center-right in absolute terms) and little more. Sanders appealed to the left (which is stuck with the Democrats for lack of better options) and independent moderates. The bulk of the Republican candidates were solidly in the Republican base (to the right of the Democrats), but Trump appealed to both the far right and independent moderates. In the general election, the base is almost certain to vote for their party's candidate and the extremes will fall in with the closest party or go third party. That just leaves the voters who are sick of this whole mess. Voters who feel like nobody represents them. Voters who struggle every day to get by because of student loan debt, unemployment, and a health care system that has gone out of control. Voters who just want a candidate to admit for once that the system is broken and business as usual isn't going to fix it. Those are the voters who decided this election. And while a lot of them hated Clinton, they hated her less for who she was than for what she represented. Clinton represented the status quo, the ultimate political insider who put in her time and was going to be rewarded accordingly for going along with the candidate who defeated her and not rocking the boat. Trump and Sanders were the only candidates who seemed to genuinely want to represent those outside the establishment, and yes, I use "genuinely" loosely here.

    75. Re:Comedy gold! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you can accept the fact that Trump won the election asnd still argue that Sanders had no chance.

      You're saying that, just like Trump, the opposition didn't take Sanders seriously and thought he would be easily defeated. ...In our current state, that's not an argument against Sanders.

      Hey, I'd agree that Trump is indeed anti-establishment. He's pro-business, but he's not an old friend of half the politicians. Other than maybe Hilary, ironically. Trump won. It's time to accept that.

      He just fired an old republican. The GOP is burning. They have no idea what to do other than say "no" like they've done for the past decade. And "their boy" in the white house is off his chain.

    76. Re:Comedy gold! by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Sanders would have lost even more easily than Clinton did. People had to hate Clinton for Clinton to lose. Sanders merely needed to say what he represented.

      You're assuming a the same people who voted in Clinton vs Trump would've voted in Sanders vs Trump. That's not the case. Clinton didn't lose because people who voted for Trump hated her. Clinton lost because people who voted for Obama hated her, and didn't bother to show up to vote.

      Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans. The Democrats' problem has always been lower turnout. For them to win elections, they need a candidate who inspires registered Democrats to bother to vote. Obama did that. Sanders did that. Clinton did not. 2016 turnout was down in counties where Clinton won, up in counties that Trump won. Clinton's message of "If you don't vote for me Trump will win" simply wasn't good enough to inspire Democrats to go to the polls.

    77. Re:Comedy gold! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      You are right that we don't know what would have happened if Sanders went up against Trump, but we do know what happened when Clinton went up against Trump. She lost.

      The thing with Sanders is that while many people disagree with him, they still respect him because they see Sanders as someone who is honest, well-intentioned, and willing to stand by his principles even if they might be unpopular. So I wouldn't count Sanders out, as he would get votes from people just because they want someone with integrity in the Whitehouse for a change.

  14. I'll take the job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :)

  15. New FBI Director: Joe Arpio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Starting ASAP.

  16. More info: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  17. Highly unsual by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FBI Directors are traditionally non-partisan, and serve a 10 year term that is not at the pleasure of the president, unlike political appointees. This isn't to say that the President doesn't have the power to fire the Director, but it hasn't been done before, and would be a very unusual step. The question then is what is the cited reason for it, because given the current situation and ongoing investigations, it's really really suspicious, on par with the Watergate "midnight massacre" where Nixon fired both the Attorney General and the Deputy AG before getting to someone that would agree to fire the Special Prosecutor that was investigating Watergate.

    In other words, it had better be a really damn good reason.

    1. Re:Highly unsual by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It does have the look of desperation. I'm not really one to give much credence to conspiracy theories, but I read yesterday of some group of Congressmen (identities unknown) who are already meeting to discuss impeachment. I'm not really sure I believe that, but Trump is running out of people to throw under the bus.

      And how does firing Comey even help him? As I said above, it's not like he can't be summoned by Congress, and while I guess Trump could try to stymie further investigation, that would constitute a positively Nixonian abuse of power. As it is, Sessions has recused himself, so Trump's AG isn't really inside of this at all.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Highly unsual by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The reason being cited from what I'm reading so far is that he's being fired over mishandling the Clinton email probe. That his AG and Deputy signed off on it does not reassure me in the least. This is at best a minor, minor thing, one far less problematic than errors made by past FBI directors - ones that left people dead for instance. .. which leaves me with absolutely zero confidence that this is anything but an excuse to get rid of him and put a compliant stooge in that will quash the ongoing investigations.

      Would it work? Probably not, no more than Nixon replacing the Attorney General in order to get special prosecutor Archibald Cox fired quashed the Watergate investigation/scandal. At worst, I think you'd see the damning evidence start to leak out into the open, spurring more action.

    3. Re:Highly unsual by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem with such a reaction to a scandal is that it only raises the stakes. Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre was pretty much the turning point in the Watergate Scandal, where public support bled away, and with it his insurance policy that Senate Republicans would jump on the grenade to protect him.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Highly unsual by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The reason is ostensibly Comey's mishandling of the Clinton email investigation. Is that explanation convincing to anyone?

    5. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FBI Directors are traditionally non-partisan, and serve a 10 year term that is not at the pleasure of the president, unlike political appointees.
       
      Tell that to Bill Clinton and Bush Jr. And only one director in the last 30 years has served a full 10 year term.
       
      Sounds like you're coming up with alternate facts to fit your dialogue.

    6. Re:Highly unsual by Geste · · Score: 1

      Not to pick nits, but I think Elliot Richardson resigned rather than comply with Nixon's directives. Wish we had more of his kind.

    7. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I heard the word impeach thrown around before he even took office from democrats. Doesn't mean anything at all. Remember Clinton was actually impeached, didn't seem to slow him down any.

    8. Re:Highly unsual by Koby77 · · Score: 1

      In other words, it had better be a really damn good reason.

      How about lying to Congress?

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

    9. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just going to leave this one here for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Sessions

      Give it a quick little read!

      It's not that I disagree with you, but you're incorrect on certain points.

    10. Re:Highly unsual by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The other possibility that occurs to me is that Trump, in his fixation with Hillary Clinton, intends to double down and try to replace Comey with someone who will charge her, regardless of the fact that it won't last a day in court.

      Of course, it could well be both, or some combination thereof. Perhaps Trump thinks the spectacle of that would distract sufficiently from the Russia investigation to let him quash it more easily, too.

    11. Re:Highly unsual by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The reason is ostensibly Comey's mishandling of the Clinton email investigation. Is that explanation convincing to anyone?

      Very convincing to me, I was surprised that it didn't happen months ago. Given how poorly Comey handled it, Obama could even have fired him. His blunders made that whole situation extremely messy.

    12. Re:Highly unsual by bobbied · · Score: 1

      It does have the look of desperation. I'm not really one to give much credence to conspiracy theories, but I read yesterday of some group of Congressmen (identities unknown) who are already meeting to discuss impeachment.

      Just so you know, members of congress have been stating openly that impeachment was their goal since before Trump was sworn in so this is not news or somehow a recent development. A couple have openly called for impeachment, then had to walk such statements back when pressed on them.

      So... I would caution you that such talk, including the cloak and dagger trappings, are designed to invoke suspicion, and are unlikely based on much more than rumors. Trump would call them "fake news" but I won't go quite that far. It does seem to be manufactured news though, invented by political opponents of Trump and reported by the press without much critical thinking involved.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    13. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every executive employee serves at the discretion and pleasure of the POTUS. He can fire anyone at any time for any reason.
      Eric Holder, as Attorney General, set the precedent of a partisan Democrat hack, instead of being an impartial advocate for Justice. He was forced to resign. Lois Lerner also set that standard in the IRS. Susan Rice lied to the American people about the "Video that caused Benghazi" when their internal docs showed exactly the opposite.
      The Democrat controlled Senate set the precedent for changing the senate rules and creating the Nuclear option to force Obamacare fail-sauce on an American populace who were, at the time, against it to the tune of 70%. Obama fired a whole slew of Bush hires and no one batted an eye about it.
      So the GOP controlled government is doing things you don't like. You don't have to like it, but you will take it.
      There's not going to be some grand realization of the entire population who all come to see the world from your point of view. There will be civil war first, then after that at least half the population still won't agree with the other half. The ignorant man assumes that the other side doesn't agree with his world-view because they are ignorant. The reality is that human beings have the CHOICE to select collectivism or individualism. If only the hackneyed caricature of the dumb redneck Redstaters lined up with reality, but if it helps you get to sleep at night....
      Yeah but, but, but Bush was bad too and Hillary threw Bernie under the Bus and Obama lied about Obamacare and Bush started wars in the Middle East and then Obama warred even more over there and the GOP was bad when they gave 1 trillion TARP money to a bunch of rich Wall Street & banker guys so they could stay rich. The Democrats were wrong when they gave another 2 trillion to rich wall-street & banker guys so they could stay rich. What keeps me awake a night is wondering why the rich Wall Street guys and bankers could force their hand. Maybe the economy is just one big juggling act floating on a bunch of worthless paper & we're all mass hallucinating that it still has value. Take a look at Argentina some time.
      We're divided.
      But it's not RED against BLUE. It's D.C. against us and they're playing us like a fiddle.

    14. Re:Highly unsual by grcumb · · Score: 2

      FBI Directors are traditionally non-partisan, and serve a 10 year term that is not at the pleasure of the president, unlike political appointees. This isn't to say that the President doesn't have the power to fire the Director, but it hasn't been done before....

      Yes it has. Clinton fired the FBI Director for abusing the corporate jet to visit friends. That was the first and only time that I'm aware of, however.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    15. Re:Highly unsual by laing · · Score: 2

      It's not up to the FBI to charge her. It's up to the Justice Department. Comey overstepped his authority when he declared that she will not be prosecuted.

    16. Re:Highly unsual by Stephenmg · · Score: 1

      Only two total have served 10 years. One of them was J. Edgar Hoover. This actually looks rather typical based on history. Let the current ride for a few months and switch part way into the first year.

    17. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Senator Chucky Schumer said it wasn't Russia, it was Pepe the Frog (a Nazi symbol or "Ctlr-Alt-Delete") that hacked Hillary. Trump tried to cover it up by killing Pepe in a staged suicide.
      Comey got fired for investigating Trump's connection to Pepe.

      It's just a matter of time until Congress impeaches Trump over Pepe's murder.

    18. Re:Highly unsual by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1, Informative

      try to replace Comey with someone who will charge her

      This would be literally anyone in the country. Comey already said, on national television, that the FBI has proof of every single element of the felony of mishandling classified material, as Congress wrote the law.

      He declined to refer the case for prosecution because he couldn't find evidence of criminal intent. This was an error, because the standard, as written by Congress, is gross negligence.

      Either he gets bounced out now and replaced, or all of our strict liability laws are not only null and void, but also irrepairable. I'm fine either way - I detest 99% of strict liability laws.

      Quick and crude summary: negligence is when you weren't successful at executing a duty, gross negligence is when you don't even try, knowingly is when you aware that you are committing a felony, and willfully is when the felony is the point.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    19. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...it hasn't been done before..." ? Seriously? Bill Clinton, 1993 & who did he fire? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Sessions

      You liberals are hilarious, some Republican does something you don't like and immediately it's "that's never been done before" only to find out that, no indeed it has been done before by a Democrat.

      This game from both sides actually used to be pretty damn funny to watch but the cognitive displayed has gotten VERY worrisome. You think Trump has problems with the truth...you guys really need to look in the mirror (note I'm making no claim Trump is great or anything but if you intend to throw stones you better be sure you're on the 'right side' of history).

    20. Re:Highly unsual by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying that would not be a good reason for firing Comey (back when it actually happened). It would be a very plausible reason for a hypothetical president Hillary Clinton to fire Comey on January 20th. I'm skeptical that this was Trump's reason for firing Comey.

    21. Re:Highly unsual by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trump doesn't fire people for being incompetent. He fires people for being disloyal. Hell, being incompetent is practically a job requirement in his administration.

    22. Re:Highly unsual by kqs · · Score: 2

      The other possibility that occurs to me is that Trump, in his fixation with Hillary Clinton, intends to double down.

      What fixation? As soon as the election was over Trump stopped caring about Hillary's "crimes". He didn't really care even before, but it made him popular when he pretended and he loves being popular.

      I suspect that he's getting rid of Comey because Comey isn't playing ball quashing the Russia investigation, and Trump's all about childish outrage when anyone "defys him". Also, no republicans in DC will help Comey because this will just hasten the Russia investigation, and most republicans in DC hate President Trump but would love President Pence.

    23. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Clinton fired William Sessions as director of FBI

    24. Re:Highly unsual by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The reason being cited from what I'm reading so far is that he's being fired over mishandling the Clinton email probe. That his AG and Deputy signed off on it does not reassure me in the least.

