What was the real reason Trump fired Comey today?

Fox

Wed, May 10 2017, 12:54 pm

sequoia wrote:

Everybody does some good and some bad; the question is what kind of atmosphere are they creating overall.

If that's the criterion, Trump has been much more successful.

As a good-natured Midwesterner with strong libertarian leanings, I'd be a total globalist if left to my own devices. My default world views are that if you're nice to other people, they'll be nice to you and that a free market economy makes everyone richer.

Those positions aren't entirely wrong, but I've come to see that they're naive.

Globalism only works when everyone else has the same set of values and priorities, and that's not the case in the world today. For example, almost all medication is currently manufactured in Malaysia and Indonesia, and the supply chain is on a very, very short timeline. So while Southeast Asia has a comparative advantage in producing medications, I've come to realize that I don't want the U.S. to give up the ability to produce medicine.

Likewise, many countries do not subscribe to the cheerful friendliness of Americans. They consider shows of cooperation to demonstrate weakness. I don't recall who said it, but the comment was made that Trump doesn't necessarily have to do very much -- simply appointing someone with the nickname of "Mad Dog" as Secretary of Defense sends a significant message to much of the world.

So, yes, Trump has a great deal more bark than bite. Thank goodness! But rhetoric matters, and the fact that countries like Saudi Arabia are backtracking on certain policies and a key issue in the upcoming Mexican presidential election is how to improve the economy so that people don't have to go to the U.S. -- well, that's a madraga.

gold21

Wed, May 10 2017, 12:55 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Jobs created February 2015 238,000
Jobs created February 2016 237,000
Jobs created February 2017 235,000

Forgive me for not being overwhelmed.

Of course, he had not DONE anything at that point. Its all just expectation. So I don't blame him, either.

Source?

gold21

Wed, May 10 2017, 12:59 pm

sequoia wrote:

True. Especially in the context of us complaining for decades about how anti-Israel the UN is, not appreciating Haley seems odd.

yep.

treestump

Wed, May 10 2017, 1:19 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

Just curious. Is Nikki Haley a non-partisan accomplishment?

ETA: not aware of her ethics violations. I still think she's doing a great job.

I honestly don't know about this. I think she was a better pick than other candidates, and she's very intelligent.

There were some things she said which made me cringe, but overall not a disaster.

I wouldn't it a shining accomplishment, but I think it was a mostly decent pick considering other choices.

I might be in the minority among liberals about this, but I really haven't seen a lot of b-tching about Haley. There's a lot of other things liberals are concerned about and focusing on more.

dancingqueen

Wed, May 10 2017, 1:24 pm

gold21 wrote:

OK. But the investigation has been going on for a while. Comey just had an incident a couple days ago where his misled Congress with regards to Clinton's emails. Politicians on both sides of the aisle were unhappy with his misrepresentation. Recommendations were put forth to Trump (don't know by who, would have to research further) to fire Comey. Maybe Trump didn't like the guy personally and was more than happy to let him go, but this was not a random dismissal of our FBI Director.

Those recommendations came from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recently got in trouble for some formerly undisclosed ties to the Russian ambassador, and who has supposedly recused himself from the Justice Department investigation into US-Russian hanky panky. Still think that everything was kosher here?

And btw, I am not a hard core liberal by any means, philosophically I have issues with both parties. I just don't like the way that Trump is handling things.

Fox

Wed, May 10 2017, 1:36 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

Actually, the recommendations came from Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who has been widely praised in the past on both sides of the aisle.

PinkFridge

Wed, May 10 2017, 1:49 pm

treestump wrote:

I might be in the minority among liberals about this, but I really haven't seen a lot of b-tching about Haley. There's a lot of other things liberals are concerned about and focusing on more.

Between Air America being off the air and NPR not available in my house, I don't know too much about the liberal "reid". Even so, I haven't heard anything about ethics violations and if it were terribly loud I'm sure I would have heard RW hosts bringing it up and defending her. (Don't worry, I don't get all my news from RW talk radio Twisted Evil

)

dancingqueen

Wed, May 10 2017, 1:54 pm

Fox wrote:

Actually, the recommendations came from Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who has been widely praised in the past on both sides of the aisle.

From the NYT:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, pushed for Mr. Comey’s dismissal. But many in Washington, including veteran F.B.I. officers, saw a carefully choreographed effort by the president to create a pretense for a takedown of the president’s F.B.I. tormentor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0......html

MiracleMama

Wed, May 10 2017, 1:54 pm

treestump wrote:

Uh the question was to list accomplishments that are "objectively postive in a non-partisan way."

