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.

46 of 810 comments (clear)

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

    Who's next?

  2. 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 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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 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.

    2. 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: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: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!

  7. 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 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
  8. 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...
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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 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!
    2. 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
  14. 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 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?

    3. 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.

    4. Re:How gullible are you? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since Trump refurbished the EPA with "industry experts" and creationists.

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

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

  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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.

  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: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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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?

  25. 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."
  26. 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?

  27. 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.
  28. 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.

  29. 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.
  30. 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.

  31. 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?
  32. 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