      There were a lot of big and sustained screw-ups on his part, seemingly from attempts to seem impartial by being as harsh as possible on Clinton.

      The first time he testified to congress he literally gave the Republicans a bunch of campaign quotes by expressing opinions about Clinton being irresponsible and careless. It doesn't matter if that was his opinion or not, he wasn't there to talk about her responsibility, he was there to answer facts about the investigation. If he was worried about politicizing the FBI then that testimony did it.

      Next, when Weiner's laptop surfaced. He apparently became obsessed over the idea that it would have contained evidence of bad intent, believed his techs who said they couldn't review all the emails before the election, and was worried that it meant his testimony about the investigation being complete was no longer true.

      First, it's fairly clear Clinton was just clueless when it came to the potential email issues, if Comey thought he was going to find something he has crappy instincts.

      Second, any competent tech could have whipped up a shell script to compare those emails in a few hours, the fact he thought they would have to manually review every email meant he either had incompetent techs, meaning he was a terrible leader. Or his techs were deliberately misleading him, meaning he was a terrible leader. Either way he was a terrible leader.

      Lastly, actually going through with the letter, he had to know that would be a massive election story. The idea that this was better than his testimony being retro-actively incorrect is ludicrous and an example of terrible judgment.

      This is at best a minor, minor thing, one far less problematic than errors made by past FBI directors - ones that left people dead for instance.

      He changed the outcome of an election, and considering the current administration that carries with it a pretty high body count.

      .. which leaves me with absolutely zero confidence that this is anything but an excuse to get rid of him and put a compliant stooge in that will quash the ongoing investigations.

      Here I'm in complete agreement. Comey wasn't fired for his job performance, if there's one thing we can conclude from the Trump administration is that if you want a job you should list incompetence at the top of your resumee.

      Would it work? Probably not, no more than Nixon replacing the Attorney General in order to get special prosecutor Archibald Cox fired quashed the Watergate investigation/scandal. At worst, I think you'd see the damning evidence start to leak out into the open, spurring more action.

      Again I'm in agreement, at this point I'd be shocked if Trump wasn't actively colluding with Putin and I suspect Trump is doing everything he can to derail an investigation.

      At this point I suspect his plan is to get enough of his ppl in place that they people with evidence are forced to leak, and when they do he'll try to focus the discussion on the leakers rather than the evidence.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    25. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what he gains is time, this creates delays which in turn gives him time to push his personal agenda for longer. Eventually it will catch up but what he is hoping is that by then it is already too late as he will have gotten what he wanted.

    26. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it hasn't been done before

      Don't forget Janet Reno firing FBI Director William H. Sessions. At about the same time, a different guy named Sessions, that is Jeff Sessions, was working some lower level office in the DOJ and also got fired by Reno. I suspect Jeff Sessions remembers those incidents and doesn't think they're unusual.

    27. Re:Highly unsual by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      This isn't to say that the President doesn't have the power to fire the Director, but it hasn't been done before, and would be a very unusual step.

      And by "hasn't been done before," you mean "was last done by Bill Clinton in 1993," right?

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    28. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate Trump. But Bill Clinton fired the FBI director.

    29. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FBI Directors are traditionally non-partisan, and serve a 10 year term that is not at the pleasure of the president, unlike political appointees.

      Lots of loaded words here. Let's turn to what the liberal media was saying when Comey was attacking Hillary: yes, you can fire them, and in fact Clinton did. Also the 10-year rule was a reaction to J Edgar Hoover, so it may have been meant to put a cap on future 48-year terms, limiting the FBI director's power, not the President's.

    30. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not up to the FBI to charge her. It's up to the Justice Department. Comey overstepped his authority when he declared that she will not be prosecuted.

      Not really, given that he was recommending against prosecution, and that prosecutors typically do not proceed with prosecution when law enforcement recommends against it. He was just (correctly) calling the outcome. It was perhaps stepping on the AG's toes, but he didn't actually do anything that would constitute "overstepping his authority".

    31. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw a report yesterday on cnn maybe, that Trump asked them to come up with justification to fire Comey. They send such a letter and he says he went with their recommendation to can him. Bootstrap logic at its finest.

    32. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I read yesterday of some group of Congressmen (identities unknown) who are already meeting to discuss impeachment

      The Republicans had a committee looking to impeach Obama starting about the time McCain made his concession speech. The Democrats have been looking to impeach Trump since about the time the results in Michigan were called. Discussing impeachment is politics as normal.

      Wake me when there are some Republicans involved in those discussions.

    33. Re:Highly unsual by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Comey said she would not be prosecuted, and that prosecuting her for what she did would be unprecedented, as previous such offenses had been handled administratively. He didn't make the actual decision (although the Attorney General decided to go with his recommendation).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    34. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be literally anyone in the country.

      Comey already said, on national television, that the FBI has proof of every single element of the felony of mishandling classified material, as Congress wrote the law.

      Law enforcement says a lot of things, not all of them truthful. Comey, as accused by Trump, who fired him, has a record of speaking mistruths, thus...his words would mean nothing to me.

      He declined to refer the case for prosecution because he couldn't find evidence of criminal intent. This was an error, because the standard, as written by Congress, is gross negligence.

      Either he gets bounced out now and replaced, or all of our strict liability laws are not only null and void, but also irrepairable.

      The error you have, in your assessment, is that prosecutorial discretion exists. It's a real thing. There is no strict requirement of ANY crime being prosecuted, no matter what the standard or situation. That means that there is no impact on the judicial status of anything.

      I'm fine either way - I detest 99% of strict liability laws.

      Your hyperbole doesn't do you much credit. Really, does anybody think you even looked at 1% of strict liability laws to assess them?

      Quick and crude summary: negligence is when you weren't successful at executing a duty, gross negligence is when you don't even try, knowingly is when you aware that you are committing a felony, and willfully is when the felony is the point.

      Your summary is excessively crude, and does you no credit, but in fact, makes for a penalty. Negligence, for example, isn't when you weren't successful at executing a duty, but when you fail to execute the duty within the expected bounds of appropriateness. You can still fail, but not be negligent. Grosss negligence doesn't require you not to try, but a level of behavior even beyond the bounds of negligence.

    35. Re:Highly unsual by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      by Anonymous Coward on 2017-05-10 18:57 (#54396915):

      REEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEE.

      There are times when 99% means 99 per 100, and there are times when it means "This category is vile in general, but I can't say all because I know of a few exceptions."

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    36. Re:Highly unsual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are times when 99% means 99 per 100, and there are times when it means "This category is vile in general, but I can't say all because I know of a few exceptions."

      You know, you just provided an example yourself with a better way to say things, rather than a statement that makes you look willing to say something you know is false. It'd actually benefit you if you learned to choose other phrasings. Like I said, it doesn't do you much credit.

      Oh, also, I munged my comment, so I will re-add my thoughts, especially since they directly relate:

      This would be literally anyone in the country.

      This is mistaken, there's quite a number of people who would not do as you suggest, and realizing that is important. If nothing else, you should admit to the existence of Hillary stalwarts who would never do that. Some might, but only because they'd see such prosecutions as a way to expose the farce, a modern day Scopes Monkey Trial.

      Of course, by that same token, there are Trump stalwarts who would never put her on trial, since they prefer the state of things where they can have the controversy.

      It's not as you portrayed it.

    37. Re:Highly unsual by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Well it seems as though even Donald Trump couldn't keep this lie going, even after he presumably had many of his staff try to do it.

    38. Re:Highly unsual by laing · · Score: 1

      Are you referring to the Attorney General who had a private meeting with Hillary's husband shortly before that decision?

  18. Here are the letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-comey-fired-fbi.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

    It sounds as if they intend to prosecute Secretary Clinton...

    1. Re:Here are the letters by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a post on Twitter that Mr. Comey “should be immediately called to testify in an open hearing about the status of Russia/Trump investigation at the time he was fired.”

  19. The letters about and to Comey by riskkeyesq · · Score: 2, Informative

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... Good luck, Secretary Clinton.

    1. Re:The letters about and to Comey by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Alas, slashdotted. Somebody please post again when it recovers.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:The letters about and to Comey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.npr.org/2017/05/09/527663050/president-trump-fires-fbi-director-james-comey

      NPR has them.

    3. Re:The letters about and to Comey by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      AUTOPLAYING VIDEO? What the fuck? I thought the NYT was supposed to be above that kind of shit.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  20. Say what you want by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know, a lot of you disagree and think that it's cliche and not authentic, but I do enjoy that new sitcom about a TV buffoon getting elected as the US president. Every week a new episode full of laughter and surprises.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Say what you want by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While the ratings are high, apparently some people want it canceled. Something about it bringing the whole network down.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Say what you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the network run by Liberals so who cares?

    3. Re:Say what you want by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While the ratings are high, apparently some people want it canceled. Something about it bringing the whole network down.

      "I’m a Leninist. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment." -Steve Bannon

      It's been some time since Lenin has been brought up in the west as an exemplary leader but it has happened not too long ago: "Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight." -Joseph Goebbels

      Goebbels and his ilk also had great ratings for a while but I've seen that movie and I'd like to avoid a remake, they tend to be even worse than the originals.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    4. Re:Say what you want by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Bannon's sun has already eclipsed, and will soon set. He was useful for getting elected, but too many more fights with Kushner, and it's game over. As it is, I think Bannon's only there still simply because no one can trust him on the outside. At least inside the Administration he's controllable.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Say what you want by shanen · · Score: 1

      Funnier in your conclusion, though the insightful mods were merited, too. Still, I feel that overall the discussion was disappointing and too brief insofar as this may be one of the peak events of #PresidentTweety's short reign of error. Imminent #PresidentReligiousNutjob can't possibly be worse.

      No, I didn't say that! I didn't mean it as a challenge!

      I think the missing aspects of insight that most disappointed me were (1) lack of deep discussion of the coverups (not just of the Putin bromance, but the dirty tax returns, etc.), (2) consideration of how powerful the black-hat hackers have become (especially if there are Russian hackers who are holding swords of Damocles over Trump's head (as I believe to be true)), (3) the Donald's projection (as related to the missing joke about Comey's real incompetence in not yet arresting any of Trump's accomplices or their Russian handlers), and (4) the overall brevity of the discussion. (Though I visit Slashdot pretty often, I never saw this article on the front page.)

      In accord with my perverse focus on solutions, I'm going to take the cheap shot at solving (4): The most active discussions should live longer. One approach would involve two feature lists, one time-based and the other activity based. A second approach might be to weigh time against activity so highly active articles would get decreasing amounts of rejuvenation, so they would still descend and fall off the page, but more slowly. A third idea...

      Naw, too much effort wasted already. The problem that probably retains the highest priority is the lack of a viable financial model to support ANY improvements on Slashdot. Orphan code paradise. Whoops again. I meant orphan code hell.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    6. Re:Say what you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's My Trump!"?

      (captcha: RETROFIT)

  21. this is going to be fun by SirSlud · · Score: 2

    keep getting rid of the players and the only person left to look at is the manager

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  22. LOL by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Trump Fires FBI Director James Comey"

    L-O-fucking-L!

    I swear, if this so-called president wasn't busy destroying the country through his greed, ignorance, and epic incompetence, I'd be laughing my ass off at the antics of this draft-dodging clown.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      L-O-fucking-L!

      if this so-called president wasn't [stock hyperbole] I'd be laughing my ass off

      Soooo... are you laughing or not?

    2. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His election is tragic. His reelection will be more so. Returning to the democrats won't make things any better. I guess the only thing left is to just go with it.

    3. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. He's not a so-called president. He's the president.
      2. "his greed" - do you realize Trump isn't accepting a salary?
      3. Firing Comey does not destroy the country.

    4. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Draft dodging? I thought he got a 4F because of his small hands.

    5. Re:LOL by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Soooo... are you laughing or not?

      It's a nervous laugh, like when you just miss having a head-on collision and then laugh about it later over a few stiff drinks and some Xanax.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    6. Re:LOL by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      1. He's not a so-called president. He's the president.
      2. "his greed" - do you realize Trump isn't accepting a salary?
      3. Firing Comey does not destroy the country.

      1. He's a so-called president. Get used to it.

      2) False. He's claims he's taking a salary and then going to "donate some of it" so he gets a tax write off. The fact is that his greed has been demonstrated so many times it's practically accepted as a physical constant.

      3) Correct, firing Comey does not destroy the country and it also won't stop the investigation, as Trump is about to find out. It's a desperation move by someone with no insight. I'm sure this will come as a surprise to him, but he can't fire everyone. That said,if you wanted to help wreck the country, crippling the FBI by firing its Director seems like a step in the right direction.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  23. Comey lied, he should be fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From my understanding Comey was not telling the truth quite frequently when testifying, even last week.

