8 ms·

"Trump just fired the man leading a counterintelligence investigation into his campaign, on the same day that the Senate Intelligence commitee requested financi

• SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  SEE EDIT ~~ He also fired the federal judge who ruled against him in Hawaii. So it's not like this is new behavior. ~~ Don't worry though, this is fine. Ed: I'm likely misremembering bluster as taking action, since I can't find specific citations. So I retract the comment, and would strike through it (I don't like deleting text), but don't know if I can on HN.
  • bostonvaulter2 9y ago
    Do you have a link for that?
    • sriram_sun 9y ago
      So I googled the claim that Trump fired the Federal judge in Hawaii and the answer seems to be that the President cannot fire Federal judges. https://www.quora.com/Can-Donald-Trump-fire-a-federal-judge-for-ruling-against-him https://www.quora.com/Can-Donald-Trump-fire-a-federal-judge-...
  • dekhn 9y ago
    I cannot find any evidence of this claim.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • yeukhon 9y ago
    He can't fire a federal judge. There is a due process for impeaching a federal judge from the bench. Neither can Department of Justice (which is part of the executive branch), it is one of the best preserved traditions of our Checks and Balances, despite some of rulings are not agreed by majority (do I have to bring up the stupid ruling of Judge Persky on the People vs Turner case). Therefore, we can't fire or replace a Supreme Court judge except the Congress. You are probably mistaken that for the firing of the acting AOG Sally Yates for mandating Department of Justice to not to defend Trump's travel ban executive order during her tenure, and the termination of New York-based U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara who was known for going after Wall Street scandals (and who, according to Trump, did not return Trump's calls multiple calls). --Edit-- I found [1] to be an interesting article on whether impeachment of a judge is limited to Congress. [1]: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/removing-federal-judges-without-impeachment http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/removing-federal-judges-...
    • memmcgee 9y ago
      The person more at fault in the Turner case is the probation officer who recommended such a light sentence. The judge idiotically accepted their recommendation. I think the case for idiot judges that really makes the case for me is this one: http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/08/tennessee-cops-posed-as-a-defe http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/08/tennessee-cops-posed-as-a-... TL;DR: a detective impersonated a defense attorney and got the victim to incriminate himself. The original judge in the case let them use the evidence in court and didn't immediately throw that shit to the curb. The appeals judge ripped them a new one though. There's also the case of a judge in Michigan banning a guy from the internet for having a date over Tinder when he accepted a plea deal that the prosecutor then convinced the judge to double back on. https://ballotpedia.org/Dennis_M._Wiley https://ballotpedia.org/Dennis_M._Wiley
      • yeukhon 9y ago
        Well, I think both are idiots. I didn't know the probation office was involved. But judge has the final say in the sentencing. There are many ridiculous rulings, some are harmless and for giggles, but some are seriously fucked-up like Turner's case or those you linked.
  • jvolkman 9y ago
    Maybe you meant "he also fired [tweets at] the federal judge".
  • evan_ 9y ago
    You might be thinking of Preet Bharara, the US Attorney for the Southern District of NY which would have been in charge of prosecuting the Trump corp, who was fired abruptly by Trump after refusing to resign.
• kem 9y ago
  Yeah, that was one of my first thoughts about this. I have no love lost for Comey but there's a huge conflict of interest here with Trump and I think the reasons for Trump firing Comey are not the reasons I would want him fired. Comey was doing a balancing act, playing one constituency against another. It seems like Trump is purging everyone who might provide any level of oversight whatsoever.
  • mikeash 9y ago
    "Conflict of interest" is practically the man's middle name. Not only does he not avoid them, he seems to actively seek them out.
    • anigbrowl 9y ago
      You probably shouldn't drink anything while reading this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/10/eric-trump-nepotism-beautiful-thing-says-us-presidents-children/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/10/eric-trump-nepoti...
      • frostymarvelous 9y ago
        A nitpick. He didn't actually say "nepotism is a beautiful thing". While I absolutely do not agree with Trump or his family and what they are doing, I hate to see when people, with a subtle twist change the meanings of what people say. Trump has done enough to fuel negative press for decades. We don't need to make stuff up.
        • mikeash 9y ago
          It doesn't say he said that. The quotes are only around "beautiful thing." Here's the actual quote: "Is that nepotism? Absolutely. Is that also a beautiful thing? Absolutely. Family business is a beautiful thing." I think the description is reasonable, and they make it abundantly clear that the first two words are a paraphrase.
    • drjesusphd 9y ago
• ihaveahadron 9y ago
  Trump is probably laundering money himself.
• stephenhuey 9y ago
  That is quite surreal: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/senate-russia-investigation-donald-trump/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/senate-russia-investi... Would there be any collaboration between the FBI and Senate Intelligence committee?
  • agumonkey 9y ago
    Maybe Trump is a genius painter in the closet. A dyslexic Dali channeling is talent through tweets and EOs.
