Donald Trump to James Comey: You’re Fired!

 

President Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey.

Here is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein writing in a memo that Comey’s July 5, 2016, news conference was a fireable offense:

Read the whole thing, as well as Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s letter to Trump and Trump’s letter to Comey.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 257 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. NYLibertarianGuy Inactive
    NYLibertarianGuy
    @PaulKingsbery

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):
    She made the following statement: ““I will be accepting their recommendations and their plans for going forward.” You can say that’s not a “recusal,” but that’s a clear abdication of responsibility and delegation to the FBI.

    It’s not a recusal. I quote the NYT:

    The attorney general’s response did little to quell a political tempest in Washington, with some Republicans calling for her to recuse herself from the case — a step she said she was not going to take.

    Edit:

    According to CNN, it was AG Lynch who made the decision not charge official. There was never a recusal. Lynch made the final decision. Nothing you say can refute these indisputable facts.

    Nothing you have said even touches on my point:  Comey was effectively given the green light to decide the case, regardless of what Lynch did “officially.”  He announced his decision and stated his reasons for his decision in light of the important public interest in the case.  That was the right thing to do.

    • #241
  2. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):
    She made the following statement: ““I will be accepting their recommendations and their plans for going forward.” You can say that’s not a “recusal,” but that’s a clear abdication of responsibility and delegation to the FBI.

    It’s not a recusal. I quote the NYT:

    The attorney general’s response did little to quell a political tempest in Washington, with some Republicans calling for her to recuse herself from the case — a step she said she was not going to take.

    Edit:

    According to CNN, it was AG Lynch who made the decision not charge official. There was never a recusal. Lynch made the final decision. Nothing you say can refute these indisputable facts.

    Nothing you have said even touches on my point: Comey was effectively given the green light to decide the case, regardless of what Lynch did “officially.” He announced his decision and stated his reasons for his decision in light of the important public interest in the case. That was the right thing to do.

    So do you think Lynch would have charged Clinton with a crime if Comey had recommended so? If so, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

    • #242
  3. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):
    She made the following statement: ““I will be accepting their recommendations and their plans for going forward.” You can say that’s not a “recusal,” but that’s a clear abdication of responsibility and delegation to the FBI.

    It’s not a recusal. I quote the NYT:

    The attorney general’s response did little to quell a political tempest in Washington, with some Republicans calling for her to recuse herself from the case — a step she said she was not going to take.

    Edit:

    According to CNN, it was AG Lynch who made the decision not charge official. There was never a recusal. Lynch made the final decision. Nothing you say can refute these indisputable facts.

    Nothing you have said even touches on my point: Comey was effectively given the green light to decide the case, regardless of what Lynch did “officially.” He announced his decision and stated his reasons for his decision in light of the important public interest in the case. That was the right thing to do.

    So do you think Lynch would have charged Clinton with a crime if Comey had recommended so? If so, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

    That’s rather immaterial to the discussion isn’t it?

    • #243
  4. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):
    She made the following statement: ““I will be accepting their recommendations and their plans for going forward.” You can say that’s not a “recusal,” but that’s a clear abdication of responsibility and delegation to the FBI.

    It’s not a recusal. I quote the NYT:

    The attorney general’s response did little to quell a political tempest in Washington, with some Republicans calling for her to recuse herself from the case — a step she said she was not going to take.

    So she abdicated responsibility while maintaining her ability to control the situation if things go awry. There are many ways to kill an prosecution of Hillary Clinton, and she wanted to keep her powder dry. Derigeur for the Obama Administration.

    Wait, are you agreeing with me, Jamie?

    In part. You are technically correct, but also functionally wrong. This was a very public matter and the court of public opinion weighed heavily on the actions of all involved – right or wrong that’s just how it is. Hence Lynch very publically abdicated responsibility and as far as the public was concerned recused herself from the decision to prosecute Clinton. This left Comey in an awkward position. I think he handeled it poorly but I can’t see a better way to handle it.

    Comey has made institutional credibility a major theme in his explanations of his conduct. He wanted to preserve the integrity of the FBI and I think the DOJ overall. He said that’s why he accepted the responsibility that was abdicated to him from a compromised Loretta Lynch. If we can agree on the fact of his obsession with institutional integrity and take him at his word that he viewed Lynch as compromised, do you really think he would have recommended prosecution if he thought Lynch would not follow through? Wouldn’t such a public institutional failure bring about a crisis of confidence in DOJ that it would never recover from? Wouldn’t it end both of their careers? Could that be why he twisted himself in a pretzel to give Hillary a pass?