    He said Huma had sent her husbands hundreds of thousands of Clinton's emails, and they had to use "electronic wizadry" to get it down to 6000 to review (there is audio/video of him saying this). Apparently I'm now hearing that the number of Clinton emails on Weiner's computer was 12. With 12 he could have gone over them in an hour or two, gotten the results and secretly given it to Congress and not made the mess in late October. Its now difficult to track down if this is true or not.
    -- Being a Trump supporter, I believe if this is true he deserved to be fired --

    A couple weeks ago he was asked point blank if the FBI was wiretapping Trump or his campaign, he said no. You will notice IMMEDIATELY Rodgers next to him said not to rule it out. Since then we found out Carter Page, a US citizen and Trump campaign advisor, was being listened on with a FISA warrant from the FBI. Comey purged himself under oath to Congress when he said that. I assume he did that for political reasons.
    -- Comey should be fired for lying under oath to Congress ---

    I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, including what Trump put into his letter firing Comey. But it was becoming apparent Comey could not be trusted to be honest or do his job competently.

    1. Re:Comey lied, he should be fired by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      [Comey] said Huma had sent her husbands hundreds of thousands of Clinton's emails, and they had to use "electronic wizadry" to get it down to 6000 to review (there is audio/video of him saying this).

      You misheard. He said "hundreds and thousands" not "hundreds of thousands."

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Comey lied, he should be fired by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      Apparently I'm now hearing that the number of Clinton emails on Weiner's computer was 12. With 12 he could have gone over them in an hour or two, gotten the results and secretly given it to Congress and not made the mess in late October.

      What I find even worse than this, was in Comey's press release about the laptop he made it clear they hadn't scanned it and didn't know what was on it. It was basically "Hey! We think there could be incriminating emails from Clinton on here! Maybe!" Then there wasn't anything they didn't already had, and the release turned to "we didn't find anything, sorry."

    3. Re:Comey lied, he should be fired by budgenator · · Score: 1

      You misheard. He said "hundreds and thousands" not "hundreds of thousands."

      And yet there are 12 and even one is likely to be a go to prison felony; so at best he mislead Congress at worst he perjured himself.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  24. POst it note attached fo the Letter by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    So long and Thanks for all the Fish! - DJT

    --
    Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
  25. Incompetence and Irony by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 1

    Trump does not suffer fools....

    And the entire left wanted Comey fired up until the minute Trump fired him.

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
    1. Re:Incompetence and Irony by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Trump does not suffer fools....

      Of course not ... they're the only people he can relate to.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Incompetence and Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump: A loser president, supported by losers, elected by losers.

    3. Re:Incompetence and Irony by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 0
      --
      5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  26. One Possible Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody contacted Trump through a backdoor.

  27. Interesting by argStyopa · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I find it curious that so many people who have spent months crying that Comey was a scoundrel who needed to be fired, are now complaining that Trump fired him.

    Almost like nothing will please them?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Interesting by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the issue here is more to do with the timing. With the Russia investigation heating up, or rather there isn't enough other news to bury it, all of sudden Comey's thrown out. Sure, maybe it's because Trump is convinced he's a fuck up, but if that were the case, then why wait until over four months into his presidency before he decides to give Comey the boot?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Interesting by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I find it curious that so many people who have spent months crying that Comey was a scoundrel who needed to be fired, are now complaining that Trump fired him.

      I don't think anyone is complaining. Lots of people are astonished and surprised, and didn't expect this to happen.

    3. Re:Interesting by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Sure, maybe it's because Trump is convinced he's a fuck up,

      Then please explain Ben Carson and Rick Perry.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    4. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia investigation? Come on, that's been going on for at least 6 months. And nothing has been found. There's zero evidence of "Trump colluding with Russia". Get over it already!

    5. Re:Interesting by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      With the Russia investigation heating up

      As much as the Vince Foster investigations ever "heated up", for the same reasons. Democrats have gone Full Birther since last years elections, engaging in hysterical poo-flinging rather than make legit complaints against a president they don't like, which they could easily do.

    6. Re:Interesting by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No it's not really interesting.

      What Comey did with respect to Clinton was an abuse of his position, and its right to call him out.

      Trump firing him for investigating Trump is also an abuse of position.

      The problem isn't Comey, its people abusing positions of power, and it's entirely consistent to think Comey should have been fired for lobbing an anti Clinton grenade into the election, while also thinking it's entirely wrong for him to be fired for investigating Trump.

      2 wrongs don't make a right, mmmmkay?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Interesting by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1

      Very, very few people who claimed that Comey was a scoundrel were also saying that he needed to be fired--because they know that right now it is scoundrels all the way down. It is worth noting that Trump praised Comey as "gutsy" when he did the exact thing for which Trump fired him. So why the sudden firing? As our paid commentariat used to ask: cui bono?

      I like to think that Putin told Tump to mix things up to distract from the obvious, failed (and still denied by many here) Russian attempt Putin-up the French election....it's the romantic in me.

    8. Re:Interesting by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Can you give an example of these "so many people"? Just one example would be fine.

    9. Re:Interesting by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

      I agree. I find it odd that the overwhelming opinion in the media, and on here, is that this is somehow shocking. As an outsider to US politics, isn't this just a new administration firing the bureaucrats of the old administration?

      In the least, he's doing things differently. How did any of you think the government would ever change without changing the leadership at the top? Maybe the NSA could use new upper management too, and instill a different culture.

  28. Liberal tears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SO GOOD! I can't wait to see how trump pisses all of you dumb cucks next. The popcorn is ready.

  29. Re:Historical details by dtmos · · Score: 2

    It was the "Saturday Night Massacre."

    The "someone" that agreed to fire Nixon's Special Prosecutor was Robert Bork, who is more well-known these days as President Reagan's nominee to the post of Associate Justice of SCOTUS in 1987.

  30. Ignorance of the law != excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's ALL they need to nail Hillary Clinton (screw intent bs misdirection). As an attorney & secretary of state she knows about classified information NOT being mishandled as she did.

    * Ignorance of the law != excuse!

    APK

    P.S.=> That is the BOTTOM-LINE here & HOW to take her out... apk

  31. If James Comey Lied To Congress About This... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...then it stands to reason that he may have lied about other important matters, such as Snowden.

    Strangely, Snowden supports Comey in this matter.

  32. A bit confused here by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit confused here, so could someone check if I get this right:

    About ten days before the election, Comey comes out with news saying that tons of new evidence against Hilary Clinton has been found. This certainly didn't help her campaign, and it is quite possible that this ensured that Trump became president. Clinton supporters obviously think that what he did was wrong, and that he should have kept his mouth shut. Some Trump supporters may think the same thing, but may be happy that he gave Trump an advantage. Other Trump supporters may think he did the right thing.

    Everyone thinks that Trump has reason to be grateful to Comey. But now comes the news that what Comey said was actually not the truth: That there was very little evidence found, and no really bad evidence. So while people may disagree whether or not he should have spoken, everyone agrees that he shouldn't said things that are not true.

    So he may have handed Trump the election, but not just by talking, but by talking and not saying the truth. And now instead of being grateful, Trump says (correctly) that it is not acceptable for the chief of the FBI to lie in such important matters, and fires him.

    It really makes you wonder what Comey's motivation was. Did he want to throw the election, did he just want to look important? I'd say he got what he deserved, but the way it happened was in a very unexpected way.

    1. Re:A bit confused here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt Comey personally looked at the hard drives. This sound like typical misunderstanding between technical people and upper managmenet or alternately mid-management simplifying precise language with imprecise language that then is interpreted precisely.

      There may have been thousands of emails on the hard drive & a few of them were known to have been forwarded there, so someone assumed, ignored, or simplified that the majoraty may have gotten there via other means, like valid backup from valid device.

      The sun in yellow. I have a son. Ergo, my son is yellow.

    2. Re:A bit confused here by kqs · · Score: 1

      Comey hates the Clintons. He was part of the republican witch hunt against Bill in the 90s. So he was part of the republican witch hunt against Hillary last year, and was pissed that there was never enough evidence to convict her, which explains his rant during the summer where he declined to indict her but made it damn clear he wished he could, ignoring normal FBI procedure.

      I doubt that Comey really wanted Trump to win, but (like Putin) he wanted to attack and weaken Hillary. I suspect that he dislikes Trump but like most republicans he'd support Charles Manson if Hillary were the other choice.

      And now he's stuck. He knows that some of Trump's people talked to Russians and lied about it (probably not intending to sell out the US, but this kinda thing is serious), so he continues the investigation which makes Trump fire him (because Trump has the emotional control of a six-year-old with a sugar high). I doubt if Comey has planned anything besides his careful self-justifications.

    3. Re:A bit confused here by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Nice fiction. Too bad in reality Comey was part of the coverup in the 90s.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    4. Re:A bit confused here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comey played both sides of the street, possibly thinking to ingratiate himself with whoever won. Didn't work. Gave Hillary a pass on her crimes and played up the Russia connections of the ex-MI-6 loon. Raised Carlos Danger again at an inopportune time. Wound up with both Dems and Repubs asking for him to resign. Thought he could just sail on. Another, and his last mistake.

    5. Re:A bit confused here by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The official excuse is that Comey fucked up multiple times when investigating Clinton, by smearing her at the conclusion of the first investigation (and making the decision not to prosecute, which isn't a power he has - this shouldn't be interpreted as a belief his conclusion Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted was wrong, merely that he should have left the decision to the DoJ), and by his intervention during the election.

      The real reason is almost certainly given by Trump's letter's second paragraph, where Trump brings up, for no apparent reason, Comey's assurances Trump isn't being directly investigated over Russia's intervention in the election. As everyone is aware, there is an investigation, it's just not targeting Trump specifically. Yet. And Comey is nominally overseeing that investigation.

      If the Trump-Russia investigation is not the reason, it's a pretty weird statement to make in the middle of your letter firing someone, especially when no other reasons are stated directly (the reader has to, instead, refer to a referenced letter from the Deputy USAG to actually find the official reason.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:A bit confused here by kqs · · Score: 1

      I recall the various allegations against the Clintons in the 90s (none proven except for a blow job) were on the front page for, well, much of the 90s. That's an interesting definition of "coverup".

      Or do you think that Comey and Elvis used with orbital mind control lasers to delete the pizzagate evidence in 1997? I hear bigfoot hid the dozens of people Hillary killed under the whitewater development?

      Either Hillary is a master criminal genius who makes Lex Luthor seem like an drooling moron, or most of the allegations are pure fiction. I'm betting on the latter.

    7. Re:A bit confused here by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      You've got to be kidding. Comey screwed up many times. He created the problem right before the election with his other announcement earlier when he usurped the Justice Department's job. He was way out of bounds and I'm surprised Obama didn't fire his ass. He should have, however I think he was trying to be a nice guy. I could go on and on... the whole thing is out there on just how much he screwed his job up. I think Mark Levin has a really good rundown of mistake after mistake after perhaps even legal mistakes. I wouldn't be surprised if he is indicted.

      No, this was way overdue. He should have been FIRED! the first day. His recent testimony was clearly wrong and there is no excuse. It isn't as if he's not aware of this case, the political sensitivities and such and yet he screwed up basic facts. If he weren't the director of the FBI I'd wonder if he was out drinking the night away before he testified. Maybe he was, who knows.

      Let me ask this - do you have confidence in him? Nobody I know, right, left, center, anything... nobody seems to have confidence in him. I have a feeling he's glad it's over.

    8. Re:A bit confused here by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Did he want to throw the election,

      That implies that he was on Clinton's side and wanted her to win.

      James Comey is an old-time republican, although he was appointed by Obama in 2013.

  33. Splitting hairs by peterofoz · · Score: 1

    It seems it really should not matter how the classified emails and documents got onto Anthony Weiner's or Huma's home computer, whether by emails or backups. Either way, classified materials should never have been there.

    1. Re:Splitting hairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems it really should not matter how the classified emails and documents got onto Anthony Weiner's or Huma's home computer, whether by emails or backups. Either way, classified materials should never have been there.

      I'm sure Comey wishes he said that instead of giving false testimony to Congress.

    2. Re:Splitting hairs by epine · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Either way, classified materials should never have been there.

      It seems it really should not matter how the source code with the faulty algorithm got into the software build, either by a new development error or a build system regression.

      Either way, the vulnerability should not have been there.

      And your point is?

    3. Re:Splitting hairs by kqs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed, but classified emails on a home computer will get you reprimanded but not convicted. So... why is the email the most important part of the whole situation in your opinion? That's more important than cabinet members being caught lying about meetings with Russians? More important than an FBI director (intentionally or not) affecting an election by providing false information?

    4. Re:Splitting hairs by bongey · · Score: 1

      Um just classified(not TS) just secret pictures on Navy sailors phone for year in prison. So you are full of shit.

    5. Re:Splitting hairs by kqs · · Score: 1

      I assume you mean this case? That article says:

      such infractions by submariners were not uncommon and were almost always dealt with through what the military calls “nonjudicial punishment” or Captain’s Mast.