There doesn't seem to be any such thing in politics.

Fox

Wed, May 10 2017, 2:15 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

Well, if you can't trust the NYT . . .

Seriously, his "tormentor"? A week ago, Clinton was complaining that Comey cost her the election.

SixOfWands

Wed, May 10 2017, 2:21 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

Jeff Sessions recused himself from any investigation of Russian interference in the election, which makes his purported recommendation that Comey be fired extremely troubling.

Moreover, Trump claimed that Comey had assured him "three times" that Trump was "not under investigation." Did Comey say that? If so, was it in a confidential communication leaked by Trump?

The termination of an FBI Director in the middle of his term, without any clear explanation, is extremely troubling. Its even more so given that Comey had just asked for more funding for an investigation of Russian meddling into the election of Trump. Given reports that Trump was "enraged" by the Russia investigation (according to two of his advisers), and repeatedly asked his aides why the Russia investigation wouldn’t "disappear." And given his deputy press secretory's statement that evening that its time to end the investigation into Russia and “move on.”

SixOfWands

Wed, May 10 2017, 2:23 pm

Fox wrote:

Well, if you can't trust the NYT . . .

Seriously, his "tormentor"? A week ago, Clinton was complaining that Comey cost her the election.

He did.

And then he started investigating Trump.

And yes, you can trust the NY Times. I know that people like you enjoy calling it "fake news." But it accurately reports the facts.

gold21

Wed, May 10 2017, 2:41 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

He did.

And then he started investigating Trump.

And yes, you can trust the NY Times. I know that people like you enjoy calling it "fake news." But it accurately reports the facts.

The NYT most definitely operates with a liberal bias. Seen their coverage on Israel?

You can't really trust anything from any publication 100 percent. Everything should be evaluated independently.

Fox

Wed, May 10 2017, 3:07 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

And yes, you can trust the NY Times. I know that people like you enjoy calling it "fake news." But it accurately reports the facts.

No, "people like me" don't necessarily believe the NYT reports "fake news" -- or at least any more than any other media outlet.

"People like me" just want outlets to be honest about their bias rather than pretend that they don't have one.

Jeanette

Wed, May 10 2017, 3:47 pm

Fox wrote:

To quote Ben Shapiro, "This is the best season of The Apprentice yet!"

The idea that Trump fired Comey to derail an investigation into Russian influence in the election is entirely too facile. I'd opt for one of the following theories, and probably a combination:

If Not Now, When?
In an interview on NPR with one of Comey's former colleagues (sorry, I didn't catch his name -- I was driving), it was mentioned that Comey has very few friends left in Washington. Everyone expected Trump to fire Comey shortly after his inauguration, but he didn't. However, that doesn't mean that it wasn't in the works.

The fact that the firing came immediately after Clapper and Yates acknowledged in Senate testimony that there is no evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign suggests that the White House wanted to capitalize on that finding. The fact that Clapper was critical of Comey couldn't have helped.

Sleight of Hand -- Part I
There are several major campaign promises that Trump is going to have to completely renege on or achieve in highly compromised forms. A wall along the Mexican border . . . moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Yerushalayim . . . "repealing" the ACA.

Sending the media and his critics on a wild goose chase over Comey's firing drives these stories below the fold (below the screen?) and diverts potential criticism from his base.

Sleight of Hand -- Part II
So far the Russian conspiracy theories haven't panned out, but there are plenty of other issues that deserve a lot more attention than they're getting: for example, Jared Kushner's investment relationships and Kellyanne Conway's divestment from her polling company. Again, with people chasing their tails over Comey, these stories are getting less play.

How to Get the Democrats' Goat
While this reason wouldn't stand alone, I believe it is definitely a contributory factor. Comey was living on borrowed time anyway -- both Republicans and Democrats wanted him out for various reasons. Knowing that Democrats like Schumer wouldn't be able to resist condemning him, Trump dealt with Comey in a way to make various Democrats look as ridiculous as possible.

How to Get the Media's Goat
A little-remarked detail of this story is that it came as a complete surprise to the media. In general, White House correspondents are given a heads-up on such actions to allow them to file their stories quickly. This practice isn't official; it's just what WH press secretaries have been in the habit of doing -- until now. The WH correspondents are already testy because they now have to work on weekends. They considered this a major dis.