    • #244
  5. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):
    She made the following statement: ““I will be accepting their recommendations and their plans for going forward.” You can say that’s not a “recusal,” but that’s a clear abdication of responsibility and delegation to the FBI.

    It’s not a recusal. I quote the NYT:

    The attorney general’s response did little to quell a political tempest in Washington, with some Republicans calling for her to recuse herself from the case — a step she said she was not going to take.

    So she abdicated responsibility while maintaining her ability to control the situation if things go awry. There are many ways to kill an prosecution of Hillary Clinton, and she wanted to keep her powder dry. Derigeur for the Obama Administration.

    Wait, are you agreeing with me, Jamie?

    In part. You are technically correct, but also functionally wrong. This was a very public matter and the court of public opinion weighed heavily on the actions of all involved – right or wrong that’s just how it is. Hence Lynch very publically abdicated responsibility and as far as the public was concerned recused herself from the decision to prosecute Clinton. This left Comey in an awkward position. I think he handeled it poorly but I can’t see a better way to handle it.

    Comey has made institutional credibility a major theme in his explanations of his conduct. He wanted to preserve the integrity of the FBI and I think the DOJ overall. He said that’s why he accepted the responsibility that was abdicated to him from a compromised Loretta Lynch. If we can agree on the fact of his obsession with institutional integrity and take him at his word that he viewed Lynch as compromised, do you really think he would have recommended prosecution if he thought Lynch would not follow through? Wouldn’t such a public institutional failure bring about a crisis of confidence in DOJ that it would never recover from? Wouldn’t it end both of their careers? Could that be why he twisted himself in a pretzel to give Hillary a pass?

    I don’t know what was going through his head, but I think you correctly outline the terrible position that the Obama Administration, Lynch in particular and Clinton placed him in.

    • #245
  6. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):
    She made the following statement: ““I will be accepting their recommendations and their plans for going forward.” You can say that’s not a “recusal,” but that’s a clear abdication of responsibility and delegation to the FBI.

    It’s not a recusal. I quote the NYT:

    The attorney general’s response did little to quell a political tempest in Washington, with some Republicans calling for her to recuse herself from the case — a step she said she was not going to take.

    Edit:

    According to CNN, it was AG Lynch who made the decision not charge official. There was never a recusal. Lynch made the final decision. Nothing you say can refute these indisputable facts.

    Nothing you have said even touches on my point: Comey was effectively given the green light to decide the case, regardless of what Lynch did “officially.” He announced his decision and stated his reasons for his decision in light of the important public interest in the case. That was the right thing to do.

    So do you think Lynch would have charged Clinton with a crime if Comey had recommended so? If so, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

    That’s rather immaterial to the discussion isn’t it?

    No, I think he knew that the fix was in. He knew that there would never be a prosecution of the Democratic nominee for president, who just happened to be the wife of the president who launched the AG’s career. I think he did what he thought was best for the FBI, the DOJ, America as a whole, and his own career. In a way, that is kind of admirable, but in another way that makes him the most dangerous FBI director in history.

    • #246
  7. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

     

    Comey has made institutional credibility a major theme in his explanations of his conduct. He wanted to preserve the integrity of the FBI and I think the DOJ overall. He said that’s why he accepted the responsibility that was abdicated to him from a compromised Loretta Lynch. If we can agree on the fact of his obsession with institutional integrity and take him at his word that he viewed Lynch as compromised, do you really think he would have recommended prosecution if he thought Lynch would not follow through? Wouldn’t such a public institutional failure bring about a crisis of confidence in DOJ that it would never recover from? Wouldn’t it end both of their careers? Could that be why he twisted himself in a pretzel to give Hillary a pass?

    I don’t know what was going through his head, but I think you correctly outline the terrible position that the Obama Administration, Lynch in particular and Clinton placed him in.