      Clearly, to an educated observer, this is not fair treatment

      So, as I said, "reprimanded but not convicted". I don't know why this case did end in conviction, but it's not the norm. Why do you really, really want Hillary to receive the same unfair treatment?

    6. Re:Splitting hairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had any idea what you were talking about, you would have known that "classified" isn't a classified classification.

  34. Employees fired by Trump: by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Employees fired by Trump:

    Sally Yates
    Preet Bharara
    James Comey

    Employees investigating Trump:

    Sally Yates
    Preet Bharara
    James Comey

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Bartles · · Score: 4, Informative

      Stop being misleading. He's fired a lot more than those three.

    2. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by naubol · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the point is that the set of people investigating him are a subset of those he has fired. If you want it pedantically spelled out.

      --
      Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
    3. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by Bartles · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but the point is misleading.

    4. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stop. Are there any investigating Trump that HAVEN'T been fired?

    5. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out It Starts Today. If just 1% of the people that voted for Clinton donate $5/month, it will send about $100,000 to every democratic senate or congressional candidate. Since in many of these contests, less than $100,000 was spent for 2016, this could make a real difference.

      If 10% of the people that voted for Clinton contribute just $5/month, then it will be a game changer.

    6. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by sims+2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No....I'm tired of this Us vs Them politics.
      It's not working and it's harmful.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    7. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by bestweasel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes but Them started it.

    8. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They started it.

    9. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      James Comey said he wasn't investigating Trump. Was he lying?

    10. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bernie can still win guize!"

    11. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sally Yates was not investigating Trump. She also refused to follow the orders of her boss, so of course she was fired.

      Preet Bharara was not investigating Trump. He was one of the politically appointed DoJ attorneys that EVERY president replaces. He refused to resign when asked like every other attorney, and so was fired.

      James Comey was not investigating Trump. He's the Directory of the FBI, not an agent, detective, or attorney.
      Last week, Democrats wanted his head, too. After his bizarre performance before Congress, he seems to have run out of support, and Trump fired him. Then, suddenly! Democrats love him again. Even though 4 of the last 5 Attorney Generals of the US agreed that Comey should have been fired after last June and October, as soon as he is fired, it's an 'evil Republican' thing.

    12. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      Us started it?

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    13. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the point is unnerving, and I compensate for it by attacking anybody who raises it.

      FTFY

    14. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Maybe misleading to you, not to anyone else.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    15. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...says the political party that is about to get its comeuppance

    16. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No worries, Ivanka's on the case!

    17. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Funny

      You are correct

      http://nypost.com/2017/03/17/b...

      Fired US Attorney Preet Bharara was investigating a key member of President Trumpâ(TM)s cabinet, a new report Friday revealed.

      Bharara was looking into allegations that Tom Price, the health and human services secretary and the administrationâ(TM)s point man on efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare, improperly traded health care stocks while he was a member of the House of Representatives, ProPublica reported.

      Price maintained that he broke no laws when he traded health care stocks even as he was involved in legislation relevant to the health care sector. He traded over $300,000 worth of shares of relevant companies during a four-year period in the House.

      The issue played a significant role in Priceâ(TM)s confirmation process, and he was asked about it numerous times during his Senate hearing.

      The revelation that Bharara was investigating Price comes as many were surprised the US attorney from the Southern District of New York was not retained by the Trump administration.

      ---

      Preet was investigating cabinet members of Mr. Trump's administration. And it was in his jurisdiction to investigate Mr. Trump in new york and there were rumors that he might do so about the time he was fired after Mr. Trump had said personally given Preet assurances that would preet be retained.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    18. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, then please, list the People who are *actively* (that means, no Nunez etc) Investigating Trump, who can be fired by Trump, who still have their Job...

    19. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Boronx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They were all just investigating people very close to Trump for committing crimes in support of Trump, so clearly there's no danger to Trump in these investigations and no possibility of him getting dragged into them.

    20. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by MrDoh! · · Score: 1

      Wabbit season!

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    21. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Duck Season!

    22. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Democrats don't "love" Comey, they just don't like that the President has fired the person running the agency that is investigating his campaign's links with Russia. The last time a President did that (Nixon) it was part of a cover-up that turned a relatively minor crime into Watergate.

      Trump had better be right about there being no links to Russia. If any emerge now he will have made to many times worse for himself by trying to cover it up. A few links he could probably survive, a few links + a cover up is going to be much tougher.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by budgenator · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Really, that's not the way I remember it, the Progressives have been promoting neo-marxist class-warfare since before Obama took office. Things have gotten so bad, racial segregation is being promoted under the guise of "Safe Places".

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    24. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BENGHAZI!!!!!

      You partisan shills sicken me.

      You really are too fucking stupid to realize that the elites are using BOTH the R and D teams to pull the wool over your eyes.

    25. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of them were investigating Trump. They were investigating the Trump Campaign. It is a distinction without a difference though, and Trump is trying to spin it as if he wasn't under investigation.

    26. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he would have, though

    27. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      The fact that there is a high cost to Trump in firing Comey leads oneâ to believe Trump is pretty confident the neo-Benghazi "Russiagate" adventure will lead nowhere.

      It's Trump showing confidence that he is innocent.

      Pundits will of course say Trump is just too narcissistic to be sensible, and his personality will lead to his undoing, but it's their perogative to act as they wish. If lichen and goo from the fever swamp is all over their face and distorting how they see things, it's their perogative to blunder about fuming as they wish.

    28. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Rob+Y. · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't know about Yates, but in the cases of Bharara and Comey, he pretty much implied that he was going to keep them on. In any case, all three were fired very abruptly very soon after new information about the investigation of Trump Administration ties to Russia came to light.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    29. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sure is misleading.

      Trump has fired people who are Democratic appointees and they were out to fuck up his presidency.

      Good luck to him.

    30. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "counting the hits and ignoring the misses".

      It's like arguing that HIV disproportionately affects white people because Rock Hudson, Isaac Asimov, and Liberace died of AIDS (while ignoring the African HIV epidemic).

      Trump has fired tons of people. Anyone using this argument against him is either disingenuous or stupid.

    31. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there has also been a lot of controversy surrounding his own appointees, hasn't there?

    32. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Trump showing confidence that he is innocent.

      I see! So, when Nixon insisted that Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus should fire independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, was he just showing confidence that he was innocent?

    33. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Yes. All the agents at the FBI who are actually conducting the investigation of the Russian connection. You didn't actually think Comey was conducting that investigation personally, did you?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    34. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not misleading at all. The point isn't that he's only firing people who investigate him. It's that he without exception fires people who investigate him.

      If anyone is being misleading, it's you, because you're deflecting away from the valid point being made.

    35. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that there is a high cost to Trump in firing Comey leads one to believe Trump is pretty confident the neo-Benghazi "Russiagate" adventure will lead nowhere.

      Really? It leads me to believe the exact opposite - that the cost of letting Comey continue his investigation is higher than the high cost of firing him. Typically one does not do something painful unless not doing it is more painful.

    36. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't like US v. THEM?
      Vote every single obstructionist rethuglikkklan out of office.
      Vote in only "Third Way" types.

    37. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Last week, Democrats wanted his head, too....Then, suddenly! Democrats love him again"

      Very misleading and not the case at all. No one called for Comey to resign despite Hillary's justifiable indignation.
      You don't call for the Director's head when felonious investigations are underway, it smacks of obstruction and has since Watergate.
      There are two grand juries out right now, looks like at least one if not both will return indictments. It will be up to the new Director to
      decide to prosecute. If its quashed then we'll have a Constitutional crisis. PS: I thought Sessions was going to recuse himself.

      IMO these aren't just crooks, they are criminals engaged in money-laundering and threatening the security of the state by covering up
      the Russian state-security involvement. Which makes them traitors, especially President Hairpiece.

    38. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by torkus · · Score: 2

      Excusing the majority of your data set to only leave the minority of data points that directly support your conclusion IS misleading. Plain and simple. ...or are you vying for a job as a "reporter" and practising here?

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    39. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless he's protecting them and himself in a cover-up, which looks more and more likely what is going on.

    40. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You are quibbling. The point is, Trump has so far fired (at least!) three officials who were investigating him. The OP made that point perfectly clearly. Your gainsaying that makes you come across as a Putin shitposter, though it is entirely possible that you are merely an annoying pedant instead.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    41. Re:Employees fired by Trump: by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course... But to be 100% fair, Trump can't fire them, and the person Trump would have asked to fire them would have been Comey, and the way Trump would force Comey to do so would be with an Executive Order, which would be a little ugly on the PR side of things.

      Not that I believe this is the case... But Comey would be the right target for Trump if he wanted to affect the investigation. If it got handed off to a special prosecutor, it would be that person.

    42. Re: Employees fired by Trump: by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      You starting a pool for when they do get fired?

  35. Humerous quote by ProfBooty · · Score: 4, Informative

    This quote is interesting:

    "While I greatly appreciate your 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 unable to effectively lead the Bureau."

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    1. Re:Humerous quote by tingentleman · · Score: 1

      This quote is interesting:

      "While I greatly appreciate your 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 unable to effectively lead the Bureau."

      He is basically saying, I would have fired you if you were investigating me?

    2. Re:Humerous quote by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      This quote is interesting:

      "While I greatly appreciate your 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 unable to effectively lead the Bureau."

      He is basically saying, I would have fired you if you were investigating me?

      It was a note to the press that still think there is some kind of Russian connection someplace, somehow. They don't seem to believe clapper, even Feinstein that said there is no connection. Ignorance we can fix, can't fix stupid. Lots of stupid people out there. Especially in the press. Anyone can be in the press, it's a non competitive major in college. Washed up as an engineer, business, etc... hit rock bottom? You can still be a journalist.

      Yea, I know, there are some fine smart people that are journalists. Probably a tough job today, especially if you want to be an honest journalist.

    3. Re:Humerous quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of this packet of "herbal medicine" I found (true story).

      It was black and day-glo pink, and in bold letters, stated emphatically all the things it DID NOT contain. All cannabis ingredients, stated with their (apparent) proper chemical names.

      Now, we've all seen ingredients lists. Yet how many products list the ingredients that for sure, absolutely, we pinky swear, are not there? Isn't this just the tiniest bit suspicious?

      I think the Lady doth protest too much. I also think the Trump doth protest too much. Thunderation, I think the Comey doth protest too much!

  36. How gullible are you? by bit+trollent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Donald Trump publicly complemented Comey's press conferences and other actions related to Hillary's email during his campaign events.

    How stupid would you have to be to believe that Donald Trump fired Comey for the actions which he publicly commended him for?

    Donald Trump is preparing for his criminal prosecution and impeachment just like Richard Nixon did in the leadup to his resignation in disgrace.

    1. Re:How gullible are you? by msauve · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Firing a special prosecutor (Archibold Cox) is very different than firing a bureaucrat who's just a mouthpiece, not an investigator.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're so confused that the FBI seems a "sodden left wing institution".

    3. Re:How gullible are you? by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually Comey is a long term member of the Republican party.

      --
      Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
    4. Re: How gullible are you? by bestweasel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole thing is very odd. The only way it makes sense is if Comey was incompetent in announcing the investigation into the emails 11 days before the election, because the FBI now say they weren't a big deal.

      Post-election, this has caused bad people to say that Trump only won because of Comey's intervention when it's obvious his huge win had nothing to do with it. Now we enter the Trump zone: a region of space-time where normal rules of logic, reason and causality no longer apply. Never mind that Trump used Comey's intervention in his campaign, it had served its purpose but has now turned bad, so Comey has to go.

      The other puzzling thing is why Comey intervened. Making (what turned out to be) the wrong call can be seen as unbelievably incompetent when the FBI had the evidence but maybe the analysts led him astray. Why then should he persist with his "hundreds of thousands" justification months later?

    5. Re:How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no, please don't confuse the Trumpsters with facts.

    6. Re:How gullible are you? by msauve · · Score: 0

      Donald Trump publicly complemented Comey's press conferences and other actions related to Hillary's email during his campaign events.

      How stupid would you have to be to believe that Donald Trump fired Comey for the actions which he publicly commended him for?

      Apparently, as stupid as you, who selectively believes or disbelieves him depending on whether it suits your argument/worldview. You forgot to mention Trump's criticism of Comey after he refused to prosecute Clinton. Your selective memory and ignorance of fact matches that of Trump.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:How gullible are you? by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      So do you agree that we need an independent investigation into the Russian connection?

    8. Re: How gullible are you? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      There is a severe leaking problem in the FBI right now. Perhaps firing Comey is part of an effort to flush out the leakers and re-establish the FBI as a law enforcement agency, and not a political truncheon.

    9. Re:How gullible are you? by turkeyfish · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, at least we can all breath a sigh of relief that Foreign Minister Lavrov's visit with Trump is scheduled tomorrow so he can provide the President with guidance and recommendations about who to appoint as the new FBI Director.