Whatever the combination of factors, my take is that the WH very much wants everyone's attention on Comey's firing. Yes, of course Russia attempted to influence the election. The U.S. regularly does the same. However, that's a far cry from active collusion, and there seems to be no evidence of that. In fact, I read one account that Russia's attempts were animated more by Putin's personal dislike of Clinton than by strategy. While that seems farfetched, it's not entirely out of line with Putin's character.

As for whether Trump has done anything positive, it's silly to claim that he hasn't. He's also done some stupid and unproductive things. I would identify the following five positives:

* Reduced illegal immigration
* Improved stock market performance
* Higher consumer confidence
* Increased confidence from businesses
* Actually negotiates trade deals, etc., rather than acquiescing

Now, most of these are not quantifiable until the end of his presidency, at the earliest. Will increased consumer and business confidence actually result in more jobs? We'll have to see. However, it's a good start.

The stupid and unproductive things he's done are mostly associated with his and his staff's inexperience -- which was, IMHO, his biggest weakness during the campaign. However much one wants to "drain the swamp," one has to have something with which to replace all the swamp-dwellers. Nevertheless, the most dire predictions have not come to pass and show no signs of doing so.

I'll just stick with the official version, that Comey was mean and unprofessional in the way he handled the Clinton emails, which was literally just discovered yesterday! And had to be fired immediately before he did any further damage.

I mean, that sure beats a president who fires a sitting FBI director for political theater. How cynical do you have to be to think Trump would do that? Firing am FBI director is a pretty big deal. And you think he did it to distract from a bigger scandal? Doesn't get much bigger than that.

Fox

Wed, May 10 2017, 3:53 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Jeff Sessions recused himself from any investigation of Russian interference in the election, which makes his purported recommendation that Comey be fired extremely troubling.

Except that everyone has recommended at one time or another that Comey be fired. Democrats have been braying for his skin for months.

SixOfWands wrote:

Moreover, Trump claimed that Comey had assured him "three times" that Trump was "not under investigation." Did Comey say that? If so, was it in a confidential communication leaked by Trump?

Why is this a problem? The investigation was into Russian influence -- not collusion with the Trump campaign.

SixOfWands wrote:

The termination of an FBI Director in the middle of his term, without any clear explanation, is extremely troubling. Its even more so given that Comey had just asked for more funding for an investigation of Russian meddling into the election of Trump. Given reports that Trump was "enraged" by the Russia investigation (according to two of his advisers), and repeatedly asked his aides why the Russia investigation wouldn’t "disappear." And given his deputy press secretory's statement that evening that its time to end the investigation into Russia and “move on.”

Again, no one has found any evidence of collusion. Clapper and Yates testified to this earlier this week.

Let's also remember the primary action allegedly taken by Russia: releasing internal DNC emails that showed malfeasance by the DNC regarding the Sanders campaign, disdain for the electorate on the part of the Clinton campaign, some ugly prejudices, and a desire to subvert the Roman Catholic Church.

So the argument is apparently, "If Russia hadn't let everyone know how really bad we were, we would have won the election." Well, yeah . . .

What is an investigation likely to yield? "Be more careful about email server security!" or "If you're going to do bad things, don't discuss it in an email!" or "Vladimir, knock it off!"

Like I said in my first post on this topic, I think there are all kinds of interpretations that are unflattering to Trump. I just don't think that derailing the Russian influence investigation is the strongest.

Fox

Wed, May 10 2017, 3:56 pm

Jeanette wrote:

No, I think the timing was convenient because it allows him to distract everyone's attention from questions he'd prefer to avoid.

Don't conflate "scandal" with simply wanting to control the narrative.

Jeanette

Wed, May 10 2017, 4:15 pm

Fox wrote:

Do you have an issue with the official narrative?

Fox

Wed, May 10 2017, 4:30 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Do you have an issue with the official narrative?

Well, it makes no sense on its own. There's no reason why the WH would have waited this long to fire Comey for something he did last July and October. Moreover, what he did presumably benefited Trump.

I think Trump is delighted to bring as much attention to the alleged Russian connection through his tweets and general kvetching precisely because he's confident there's nothing there. It's a cheap and easy way to embarrass the Democrats as well as fan the flame of contempt for the media among his base.

If I were a news editor/producer, I'd be telling my reporters to spend their time tracking down any and every story except Russian election influence.

Jeanette

Wed, May 10 2017, 4:52 pm

Fox wrote:

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Flynn's ties to Russia are well documented and Trump is still playing the victim. He will continue because his base stands by him, not because he has nothing to hide. As long as he still has his army of people to divert and dismiss he will come out on top.