    I don’t know for sure what was in his head either, but above is my opinion about what motivated him. I think I can make a pretty convincing case to support that opinion based on his very recent public statements and the facts of the whole sordid affair. As I said in #246 above, I think he knew the fix was in and that there would be no prosecution, no matter what he did. If he pushed for charges to be filed, that wold have brought down the credibility of the DOJ and ended a lot of careers, including his own. That is my deeply held belief, and reasonable people are allowed to form their own.

    • #247
  8. NYLibertarianGuy Inactive
    NYLibertarianGuy
    @PaulKingsbery

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):
    She made the following statement: ““I will be accepting their recommendations and their plans for going forward.” You can say that’s not a “recusal,” but that’s a clear abdication of responsibility and delegation to the FBI.

    It’s not a recusal. I quote the NYT:

    The attorney general’s response did little to quell a political tempest in Washington, with some Republicans calling for her to recuse herself from the case — a step she said she was not going to take.

    Edit:

    According to CNN, it was AG Lynch who made the decision not charge official. There was never a recusal. Lynch made the final decision. Nothing you say can refute these indisputable facts.

    Nothing you have said even touches on my point: Comey was effectively given the green light to decide the case, regardless of what Lynch did “officially.” He announced his decision and stated his reasons for his decision in light of the important public interest in the case. That was the right thing to do.

    So do you think Lynch would have charged Clinton with a crime if Comey had recommended so? If so, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

    That’s rather immaterial to the discussion isn’t it?

    No, I think he knew that the fix was in. He knew that there would never be a prosecution of the Democratic nominee for president, who just happened to be the wife of the president who launched the AG’s career. I think he did what he thought was best for the FBI, the DOJ, America as a whole, and his own career. In a way, that is kind of admirable, but in another way that makes him the most dangerous FBI director in history.

    You’re speculating while we are talking about facts.  Loretta Lynch publicly committed to following through on his recommendation.  He had a free hand to make an honest, non-partisan decision.  This is a former U.S. Attorney for the SDNY and former Deputy Attorney General.  He was a man of substance and there is no support for the view that he was restricted by the Administration (other than your idle speculation and disagreement with his conclusion).

    He did what was best for the country, not for his own career.

    • #248
  9. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):
    She made the following statement: ““I will be accepting their recommendations and their plans for going forward.” You can say that’s not a “recusal,” but that’s a clear abdication of responsibility and delegation to the FBI.

    It’s not a recusal. I quote the NYT:

    The attorney general’s response did little to quell a political tempest in Washington, with some Republicans calling for her to recuse herself from the case — a step she said she was not going to take.

    Edit:

    According to CNN, it was AG Lynch who made the decision not charge official. There was never a recusal. Lynch made the final decision. Nothing you say can refute these indisputable facts.

    Nothing you have said even touches on my point: Comey was effectively given the green light to decide the case, regardless of what Lynch did “officially.” He announced his decision and stated his reasons for his decision in light of the important public interest in the case. That was the right thing to do.

    So do you think Lynch would have charged Clinton with a crime if Comey had recommended so? If so, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

    That’s rather immaterial to the discussion isn’t it?

    No, I think he knew that the fix was in. He knew that there would never be a prosecution of the Democratic nominee for president, who just happened to be the wife of the president who launched the AG’s career. I think he did what he thought was best for the FBI, the DOJ, America as a whole, and his own career. In a way, that is kind of admirable, but in another way that makes him the most dangerous FBI director in history.

    You’re speculating while we are talking about facts. Loretta Lynch publicly committed to following through on his recommendation. He had a free hand to make an honest, non-partisan decision. This is a former U.S. Attorney for the SDNY and former Deputy Attorney General. He was a man of substance and there is no support for the view that he was restricted by the Administration (other than your idel speculation and disagreement with his conclusion).

    He did what was best for the country, not for his own career.

    On the charge of speculation:  guilty as charged; cynicism:  guilty; lack of faith in the morality of our leaders:  guilty. As for belief in the integrity of James Comey, I think he upheld his integrity as he viewed it. But I think he came to the wrong decision for the wrong reason. That’s my opinion, and you are welcome to disagree. You can start by depicting a believable scenario in which Lynch chooses to prosecute the presidential nominee of her own party and the wife of her primary benefactor.

    • #249
  10. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    I don’t know if Lynch was trying to make Comey the fall guy, or if Comey was trying to protect Lynch. All I know is they’re both gone, and I’m glad.