    10. Re: How gullible are you? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      Yes, no doubt the FBI needs more independence. Surely, Trump will listen to Foreign Minister Lavrov, who arrives just in time to provide him guidance to who to appoint as Trump "cleans house".

    11. Re: How gullible are you? by Notabadguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole thing is very odd. The only way it makes sense is if Comey was incompetent in announcing the investigation into the emails 11 days before the election, because the FBI now say they weren't a big deal.

      Post-election, this has caused bad people to say that Trump only won because of Comey's intervention when it's obvious his huge win had nothing to do with it. Now we enter the Trump zone: a region of space-time where normal rules of logic, reason and causality no longer apply. Never mind that Trump used Comey's intervention in his campaign, it had served its purpose but has now turned bad, so Comey has to go.

      The other puzzling thing is why Comey intervened. Making (what turned out to be) the wrong call can be seen as unbelievably incompetent when the FBI had the evidence but maybe the analysts led him astray. Why then should he persist with his "hundreds of thousands" justification months later?

      Two reasons:

      1. He overstepped his boundaries. His bureau's job is to investigate - and at the end of the investigation, he stepped on DOJ toes by announcing recommendations, which is not his job.

      2. Despite universal consensus from within the FBI, DoJ, and former senior members of both departments that he made some SERIOUS blunders, he doubled down on his decisions, has defended them at every turn... ... and a man who can't admit his mistakes when he makes them isn't fit to lead any organization, let alone the FBI.

    12. Re:How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just kill yourself faggot, save time and money. Conservative values.

    13. Re:How gullible are you? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Since when is asking people to kill themselves a conservative value?

    14. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today I learned that it doesn't matter which side, I hate all conspiracy nutjobs.

      Go crawl back to your Communist safe space.

    15. Re:How gullible are you? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since Trump refurbished the EPA with "industry experts" and creationists.

    16. Re:How gullible are you? by MrDoh! · · Score: 2

      And a copy of the pee tape to remind him who he's working for.

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    17. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to commit criminal acts before you worry about being charged. You know, like Hillary. Just cause you don't like trump doesn't mean he's a criminal. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

    18. Re:How gullible are you? by thegarbz · · Score: 0

      How stupid would you have to be to believe that Donald Trump fired Comey for the actions which he publicly commended him for?

      Given what came out of Trumps mouth during the campaign I would say it this flip-flopping is entirely consistent and you'd only be stupid for believing that Trump holds any value in anything he every previous may or may not admit to having said or done.

    19. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not pee, it's female ejaculate. You obviously don't watch enough pr0n.

    20. Re: How gullible are you? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, quoting a real non-partisan upstanding news organization there.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    21. Re:How gullible are you? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Funny

      That tape would be the biggest leak ever.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re: How gullible are you? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Two reasons:

      1. He overstepped his boundaries. His bureau's job is to investigate - and at the end of the investigation, he stepped on DOJ toes by announcing recommendations, which is not his job.

      2. Despite universal consensus from within the FBI, DoJ, and former senior members of both departments that he made some SERIOUS blunders, he doubled down on his decisions, has defended them at every turn... ... and a man who can't admit his mistakes when he makes them isn't fit to lead any organization, let alone the FBI.

      While I agree with your reasons, and I said that Comey was a dead man walking when he intervened in the election, I expected Trump to dismiss Comey during the transition. If he had done so, two months ago, Comey would be gone and no one would have cared much. The problem is the timing and the justification provided now ring false. Comey is leading a major investigation of Trump, and a grand jury just subpoenaed a bunch of people related to the former national security advisor. The timing and justification seem panicked and desperate. I mean, does anyone, anyone at all, believe that Comey is really being fired now because he was biased against Hillary Clinton?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    23. Re:How gullible are you? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Given what came out of Trumps mouth during the campaign I would say it this flip-flopping is entirely consistent and you'd only be stupid for believing that Trump holds any value in anything he every previous may or may not admit to having said or done.

      If you believe that, you'd have to be pretty stupid to believe what's coming out of his mouth right now is anything other than what he thinks will benefit him right now. So given that everything Trump says is completely untrustworthy, we'll have to look elsewhere to determine the real reason...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    24. Re: How gullible are you? by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      If it existed, certainly. But it's just 4chan fiction.

    25. Re:How gullible are you? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Comey was appointed and served as Deputy Attorney General under Bush, and was involved with several domestic and international intelligence operations. He primarily came to public notice when he refused to certify a domestic wiretapping program while Acting AG because AG Ashcroft was in the ICU being treated for pancreatitis, and rushed to the hospital to intercept Alberto Gonzalez and Andrew Card before they could convince Ashcroft, who was under the effect of painkillers and sedatives, to sign off on it. On the other hand, Comey signed off on torture techniques as being legal.

      I don't agree with some of the things Comey has done or backed, but I think he's a man of principles who believes strongly in the law. Had Trump fired him within the first few weeks of taking office, it would have been unusual but part of the changeover. Doing so nearly four months into his term and after the effusive praise heaped upon him for an obviously questionable reason just adds to suspicions over the real reasons.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    26. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a lot to the comey story, and investigations that make absolutely zero sense, and the story keeps changing and is inconsistent. I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did, frankly.

    27. Re: How gullible are you? by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      ... ... and a man who can't admit his mistakes when he makes them isn't fit to lead any organization, let alone the FBI.

      So when should be expect Trump to step down from office? If anyone "can't admit his mistakes when he makes them" in the current administration it has to be Trump.

    28. Re: How gullible are you? by Talderas · · Score: 2

      It's only odd if you assume that Comey's firing was based on a single recent event rather than a series of events that occurred while under Comey's watch which include Hazan at Ft Hood, the Boston Marathon bomber, and the Orlando nightclub shooter. In all of those cases the FBI had information that should have incited a closer look at the culprits but that information was not acted upon.

      Lest we on Slashdot not forget, Comey was also one of the few people pushing for Apple to unlock the phone and create a method for the FBI to do so during the Bernadino shooters despite other figures in the intelligence communities speaking out against it.

      The FBI had also been investigating Americans in violation of the 4th amendment as early as 2013.

      There's also that unusual deal during the Clinton email investigation where aides were allowed to destroy their laptops and received immunity.

      There is a long series of events that show that the FBI under Comey was making questionable decisions on how to act regarding things. He's ultimately responsible for everything his agency does or doesn't do, even if he's not involved directly in the situation. Comey's firing is, while unusual in how it was done, not unwarranted. My guess it that Obama should have probably requested Comey's resignation well before the election but the optics of that situation would have been really bad as it could look as though his was trying to dump in a FBI director with a fresh term on top of Trump.

      There really was no way for Trump to get rid of Comey without bad optics. It doesn't matter whether Trump requested Comey's resignation or fired him. It would still be spun the exact way it currently is. The only way for Comey to be gone without people blasting Trump would have been if he had done something to come under investigation or hit the end of his appointment term.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    29. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huge win? Lost the popular vote, and had a pretty low margin of victory (historically) in the electoral college. How was the win huge, other than maybe in the sense it was a "Huge disaster"?

    30. Re: How gullible are you? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      So, how will the dismissal of Comey have any effect on grand jury subpoenas that have already been issued?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    31. Re: How gullible are you? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      So, how will the dismissal of Comey have any effect on grand jury subpoenas that have already been issued?

      On the one hand, it might be an attempt to prevent any further subpoenas, on the other hand it might be pay-back for not stopping them, and a warning to others about what happens to you when you don't do what Trump wants you to do.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    32. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Its not suspicious.

      Take a step back. Ask yourself:

      Should the FBI be involved in and influencing politics? Is the FBI a political organization? Should the FBI forgo thier own checks and balances because the director 'feels is the right thing'.?

      Just like Wikileaks got political and lost credibility, so did Comey.

      The FBI is absolutely not a political organization. It should not be giving press releases containing information from cases under investigation. And certainly not with the very obvious timing to affect elections.

        The FBI director certainly had a lot of power and it was feared very much. Obama even feared him. But he became extremely political and buy his own statement doing what he felt was right. He is a public servant and should abide by the law and regulations, and the practices of the FBI set up by its own organization and regulation.

        The water gets muddy very quickly when you use a very powerful organization like the FBI to conduct investigations and release information of cases that have not even been verified to the public.

        Take Democrats and Republicans totally out of the picture. If you were the FBI director, do you think you should do anything or make any decisions just because only you think it's right. That type of thinking is individualistic and not the thinking of an organization.

        Doing what you think is right it is not excluding the laws and regulations set forth but it is certainly not including them.

        Just like the media can repeatedly got loose wrong over the past couple decades and increasingly so where it's more about making headlines then being accurate

        The FBI director made the FBI as an organization, a news organization with a political platform.

        And press releases are exactly that. News.

        Every law enforcement officer knows that you do not release information about an investigation during an investigation or at least very little of it and you absolutely do not release on verified defensible information.

        This FBI director repeatedly released information about ongoing investigations that was not only in accurate but on verified. This was proven. So why did he do it ?

        And if you were the FBI director, representing the entire FBI, would you not make sure without a single doubt that any information you released publicly is 100% accurate and verified from multiple internal sources ?

    33. Re: How gullible are you? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      There really was no way for Trump to get rid of Comey without bad optics.

      False.
      Firing Comey on Jan 21 would have been very GOOD optics
      Waiting until he contradicted WH - Russia lies in front of Congress simply does not pass the 'reek test'

    34. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? You seem to know a lot about this subject. Tell us how this at investigation can be conducted

      please lay out the plan ?

    35. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aww, poor snowflake. Having trouble with the cognitive dissonance of supporting a sinking administration?

    36. Re:How gullible are you? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Typical yellow journalism!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    37. Re:How gullible are you? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Could not agree more.

    38. Re: How gullible are you? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Firing the FBI director less than four years into a ten year appointment when he is not your appointment is going to generate bad optics. Yes, this particular timing is probably worse optics than what would have happened if Comey was fired day one but to suggest that it wouldn't generate bad optics means that you really don't understand the purpose of the ten year appointment term for the FBI director is to create an apolitical appointment. A President firing a director on his first day is going to almost certainly be seen as a politically oriented move and would almost certainly be reported as such by a media that is hostile to him and pretty much with certainly be framed as such by an opposition party.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    39. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Females do NOT ejaculate. They piss everywhere. You obviously don't watch enough pr0n or you'd know that it's clearly visible being shot out of the urethra. Some dudes will believe anything.

    40. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not huge win. No way. You're delusional if you think losing the popular vote by 3 million is a huge win. It was a TKO, not a knockout.

    41. Re: How gullible are you? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Post-election, this has caused bad people to say that Trump only won because of Comey's intervention when it's obvious his huge win had nothing to do with it.

      What is this "huge win" you speak of? Trump's victory in the Electoral College wasn't anything special, and he lost badly in the popular vote. He did win, and he is President, but there's nothing impressive about it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    42. Re:How gullible are you? by BrianMahoney1357 · · Score: 1

      "That tape would be the biggest leak ever." Not sure if that pun was intended but it's very funny.

    43. Re: How gullible are you? by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      I was trying to look at it through Trump's eyes.

    44. Re:How gullible are you? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Firing a special prosecutor (Archibold Cox) is very different than firing a bureaucrat who's just a mouthpiece, not an investigator.

      Please explain how there is no relation between a special prosecutor and a man who is heading up the classified investigation of you.

      then why not tell us why we shouldn't find anything at all worrisome or interesting abouf firing a man who can issue the orders to have you arrested. Not drug in front of congress for impeachment, but hauled out of th eoffice in handcuffs.

      I mean, I can find that difference, but it doesn't argue for anything but More power, more fishiness on the FBI Director's part.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    45. Re:How gullible are you? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      That tape would be the biggest leak ever.

      Oh.... piss off!

      8^)

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    46. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is investigating Russian election interference getting involved in politics?

    47. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you agree Trump should be impeached (haha)

    48. Re:How gullible are you? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      As the person who knows what and who is stupid, are you actually going to say that Firing Comey had absolutely nothing to do with him heading the counterintelligence investigation of Trump?

      Awaiting a person who is smarter than the rest of us to tell us exactly why this has not one thing to do with that. Use the big words tovarich, some of us here will understand.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    49. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you comparing it to his small hands?

    50. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it's well known in the three-letters that Russia and the US have been interfering in each other's elections for years. Is pretty much standard practice. Why did it suddenly become important?

    51. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they sinking? Says who? The people who predicted a Hillary win?

    52. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 houses in am association vote on whether to put up a fence. 8 of the houses have 4 family members. 2 of the houses have 30 members each. Should the 2 houses with the highest population have a say?

      Fucktard.

    53. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Trump and Sessions are both on the record praising Comey for his decision to go public. Multiple times.