    • anigbrowl 9y ago
      As a painter myself this gave me a hearty giggle.
    • Filligree 9y ago
      Painters, in my opinion, should not be heads of state. Once was quite enough.
      • booleandilemma 9y ago
        Are you talking about Bush or Hitler?
        • jansho 9y ago
          To be fair, Bush seems a lot nicer after he took up painting
      • anigbrowl 9y ago
        Winston Churchill was also a painter, so there's that. I know your comment was lighthearted but get enough unsolicited criticism without being tagged as supervillains-in-waiting.
      • agumonkey 9y ago
        Only surrealists ones
• res0nat0r 9y ago
  The man at the FBI leading the investigation into the Trump / Russia connection was fired upon recommendation from Sessions who said he was recusing himself from all Russia / Trump investigations. Looking corrupt as hell? Most certainly.
  • enraged_camel 9y ago
    At this point Trump is looking more and more like Nixon on fast-forward.
    • sandworm101 9y ago
      Fast-something. Nixon created the EPA, trump is on rewind there. I think nixon was more his own person, this guy seems a sponge for whoever spoke to him most recently. In that way he is more similar to many historical kings than modern presidents.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    • res0nat0r 9y ago
      And I'm guessing he's going to freely get away with much more than anything Nixon did. Thanks to the GOP who doesn't care about any abuses coming out of the White House because they want to get tax cuts for their millionaire friends they are allowing the integrity of our systems to erode.
      • aaron-lebo 9y ago
        At some point you simply make too many enemies. Dems already hate him and this removal continues his conflict with the traditional GOP. He's either gonna cross the wrong person or be so unpopular that he's gone in a few more years and nobody will care.
        • cthulha 9y ago
• throwaway5752 9y ago
  "Strange" is not the word you're looking for. This is blatant, naked corruption.
  • sundvor 9y ago
    Yep. The great irony here is that Comey almost single-handedly got Trump elected with that late press release about Clinton being under investigation still.
    • tanderson92 9y ago
      That is far from clear: https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/11/13/role-obamacare-premium-hikes-trumps-win/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/11/13/role-obamacare-premium...
    • MaysonL 9y ago
      Well, McConnell helped when he strongarmed Obama and Comey into shutting up about the Russia connection when Comey brought it to the gang of eight ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_(intelligence) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_(intelligence) )
• liquidise 9y ago
  The implication of this comment only holds if the replacement FBI Director drops the investigation. The FBI Director themselves are not conducting the investigation, but have instructed the investigation to be conducted. It stands that we should expect the investigation to continue in Comey's absence. Should it cease, this comment would gain merit. The reasons cited for the dismissal appear valid on their face: the handling of the Clinton email investigation had a measurable impact on the election and perhaps could have been handled better.
  • anigbrowl 9y ago
    So you're saying you find it plausible that Trump fired Comey an excess of administrative zeal on Comey's part might have led to Clinton's loss of the election. I might find your position more persuasive if Trump didn't display an almost-daily disregard for administrative norms and procedures. I highly doubt that his new nominee will be told to not obstruct any ongoing investigations.
    • skygazer 9y ago
      That deputy AG letter seemed to imply that the reason for the firing was Comey publicly berating Clinton last July, against policy -- the act that Trump praised Comey for at the time. And lets not forget Trump hugging Comey at their first meeting after he took office. If these were the actual reasons, they would have been triggered months ago during Trump's early firing sprees. There's clearly an unnamed (but obvious) proximal cause.
      • MaysonL 9y ago
        A tweet from cstross: "In iterated prisoner's dilemmas, Trump ALWAYS defects. Take note."
    • losvedir 9y ago
      > So you're saying you find it plausible that Trump fired Comey an excess of administrative zeal on Comey's part might have led to Clinton's loss of the election. Yes, that is the stated reason: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/fbi-director-james-b-comeys-termination-letters-from-the-white-house-attorney-general/2430/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/fbi-dire... edit: better source
• jayess 9y ago
  James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Monday that he still has not seen any evidence of any kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian foreign nationals. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-N.C., asked if Clapper's prior statement was correct, when he said on NBC that there was "no evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. When asked if that is still accurate, Clapper said Monday, "it is." On NBC weeks earlier, Clapper said, "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,' that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-clapper-still-no-evidence-of-any-russian-collusion-with-trump-campaign/article/2622452 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-clapper-still-no-evi...
  • the_cat_kittles 9y ago
    but he didn't know of the FBI investigation at first, and is not privy to the details of that one.
    • skygazer 9y ago
      Not to mention he's quite out of the loop these past three plus months, being formerly employed, and all.
  • sacheendra 9y ago
    Why does he use language like "We did not include any evidence in our report"? Does this imply that there was evidence and he did not include it?
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • jayess 9y ago
      The full question and answer which addresses this: https://youtu.be/FrS8kid6baw?t=34m14s https://youtu.be/FrS8kid6baw?t=34m14s