    Now, how can we get Eric Holder imprisoned for his role in running guns to Mexican drug cartels?

    • #250
  11. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):
    I don’t know if Lynch was trying to make Comey the fall guy, or if Comey was trying to protect Lynch. All I know is they’re both gone, and I’m glad.

    Now, how can we get Eric Holder imprisoned for his role in running guns to Mexican drug cartels?

    And John Koskinen and Lois Lerner for their roles in a weaponized IRS?

    • #251
  12. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

     

    That’s rather immaterial to the discussion isn’t it?

    No, I think he knew that the fix was in. He knew that there would never be a prosecution of the Democratic nominee for president, who just happened to be the wife of the president who launched the AG’s career. I think he did what he thought was best for the FBI, the DOJ, America as a whole, and his own career. In a way, that is kind of admirable, but in another way that makes him the most dangerous FBI director in history.

    You’re speculating while we are talking about facts. Loretta Lynch publicly committed to following through on his recommendation. He had a free hand to make an honest, non-partisan decision. This is a former U.S. Attorney for the SDNY and former Deputy Attorney General. He was a man of substance and there is no support for the view that he was restricted by the Administration (other than your idel speculation and disagreement with his conclusion).

    He did what was best for the country, not for his own career.

    One thing I don’t have to speculate about is the possibility of a proper investigation and eventual indictment without a grand jury. As Andrew McCarthy wrote nearly a year and a half ago:

    Only federal prosecutors may issue subpoenas, on the lawful authority of the grand jury. Only prosecutors are empowered to present evidence or propose charges to the grand jury. And the Constitution vests only the grand jury with authority to indict — the formal accusation of a crime. In our system, the FBI can do none of these things.

    Whenever challenged, AG Lynch said she would listen to the FBI agents and career prosecutors of the DOJ. That sounds pretty official, but the FBI agents couldn’t compel testimony or production of documents without the help of those career prosecutors, but those career prosecutors weren’t authorized to help the FBI. Comey had to offer Clinton’s henchbabes immunity deals to get them to talk, because there was no grand jury to force them. And there was no grand jury to weigh the evidence to determine whether there was probable cause to indict. No grand jury, no possibility for indictment. That’s not speculation, that’s how our justice system works.

    • #252
  13. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):
    She made the following statement: ““I will be accepting their recommendations and their plans for going forward.” You can say that’s not a “recusal,” but that’s a clear abdication of responsibility and delegation to the FBI.

    I remember that statement, and am shocked to find that anybody took it at face value.

    • #253
  14. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):
    She made the following statement: ““I will be accepting their recommendations and their plans for going forward.” You can say that’s not a “recusal,” but that’s a clear abdication of responsibility and delegation to the FBI.

    I remember that statement, and am shocked to find that anybody took it at face value.

    Exactly, she said that over a year after evidence of the underlying misdeed came to light, and yet still no grand jury had been empaneled. If she was serious about possibly charging Clinton, where was the grand jury?

    • #254
  15. Justin Hertog Inactive
    Justin Hertog
    @RooseveltGuck

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Justin Hertog (View Comment):
    The 44th President didn’t have a problem with Comey giving his opinion and recommendation and neither did his Attorney General. If the AG thought Clinton should have been prosecuted, she could have ignored Comey’s recommendation and prosecuted. But we now know that Clinton was never going to be prosecuted. And Comey must have known that all along. If he had privately recommended prosecution, been ignored, and then resigned, the whole thing might have been swept under the rug and Clinton might have cruised to victory last November. By speaking up and doing his best to inform us of what Clinton had done, Comey performed a patriotic act. While I can understand why this Justice Department and Democrats wanted him out, The American People owe Comey a debt of gratitude for preventing Clinton from winning the presidency.

    I saw it this way at the time too, up to a point. I would have preferred him to state all the laws she broke, then say she should be indicted, and then resign if (I mean when) Lynch declined to prosecute. When he said that no sane prosecutor would pursue it and then added that incomprehensible part about “intent,” he lost all credibilty and got both sides to hate him. It was just so weird.

    It’s unfortunate, but he was hopelessly compromised by his handling of that affair. I don’t think anyone could work for Barack Obama (or the Clintons) without becoming ethically compromised.