      2. Trump himself does not back down from any of his errors.

      No, the reason that Trump fired Comey is because Comey refused to publicly say that Trump himself was not a target of the Russia investigation (despite acknowledging it to Trump privately). Also, Trump was apparently outraged that Comey said that he felt nauseous that he may have influenced the election (which Trump interpreted as an insult).

    54. Re: How gullible are you? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      All of which would have justified a firing - in the first few weeks of the Trump administration. NOT in the middle an investigation of the very same man who now fired him - and DEFINITELY not a mere 48 hours after he requested additional resources for that same investigation.

      The simple answer is that Comey was idiotic in how he handled the public relations aspect of investigating politicians - and Trump loved this when it played against his election opponent. But Comey, for all his stupidity, was even-handed, and Trump hated that when it was HIM being investigated.

      The real kicker is going to be who Trump appoints in his stead. Somehow I doubt it will be a beloved and respected law enforcement officer with a history of investigating powerful elites without fear or favor. If it's Chris Christie (as is being rumoured) then democracy in America is, frankly, fucked.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    55. Re: How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... a series of events that occurred while under Comey's watch which include Hazan at Ft Hood, the Boston Marathon bomber...

      Comey was appointed director in September 2013. How could he be in any way responsible for events in 2009 or April 2013? I'm also pretty sure Trump gives no shits about the FBI wanting to break IPhone encryption. Oh, and Obama could have fired Comey after the election if he cared to.

    56. Re:How gullible are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      James Comey is not registered. July 7, 2016
      Source :
      https://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe&

      Jump to minute 1:35:50
      He can tell you himself.

    57. Re: How gullible are you? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      And firing him immediately after said Director requested DOJ to fund a larger team investigating Trump, how does that look?
      This was, charitably, incredibly stupid
      At worst, evidence of collusion in Treason.

  37. Nixon! Nixon! Nixon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nixon! Nixon! Nixon!

  38. This is bad by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why Comey didn't indict not only HRC, but also Huma and Weiner over mishandling of classified material. But the guy seemed to be trying to thread the needle.

    Comey seemed to be trying to Do The Right Thing, as opposed to the rest of Washington.

    Keep in mind folks, had you or I done anything these three did we would be in prison looking at 20 years.

  39. Best President Ever! 4 More years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Working hard trying to undo all the corruption and damage inflicted by the previous administration.

    Now we need to bring back control of the Internet to US

  40. get to the point by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

    Just fire the nukes already!

  41. Re:Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bye Sibko.

  42. About time! by jlgreer1 · · Score: 0

    The whole bunch are incompetent political hacks. Billiary has been given a pass for their crimes for years. The entire BHO administration was doing everything to cover for the Clinton crime foundation and the corruption in the State Department (among others) for the past eight plus years.

  43. Fun to Watch by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

    The range of commentary on this story is quite extraordinary. Making for some really good reading.

    It appears the liberals are scattered across a wide gamut of emotion.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
  44. Impeach Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    America cannot afford to have a lawless traitor dictator.

    1. Re:Impeach Trump by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      As someone outside of the USA

      I am less afraid of North Korea getting NukeS than Trump having access to them already.

    2. Re:Impeach Trump by budgenator · · Score: 1

      America cannot afford to have a lawless traitor dictator.

      I'm confused, which lawless traitor dictator are you referring to? Seems several would fit depending on your political philosophy.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  45. So long slashdot... by tekrat · · Score: 1, Troll

    Too many right wing nut jobs here. This place is starting to sound like Fox News in the comment section.

    If you people are supporting Trump, the dumbest idiot ever to get elected president, on a site for geeks and nerds (hey, he's good at the cyber!), then something here is seriously wrong.

    So long, and thanks for all the fish. I'm sure that reference will go over the heads of the right wing nutjobs.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:So long slashdot... by RazorSharp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the horrible result of extreme partisanship. When it becomes more about your team winning than what's best for the country, morals and class become irrelevant. It's like Pittsburgh Steelers fans—they know their quarterback is a rapist but they defend him anyway because he's their quarterback and he wins.

      Your post also makes me think of how terrible our education system is. We think of education purely as job training. That's why being a "geek" doesn't mean you're smart or read awesome Douglas Adams books. There are people who learn to code, or learn to monkey around in IT, or do whatever type of thing that's stereotypically nerdy but they never took an ethics class or studied foreign cultures or immersed themselves for just a small time in any form of liberal arts.

      In college I would always hear people complain if they had to take anything outside the purview of their specific major. "Why do I have to learn this? When am I ever going to use this?" they would say. I guess my answer is: because you have the power to vote and you'll use this knowledge when you cast your ballot. Now we've elected President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    2. Re:So long slashdot... by Digital+Mage · · Score: 1

      In this age I keep reminding myself:

      Business is Government
      Government is Sports
      Sports is Religion
      Religion is Business

    3. Re:So long slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the term "geek" can apply to just about any discipline, nor just stereotypically nerdy pursuits. A roommate of mine was a printer, but deep down he was a Supreme Court geek, kind of like a history geek but a narrow focus on one part of the U.S. evolution.

  46. More to Comey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you pronounce "Control Fraud"? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_fraud)

  47. Trumps Russian ties are being investigated so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All Comeys have to go!

  48. thought experiment by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    If Barack Obama had fired an FBI director who was investigating him for treason, Fox News would be arming themselves on national television.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:thought experiment by Orgasmatron · · Score: 0, Troll

      And how about if he fired a FBI director that has publicly said on at least three different occasions that he isn't under investigation for anything at all?

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    2. Re:thought experiment by tburkhol · · Score: 2

      FBI director that has publicly said on at least three different occasions that he isn't under investigation for anything at all

      Is there a source other than Trump's letter to confirm this? Because if Trump said the sun is shining, I'd still have to check the window.

    3. Re:thought experiment by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      And how about if he fired a FBI director that has publicly said on at least three different occasions that he isn't under investigation for anything at all?

      When Donald Trump claimed that Comey "has publicly said on at least three different occasions..." he apparently hadn't seen the news.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/po...

      https://www.theguardian.com/us...

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

      All three of those citations have links to video of Comey stating, in English, that Trump is indeed under investigation. If you need a Russian translation, we can probably find one for you.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:thought experiment by Orgasmatron · · Score: 4, Informative

      From your first link:

      Asked directly whether Trump himself was a target of the investigation, the FBI director demurred.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    5. Re:thought experiment by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      " Because if Trump said the sun is shining, I'd still have to check the window."

      Better check one more time, as Trump has a proven record of placing bright and shiny objects in people's eyes to distract them.

    6. Re:thought experiment by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      And how about if he fired a FBI director that has publicly said on at least three different occasions that he isn't under investigation for anything at all?

      Comey never publicly said that, Trump just said that he said it.

    7. Re:thought experiment by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Meaning he didn't say he wasn't.

    8. Re:thought experiment by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Trump just said that he said it.

      And millions of people will take his word.

      Quite apart from anything else, firing Comey now is straight up ungrateful after what he did for Donald in the run up to the vote.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    9. Re:thought experiment by jandjmh · · Score: 1

      No, Trumps assertion is just a bluff/lie/distraction. And he said three times, because everyone knows if you say something three times it must be true.

    10. Re:thought experiment by Highdude702 · · Score: 0

      that makes you a biased piece of shit. you no longer represent anything credible in this conversation. please delete your account.

    11. Re:thought experiment by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      well of course. it worked so well with "Hillary won the election"

    12. Re:thought experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Barack Obama had fired an FBI director who was investigating him for treason, Fox News would be arming themselves on national television.

      They're definitely arming themselves. There's a wall of video links on their web page right now each linking to a respected source (for example, Hannity) and titled something like "Why Comey Had to go Now". And a link to a story about Great White Sharks (possible ironic).

      Not a single counter-argument.

      Because, even though Trump isn't Fox News' favorite person, they are "Fair and Balanced".

    13. Re:thought experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI....Comey is not investigating Trump, the FBI is.

      Unless the new director ends the investigation, the investigation continues.

    14. Re:thought experiment by Orgasmatron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All three articles were about the same hearing, which was a while ago. The rat guy was claiming that the three articles supported his theory that the FBI was investigating Trump for treason. Comey said nothing of the sort. *Poof* his delusional claims vanish in a puff of reality.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    15. Re:thought experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because those 3 bastions of truth have never been known to lie (fake news)

    16. Re: thought experiment by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      "An FBI Director" does not investigate for treason. The whole FBI organization does that sort of thing. You can still have your left version of the Benghazi adventure, but it involves more than one person leading the witch-hunt.

    17. Re:thought experiment by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Because those 3 bastions of truth have never been known to lie (fake news)

      There's video of Comey saying Trump is under investigation. Forget the "bastions". Watch the words come out of the man's mouth.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:thought experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comey never publicly said that, Trump just said that he said it.

      The point of Trump's comment was "you threatened me. What did you expect? Deference? You work for me; fuck you."

      I don't get it. I'm with Trump on this one. I don't want another J Edgar Hoover undermining the people we elect by waging retaliatory political investigations. And when Hillary was the target, journalists agreed, and now suddenly they don't, so no wonder people don't trust them. The Constitution's balance of power says Congress investigates the President, not his own appointees. That would be silly, because it would give them too much power to make threats and get concessions, except that he can just fire them which thank God he just did.

      Everyone was afraid to fire J Edgar, and that was a disaster. Terrible. Homosexual living with his mom, threatening everybody, investigating peaceful activists and, Indians, worst FBI director and he died in office. Sad.

    19. Re:thought experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a good thing Comey is the only person at the FBI investigating Trump. Whew! Bullet dodged!

    20. Re:thought experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully you realize that's not the same thing as saying no, which is what was claimed.

      But you probably don't, so I don't know why anyone is bothering.

    21. Re:thought experiment by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing Comey is the only person at the FBI investigating Trump. Whew! Bullet dodged!

      Comey was fired after asking for more resources to investigate Trump. He wanted more personnel for the investigation.

      http://thehill.com/homenews/ad...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:thought experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because those 3 bastions of truth have never been known to create their own videos with actors and scripts (fake video)

    23. Re:thought experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing we can trust Trump to hire someone who will continue the investigation, and that Congressional Republicans have such a good record of standing up to Trump's excesses. /sarc

    24. Re:thought experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asked directly why he voted for Trump, Orgasmatron demurred.

    25. Re:thought experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EXACTLY RIGHT.

      Those nuts would be taking over bird sanctuaries all over the country!

    26. Re:thought experiment by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Not at all. I've answered that question several times.

      I voted for Trump because I don't want the current cold civil war to go hot. Someone once said to a progressive, "If you don't like the religious right, just wait until you see the post-religious right." In the same way, Trump is a nationalist, and I hope you never see an ultra-nationalist here. I also don't think many of you know how close we were - not to an immediate ultra, but to the tipping point that makes the ultras inevitable. (There are countless examples of these paths in history.)

      In more practical terms, I wanted more border security, less immigration, less invasion, a supreme court justice that reads the Constitution, and the death of the Republican Party as the party of graceful losers. So far, I've got 3 of those and tangible progress on the other two, plus as a free bonus, endless dank memes and salty tears. The last two years have also been, by far, the most entertaining 2 years in my memory.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    27. Re:thought experiment by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Trump is fairly well convinced that if he sits down other people call that 'nighttime'. In his mind, the sun shines out of his own gigantic, wrinkled asshole.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    28. Re:thought experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "he didn't say" is in your mind equivalent to "Comey stating, in English, that Trump is indeed under investigation" ?

  49. NSA head next? I hope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA head next? I hope.

  50. About time by fnj · · Score: 1

    Good riddance to filthy garbage. I hope he wallows in disgrace and dies.

  51. Normal people don't do that... by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 0

    My head! My poor poor head!! Someone said something to defend someone they don't like?!? I can't even

    It's almost as if their morality isn't just for themselves and their friends! How could anyone defend someone they just called an asshole? What kind of a world would we be living in if there were some sort of... GAH!... objective morality that applies to everyone equally?!?

    Normal people don't turn on a dime on their convictions, going from hating someone's guts to defending them simply because it is expedient. The fact is that 99% of the people in the media now "defending" Comey would want his head if he were behaving as a good FBI director under Trump after what they blame him for with Clinton.

    1. Re:Normal people don't do that... by grcumb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact is that 99% of the people in the media now "defending" Comey would want his head if he were behaving as a good FBI director under Trump after what they blame him for with Clinton.

      It can be perfectly consistent to say that someone should resign and then to object when someone fires them. If you can't imagine a scenario in which that makes sense, then we're not having a conversation; we're just talking at each other.

      Look, just because someone is an asshole who doesn't play by the rules doesn't mean that the rules don't apply equally to them. That includes the protections they offer as well as the penalties they impose. James Comey broke the rules by circulating what turned out to be false news about a candidate during an election cycle. He shouldn't have done that. But the President was wrong to fire him, too, because Comey was actively investigating him for alleged corrupt ties to Russia.