    Look, the Obama White House tried to do a number of things: protect Obama and his legacy by keeping him out of the scandal; protect Hillary Clinton so long as protecting her did not damage Obama in any way. (I have no doubt that Obama would have thrown her under the bus if protecting her made him look bad.) Parts of the mainstream media, Congressional Democrats, and surrogates did their best to accomplish these two goals. The Clinton campaign’s goal was to put the scandal behind her and vilify Trump and make supporting him and voting for him beyond the pale. Her campaign did not do a good job accomplishing this goal. They were pathetic, actually. They relied on the mainstream media, on Hollywood, on pollsters and on some conservatives to push her over the finish line. Comey was the only high-ranking executive branch official to speak up (as I recall) and say publically (and not as anonymous source) that Clinton had done anything wrong at all. Imagine how corrupt our government would be now if she had won?

    As for the accusation that Comey took it upon himself to be a prosecutor, remember that it was Lynch who put the burden on him to make the call. That’s why he went public.

    • #255
  16. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Justin Hertog (View Comment):

    Look, the Obama White House tried to do a number of things: protect Obama and his legacy by keeping him out of the scandal; protect Hillary Clinton so long as protecting her did not damage Obama in any way. (I have no doubt that Obama would have thrown her under the bus if protecting her made him look bad.) Parts of the mainstream media, Congressional Democrats, and surrogates did their best to accomplish these two goals. The Clinton campaign’s goal was to put the scandal behind her and vilify Trump and make supporting him and voting for him beyond the pale. Her campaign did not do a good job accomplishing this goal. They were pathetic, actually. They relied on the mainstream media, on Hollywood, on pollsters and on some conservatives to push her over the finish line. Comey was the only high-ranking official to speak up (as I recall) and say publically (and not as anonymous source) that Clinton had done anything wrong at all. Imagine how corrupt our government would be now if she had won?

    As for the accusation that Comey took it upon himself to be a prosecutor, remember that it was Lynch who put the burden on him to make the call. That’s why he went public.

    When he did that odd press conference, I also thought he was obviously somehow hobbled behind the scenes. It was so strange that he listed all the laws she’d broken, but then said nobody in their right mind would prosecute. It almost seemed like a hostage video. But I was and still am so angry that he didn’t just present the findings to the AG’s office and then resign honorably when they failed to prosecute. I really really really wanted Hillary to face the music, and I still do.

    • #256
  17. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Justin Hertog (View Comment):

    Look, the Obama White House tried to do a number of things: protect Obama and his legacy by keeping him out of the scandal; protect Hillary Clinton so long as protecting her did not damage Obama in any way. (I have no doubt that Obama would have thrown her under the bus if protecting her made him look bad.) Parts of the mainstream media, Congressional Democrats, and surrogates did their best to accomplish these two goals. The Clinton campaign’s goal was to put the scandal behind her and vilify Trump and make supporting him and voting for him beyond the pale. Her campaign did not do a good job accomplishing this goal. They were pathetic, actually. They relied on the mainstream media, on Hollywood, on pollsters and on some conservatives to push her over the finish line. Comey was the only high-ranking official to speak up (as I recall) and say publically (and not as anonymous source) that Clinton had done anything wrong at all. Imagine how corrupt our government would be now if she had won?

    As for the accusation that Comey took it upon himself to be a prosecutor, remember that it was Lynch who put the burden on him to make the call. That’s why he went public.

    When he did that odd press conference, I also thought he was obviously somehow hobbled behind the scenes. It was so strange that he listed all the laws she’d broken, but then said nobody in their right mind would prosecute. It almost seemed like a hostage video. But I was and still am so angry that he didn’t just present the findings to the AG’s office and then resign honorably when they failed to prosecute. I really really really wanted Hillary to face the music, and I still do.

    He should have done it by the book:  make his recommendation to the AG in private. If he though the fix was in (it obviously was;  no grand jury:  Q.E.D.) and that his recommendation would be ignored, he should have resigned in protest. Instead he tried to split the baby, which ended his career.

    I want his replacement to be the most buttoned up, no nonsense, tight lipped by the book guy ever to take the office. Follow the evidence where it leads. If there is no evidence, then say so and go fight violent drug gangs in Chicago or home-grown terrorists. That’s all.

    • #257
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.