      So people in the media called foul in the first instance and called foul in the second. They're not defending the man; they're defending the notion that the FBI should be apolitical and independent. It would be inconsistent not to decry both abuses.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    2. Re:Normal people don't do that... by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nobody is defending Comey. They just don't believe that Trump cares about any of the bad things Comey did. They have good reason to believe this since Trump praised Comey for the same actions.

    3. Re:Normal people don't do that... by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Exactly this. In austin the DA was caught driving drunk and made a total fool of herself on dashcam video and video in the jail. She should have resigned. She did not unfortunately. But then Rick Perry tried to fire her when he did not have the authority, which was also wrong.

    4. Re:Normal people don't do that... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Well, Trump himself has said that he is firing Comey for the actions that he previously praised. Why would he lie? If you can't believe the president, then who can you believe?

    5. Re:Normal people don't do that... by jandjmh · · Score: 1

      Best comment in this thread...

    6. Re:Normal people don't do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He told me he loved me.

    7. Re:Normal people don't do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, he still owns his business even though it is a complete conflict of interest.
      Does anyone remember that they made Jimmy Carter sell his peanut business before they let him be president?

      What else is this president getting away with?

    8. Re:Normal people don't do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Comey was forced to "break the rules" during his initial statement on Hillary by Loretta Lynch. After Lynch had a private meeting with Bill Clinton while she was in charge of the investigation with Hillary, she publicly said that she would accept the FBI's recommendation on whether to prosecute Hillary. He was forced into a position where he was required to make a statement because the AG had acted inappropriately and essentially recused herself, leaving Comey in charge of the investigation.

      2. Comey was required to update Congress because he said under oath that the investigation was closed and that he would keep the members of Congress informed of any updates to the investigation.

      3. When Comey sent his private letter to Congress in October stating that the investigation had been reopened, it was leaked by congressmen. That letter was *not* a public announcement by Comey.

      4. Comey did not circulate "false news". He said they were reopening an investigation because additional evidence had come to light. Which was completely true. Many of Clinton's/Huma's emails found on Weiner's laptop were from the time period that overlapped the "missing emails", which is exactly what the FBI had been searching for during their entire investigation. And again, he was not the one who made this document public.

      TL;DR, if you think Comey acted inappropriately, you're a butthurt partisan hack and you've never had to make a hard decision in your life.

    9. Re:Normal people don't do that... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The fact is that 99% of the people in the media now "defending" Comey would want his head if he were behaving as a good FBI director under Trump after what they blame him for with Clinton.

      It can be perfectly consistent to say that someone should resign and then to object when someone fires them. If you can't imagine a scenario in which that makes sense, then we're not having a conversation; we're just talking at each other.

      The distinction between being asked to resign and being dismissed is a purely academic one. You're still being fired.

      The real question is, was he fired for being bad at his job or fired because he was a political liability. My money is on the second. He used his position to "assist" Trumps election. Now Trump is having his night of the long knives by getting rid of anyone who could threaten him.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    10. Re:Normal people don't do that... by grcumb · · Score: 1

      TL;DR, if you think Comey acted inappropriately, you're a butthurt partisan hack and you've never had to make a hard decision in your life.

      But he did break the rules, which is the fundamental point here. To claim that a letter to a Congressional Comittee was private and that it never entered Comey's mind that it might be leaked is utterly disingenuous. All he had to do was wait a week or so. His rationale was that there would be a political furore if it came out that he knew this information before the election. That's weak. He made assertions about the emails that were not borne out by the facts, and which took only a few more days to determine. I'm not saying he was lying; I'm saying that he spoke before he knew the facts.

      For someone whom you defend as being good at making tough decisions, that's a bit of a rookie error. The most generous conclusion is that part of making tough decisions is living with their consequences, and that breaking precedent about non-interference with elections was an historically momentous decision. In hindsight, there was nothing in the actual emails that justified the decision. So he broke the rules, and he was wrong to do it. Whether he could have known in advance what the impact would be is moot. It's precisely because the results of such actions are unpredictable that Justice Department employees have a policy of simply not making statements about ongoing investigations—such as the Russia probe, for example—during an election campaign.

      You can portray it as a partisan issue, but no other FBI director—not even Hoover, who was no wilting lily when it came to political shenanigans—ever actively intervened in a Presidential election. Ever.

      There is strong empirical evidence that, had he not spoken up, the election could easily have gone the other way. The FBI are required to be non-partisan and apolitical. That is a fundamental precept of virtually all of the Justice Department's activities. Yes, Lynch made a mistake in allowing Bill Clinton onto the plane that day, but to revisit grammar school ethics for a moment: Two wrongs don't make a right.

      I'm not butthurt, by the way. I don't even have a dog in this fight. I'm just deeply saddened that people are willing to play the same stupid fucking political games while your republic's democratic institutions circle the toilet. The point, you may recall, is not only whether Comey did right or wrong, but whether the President was right to fire him for what he did. And my point, as you might recall, is that the President was wrong to do so, even if, as the Justice Department memo claims, he handled the Clinton case in a way that undermined the integrity of the FBI as an apolitical and non-partisan organisation.

      If the only way you can conceive of a differing opinion is in terms of butthurt partisanism... then I'm very sorry for you. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    11. Re:Normal people don't do that... by grcumb · · Score: 1

      The distinction between being asked to resign and being dismissed is a purely academic one. You're still being fired.

      Tell that to William Sessions, who was asked to resign, and did not, requiring Bill Clinton to fire him. Those are two very distinct actions.

      But the point is that the people calling for his resignation were not in the same group as the people who ultimately fired him. They didn't have the power to make him step down.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    12. Re:Normal people don't do that... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Well, the thing is - it's difficult to know if Trump really lies per se. One definition of "lie" is to tell something inconsistent with observable reality - Trump does that all the time.
      But the other (the one that applies in courts for example) is to tell something inconsistent with what you sincerely believe the truth to be (or to put it in legal terms 'to the best of your knowledge').

      Trump may not be violating the latter in fact - it's just that his sincere beliefs, the best of his knowledge, bares no resemblance whatsoever to observable reality or, for that matter, to what he sincerely believed an hour ago.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    13. Re:Normal people don't do that... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      After the politicization of other federal entities under the previous administration I think you are being too lenient.

      Also, I find it hard to believe that the media or any democrat would be opposing the firing of Comey if Hillary were the president.

      So it can be perfectly consistent to say someone should resign, and object when someone fires them. However, it is the height of inconsistency when you would accept one person firing someone but not another. That is not consistent. That is blatant misinformation and politicking.

      Again, if Hillary was in office and the FBI was still investigating her for whatever reason and she fired Comey, are you completely sure that the press and democrats would be grilling her the same way they are the Trump administration? If you answer this question honestly, I will be surprised.

      Besides, why would any democrat want a hardcore failure like Comey investigating the president? He would have failed to protect the interests of the people as he had done so many, many times before and Trump would be exonerated. Jesus you people are dense.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  52. Re:Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I miss when Slashdot was a tech site for nerds and posted news stories about tech.

    Judging by your ID number, you weren't around then. Good riddance to ya!

  53. The Republican Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    needs to impeach Trump while there's still some of it left.

  54. Really surprising by aberglas · · Score: 1

    The one thing for Trump is he seemed to value his loyal cronies. And he owed Comey big time. Comey got him over the line, into the white house.

    Maybe Comey was just crazy, and not one of Trump's cronies. Or maybe there is some real dirt that Trump wants buried.

    But I actually doubt the latter because Trump would not be able to distinguish between what is reasonable dealings with a foreign power.

    But for the Trump faithful (half the population) this just confirms that Trump is an honest broker. Prepared to make hard decisions when needed even if it affects those that supported him.

    1. Re:Really surprising by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I surprised you feel this way as Trump has repeatedly demonstrated he is loyal to them until the second he fires them and then gives them a bad nickname. The only things he is loyal to are himself first and then his family.

      Anyone else could be given the guillotine without notice. Especially if they show any signs of weakness or disloyalty to him. Thank god he's so old. We'd be in real trouble if he was in his 50s.

      The republican party appears ready to sacrifice the country.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  55. The DNC got Trump elected by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    The DNC gave Bernie a good fucking - that undoubtedly helped put Trump in the White House

    Eh - water under the bridge at this point.....

    1. Re:The DNC got Trump elected by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Eh - water under the bridge at this point.....

      More like a backed-up sewer.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  56. Re:Politics by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

    POTUS firing the head of the FBI could be considered news that matters.

    Say what you want, but at least the political commentary here is better than what is available on the propaganda outlets.

  57. Shhh....listen by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

    If you are very very quiet and listen really hard you will hear the sound of everyone else laughing at the USA.

    To pillage Dr Seuss "Huston hears a whohoohahahahahah"

  58. This makes me feel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Mildly nauseous."

  59. Missing from your list... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of those were appointed under Obama's administration.

  60. Comey fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lock him up 10 yrs ! he lied to congress

  61. What is that morality, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This FBI Director has sought for years to jail me on account of my political activities. If I can oppose his firing, so can you.

    -- Edward Snowden

    Odd, I never realized that you just have to defect to Russia and be under Putin's thumb before liberals will listen to you? :)

  62. Comey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember " BENGHAZI " put the clintons in the cell with him !!!

  63. Re:So what by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    Scott Adams has been calling this pre-bribery. Basically, they show the current office holder that they will be well cared for by throwing unearned money at the previous guy.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  64. That question backfired by dbIII · · Score: 2

    How stupid would you have to be to believe that Donald Trump fired Comey for the actions which he publicly commended him for?

    How many times have you heard the words "he has my full support" in the first few days of a scandal and then the person gets dumped a few days later? Surely you've noticed that in a few places, business, politics, all over the place.

    As for Trump himself going from support to attack on something - consider his earlier praise for WikiLeaks and the current move to act against it:
    http://bgr.com/2017/04/20/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-charges/

    Donald Trump is preparing for his criminal prosecution and impeachment just like Richard Nixon did in the leadup to his resignation in disgrace.

    Is that sarcasm or something? Trump is not going to leave without leaving metaphorical claw marks on the floor as he's dragged out, and there's no sign of anyone dragging him out any time soon. He started in disgrace and isn't going to resign to avoid it.

    1. Re:That question backfired by tbannist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Trump is not going to leave without leaving metaphorical claw marks on the floor as he's dragged out, and there's no sign of anyone dragging him out any time soon. He started in disgrace and isn't going to resign to avoid it.

      I don't think the point was that Trump is going to resign, but rather that's he's already digging his claws into the metaphorical floor by trying to make the Russian investigation disappear.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    2. Re: That question backfired by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 0

      Step out of the fever swamp. Drink some fresh water. Breathe some fresh air. Walk around for a bit and try to overcome the stress thats knotted deep within your body.

      Who am I kidding! Just carry on. We'll inform your next of kin.

    3. Re:That question backfired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they had anything on him. It would have come out before the election.

  65. Naw by PatientZero · · Score: 1

    Can we possibly sustain having Trump as our president? And uh, we're seeing how that's turning out now.

    What d'ya mean? Everything's going great! What's that, crewman? Large iceberg off the port bow? I'm sure it'll be fine. This ship is unsinkable!

    --
    Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
    I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
  66. To be fair to the media by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    how do you even begin to respond to something this batshit crazy? Also, you'll still find the left wing media calling him a PoS, they're just as baffled as everyone else over the firing though.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  67. I hope he does by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Russia's too complicated a mess to turn into anything the American people can sink their teeth into, but interfering with an investigation? Well "The coverup was worse than the crime" has such a nice ring to it. It reminds them of Nixon and (Bill) Clinton's scandals. Americans will get that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  68. He'll be taken care of by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    if Trump doesn't somebody in the Republican party will step up to hand this guy a cushy seat at a think tank and some juicy speaker gigs.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  69. Slashdotters Also 90% Blind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    90% of the post were plainly about the article submitted and how Trump shouldn't do this, but how can slashdotters forget that this is the same guy that hates encryption and wanted Apple to break their own iPhone? He did everything to encourage that golden backdoor and weaken security with publicity and law enforcement.

    It should be clear that this guy is very outdated for today's world function. Although the means to remove him might not be great, there seems to be no alternative to remove someone that high without doing so. We do need a replace and hopefully not another one of those rotting potatoes.

  70. Re:Humorous quote by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    It certainly is given that Comey informed the public on three separate occasions that Mr. Trump was under investigation.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  71. History repeats itself by Khyber · · Score: 1
    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  72. Not to mention the sides of beef... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget about Diane Reynolds!

  73. Wonder if he did his "Ya Fired" thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor Trump never left The Apprentace...

  74. Slashdot? by freedom4us · · Score: 1

    This is all politics and has nothing to do with Slashdot. Do we get all kind of political news from all the countries in the world posted here? Waste of space.

  75. Flimsy pretext by DrXym · · Score: 1
    The only reason Comey was fired was because he is investigating the ties between Trump, his cronies and the Russians. And these ties must be pretty strong because it had gotten to the grand jury, subpoena and indictment stage. The half assed pretext for the firing fools nobody.

    If firing Comey was meant to make the issue go away I think Trump is in for a shock. It's thrown fuel on the fire. There'll come a tipping point where most of his support base in congress is going to melt away and then it'll be curtains for this traitorous asshole.

    1. Re:Flimsy pretext by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it had gotten to the grand jury, subpoena and indictment stage."

      Nonsense. An "indictment" means that a person has been formally charged with a crime and will face prosecution. Nobody associated with Trump has been charged with a crime for any sort of ties with the Russians. Even Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign because of an undisclosed dialogue with the Russian ambassador has not been charged with any crime.

  76. No, he's not the president. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's the elected person who doesn't do the job.

    If I turn up to work and do no programming, I'm not the senior programmer, I'm the lazy fuck being paid to be the senior programmer.

    Orangina is a golf player who loves him some cake.

  77. Circling the Drain by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Trump knows he is in deep trouble and everyone knows it. We have an extremely corrupt president. One of the latest scandals is Jared's sister offering green cards to foreigners willing to make a $500,000 investment. Jared is about to have major legal issues as well under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as is Trump. There are so many violations by Trump that we could create a whole new criminal agency to prosecute a long list of crimes involving Trump. It seems that one new violation a day is being unearthed. We no longer live in the USA. Currently we are the US Banana Republic.

  78. Trump Should Appoint A Horse by Philotomy · · Score: 1

    Trump should appoint a horse as the new Director (and perhaps change the name of the position to "Incitatus"). That would make the U.S. government even more amusing.

    1. Re:Trump Should Appoint A Horse by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      That's still a step up from the ass that was fired.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  79. Off topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does this have to do with computers?

  80. Special Presecuter Needed by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    I hope the next president honors American values.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  81. Horse shit by s.petry · · Score: 1

    You and your opinion are at best 50% of the US view of the situation. Your ego is making you a fool, or you are paid to be a fool. Either way, your generalization fallacy is bullshit. I'll say the same with the appeal to authority fallacies.

    The newly appointed Deputy Attorney General provided the opinion that led to the dismissal. This was not, as you whacko leftists attempt to claim, a President taking action on his own.

    Lastly, Comey was not the only investigator working on allegations, in fact he was not an investigator at all. He was the Director for the agency. What ever investigators are working will still be working.

    Reality check - When a director or chief of police is fired, the pending cases don't all vanish and go away. Operations don't all stop and agents and officers don't sit at home with nothing to do. A temporary head takes over (defined by the chain of command) until a new director/Chief comes in and heads the agency.

    The over the top hysteria and baseless claims are why Democrats keep losing people. You are dropping in California for pity sake, wake the fuck up! (or don't, and be the party of extremists without relevance)

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Horse shit by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      You and your opinion are at best 50% of the US view of the situation.

      Because we are all tribal now. You'll support your tribe, right or wrong. In fact, 'wrong' can't even be a possibility anymore, you won't even consider it, because it's your tribe, and the group-think is strong. Before you think I'm singling you out, the Democrats have exactly the same problem going the other way. We are highly polarized, and we have a hard time conceiving of ever crossing the aisle to oppose someone from "our side." This is the America we live in now.

      The newly appointed Deputy Attorney General provided the opinion that led to the dismissal

      Interestingly, Jeff Sessions said he would recuse himself on all matters dealing with the Russia investigation, then he provides the opinion for the dismissal of the head of the agency investigating the Russia matter.

      Reality check - When a director or chief of police is fired, the pending cases don't all vanish and go away. Operations don't all stop and agents and officers don't sit at home with nothing to do. A temporary head takes over (defined by the chain of command) until a new director/Chief comes in and heads the agency.

      And it leaves Trump free to nominate someone 'critical' of the idea of Russian interference. That would be extremely brazen, but he's the guy who nominated a chief player in the recent financial collapse as Treasury Secretary, an Energy Secretary who said the department should be scrapped, an Education Secretary who will be in charge of student loan policy while her family owns firms involved in student loan collection, and an E.P.A. administrator who says human activities are not a great contributor to climate change. So... it's pretty clear that he's not going to really care if others think a nominee will look bad, or if a nominee has conflicts of interest with the core role of the job he or she is nominated to perform.

    2. Re:Horse shit by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      it's pretty clear that he's not going to really care if others think a nominee will look bad, or if a nominee has conflicts of interest with the core role of the job

      Maybe a pair of handcuffs would help focus his thinking.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re: Horse shit by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Have you never been at a company where the head honcho is replaced and the mandate changes immediately? "Ugh, let's keep working on the thing that got our boss fired" . If you're working on a project and you don't think it aligns with the new boss, these projects die. Personally, I've seen it numerous times with Google. You talk like FBI is full of independent investigators. They are not.

    4. Re: Horse shit by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Delusional much? How about you read the opinion of Deputy Rosenstein instead of making up your own opinions or listening to your imaginary friends curated view of "Trump"? Oh I know, reality is a mother and you will have nothing to do with it.

      You talk like FBI is full of independent investigators. They are not.

      That is not just delusional, that runs exactly contrary to reality. While have no confidence that you will actually do any reading which may run contrary to your delusion try a web search for "investigators in the FBI", or "number of investigators in the FBI". Why don't you actually look at who the FBI director and agency works for while you are at it. Hint: The initials are DOJ. Finally, why not look into whether or not President Trump is under any investigation by the FBI for collusion with Russia. That one will really burst your bubble, I'd recommend being in a padded room when you read that one.

      Consider Thorazine. Lots and lots of Thorazine.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re: Horse shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s.petry is a cock holster for trump who is in turn a cock holster for putin who is just a holster.

  82. Hypocrite much? by s.petry · · Score: 1

    The hacking (which outside of the paid by the DNC agency, there is no evidence for) revealed that Clinton was boosted and Sanders was shafted. And you claim that people outside of the DNC made it something other than a "fair fight"? Wholly delusional bullshit Batman!

    The FBI requested access to the DNC servers and were _REFUSED_, so the only people claiming Russia hacked the DNC is the DNC and the agency that THEY_PAID FOR AN OPINION.

    Other agencies claim Russia meddles, but Russia has meddled in EVERY election since the 1940's if not longer. The Police and FBI make sure that their meddling lacks direct impact. Russians cast 0 votes this election, and we have 0 voting machines tampered with by Russian agents. Voter fraud exists, but is more likely from illegal aliens when it occurs. I have seen no cases of absentee ballot fraud by Russian KGB/FSA agents.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  83. Classic Archer by mjwx · · Score: 1

    After all it was Comey who got him elected.

    Did you help Trump get elected... Because this is what happens when Trump gets elected.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  84. Hey! by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Don't you know it's illegal to write real facts these days, As well as totally ineffective.

    What you need is a story with pizzazz, chutzpah, and legs, such as that it was the Russians who forwarded those emails onto Abedin's husband's computer.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  85. There's a simple explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is re-enacting his stint as host of The Apprentice
    There will be more firings and hirings

  86. More horse shit by s.petry · · Score: 1

    I argued against a person claiming everyone agrees with them. That does not mean I believe the same thing, and a tiny amount of thought would indicate that I have no such delusion or would have claimed "my side is right" instead of "half disagree". You just took some "common" out of common sense.

    Jeff Sessions is not the "assistant Attorney General", your facts are wrong. At least try to use facts and reality, not bullshit and hyperbole put out by whackos.

    Lastly, President Trump has not yet nominated anyone. You are basing your position wrong doing in fantasy land. Who exactly is telling you his appointment is bad, imaginary friend got your ear? Do you believe you are tuned into the aliens and they told you his pick would be bad? Or are you simply believing bullshit spread by jackasses with a political motivation for spreading bullshit? Until reality hits, if you truly believe your imagination, seek medical attention and get on some medication as you are a danger to society.

    If Trump appoints someone other than a law officer who is capable of the job, I'll be right there with you bitching about the appointment. I am not happy with some of his picks so far, but the key appointments (AG, Supreme Court, HHS, DHS) have been pretty good. I base my opinion in reality, not fantasy land.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:More horse shit by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I argued against a person claiming everyone agrees with them. That does not mean I believe the same thing, and a tiny amount of thought would indicate that I have no such delusion or would have claimed "my side is right" instead of "half disagree". You just took some "common" out of common sense.

      I'd actually ... really like to agree with you. You've seemed like a reasonable debater in the past, and I search for folks willing enough to have a debate without just going off the deep end, either from the left or the right. It's not easy to find voices like that these days.

      Jeff Sessions is not the "assistant Attorney General", your facts are wrong.

      That's true, you are correct that he is not the "assistant Attorney General," but he is the adviser who urged President Trump to fire Comey. The assistant AG signed on as well, but they both signed on. Why omit Session's involvement?

      Lastly, President Trump has not yet nominated anyone. You are basing your position wrong doing in fantasy land. Who exactly is telling you his appointment is bad, imaginary friend got your ear? Do you believe you are tuned into the aliens and they told you his pick would be bad? Or are you simply believing bullshit spread by jackasses with a political motivation for spreading bullshit? Until reality hits, if you truly believe your imagination, seek medical attention and get on some medication as you are a danger to society.

      I'm basing my skepticism based on the actual people that he has nominated, many approved, for other departments. Things have have already happened in the last six months. Could I be happy with whomever he chooses? Sure. I'm fine with his pick for the Supreme Court, Secretary of State, along with some other cabinet positions that no one cared about because they were hardly controversial. But some of the other picks were wacko enough to give me pause.

    2. Re:More horse shit by s.petry · · Score: 1

      That's true, you are correct that he is not the "assistant Attorney General," but he is the adviser who urged President Trump to fire Comey. The assistant AG signed on as well, but they both signed on. Why omit Session's involvement?

      Repeating a false statement will not make it true. Stop ignoring facts and actually read the 2 1/2 page memorandum provided by the Deputy AG. Remember, the AG had to recuse himself from certain investigations to appease the Democrats. He was not able to provide a direct recommendation, and quite frankly that would not be proper since the Director of the FBI reports to the Deputy AG under all normal circumstances.

      To your last point, your imagination is getting the better of you. Far more appointments have been good than bad, and many of them rather impressive. I never rated any of those picks until they were nominated and started the confirmation process. Nor should anyone else, lest you sound like a delusional progressive whacko with TDS.

      The rest of my points are just as valid (under this topic, not necessarily this thread). The director was not the lead, or even an, investigator. Comey was the _director_ of the agency. The director leaving has a tremendous amount of precedent, an no.. they don't drop any cases because of a change in leadership. The whackos are out in full force making false claims which have no basis in reality. They are simply repeating an allegation that has been searching for 3/4ths of a year for a fact to back it up. The Clinton's had far more collusion with the Russians worthy of investigation, yet those whackos completely ignore _all_ of the wrong doing from both Hillary and Bill which is much more open and has facts to back the claims of collusion.

      Your response was much more thoughtful than anticipated and I appreciate the civility.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:More horse shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s.petry is a cock holster for trump who is in turn a cock holster for putin who is just a holster

    4. Re:More horse shit by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Repeating a false statement will not make it true. Stop ignoring facts and actually read the 2 1/2 page memorandum provided by the Deputy AG.

      I think we're both right. Jeff Sessions sent a cover letter that he wrote along with the memorandum that Rosenstein wrote, where he made his formal recommendation to fire James Comey. He said it was based on his own evaluation, along with the recommendations from the deputy A.G.

  87. special goddamned snowflake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like how once you republitards get your way, you suddenly don't want it any more. Well guess what, buttercup? TRUMP WON! GET OVER IT! Now go lay in that bed you made and you savor every moment.

  88. Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linking to the daily mail for citation says something about you. And it isn't flattering.

    1. Re:Sources by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Linking to the daily mail for citation says something about you. And it isn't flattering.

      Says the AC engaging in lazy avoidance rather than address the facts. Did the government prosecute a sailor for storing classified information on an unsecured, unauthorized electronic device at the same time it was letting off a high level official for having a vastly higher amount of information on her unsecured, unauthorized server, or did it not?

      Yes or no.

  89. Sorry folks by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    The game is almost over.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  90. and surprised much? by tailgunner_050 · · Score: 1

    We need a new term to be defined here, here's one.. Democratic Dictator.

  91. Re:Historical details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the GOP still thinks of Bork as some victim.

  92. Check your sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two anonymous sources close to Politico tell me that article is BS.

    There are almost no named sources, and the ones that are named say nothing whatsoever about Russia. They don't even quote the anonymous sources who allegedly talk about Russia.

    For all we know, they were high-ranking White House insiders--under Obama.