Whether political or not, the FBI director refused to make a truthful statement that the President asked him to make.
So the President fired him. I don’t see a problem with that. And not a whiff of any kind of “obstruction of justice”.
According to the President, he fired Comey because (according to the President) “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story”.
Thanks. My internet connection at home is dial up speeds (working on it).
I suspect though, that we both read the article a bit differently. Comey, said that Trump was not under direct investigation. Instead, the FBI was looking at Russia’s meddling in the election.
Trump was not under direct investigation. And then he fired Comey because of the “Russian thing”. Does that not give you pause? Shouldn’t the President of the United States be concerned about foreign countries possible interference in our electoral process?
Or was it as Trump said “Because he was mean to Hillary”. Please.
I was responding to the previous poster’s statement of:
“WSJ is reporting that the letter drafted by Trump cites Comey’s unwillingness to publicly state that Trump isn’t under investigation as a reason to fire him, and that Trump himself wrote the letter.”
Which can be inartfully (and “inartful” is Trump’s middle name) summarized as “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story”. As in, Comey was fired for refusing to say the truth publicly about Trump not being under investigation in connection with the “Russia thing”.
If WSJ report is correct, that completely removes any whiff of “obstruction of justice” from Trump’s firing of Comey.
Yes, because there can never be any more than a single reason, and despite multiple different reasons stated by the President, we must always choose the ones that are most exculpatory. After all, it couldn’t be that he actually did something wrong, could it? It’s not like there’s some non-zero possibility that a long investigation by a team of very experienced and professional investigators might reveal something illegal, right?
You need to get your sense of smell recalibrated. Trump also asked him for loyalty.
The President is not meant to be asking the director of the FBI to be doing anything political or partisan. While technically a part of the Executive Branch, there is a (laudable) expectation of non-interference.
Given that the instance where Comey would have been most likely to have declared Trump to be not currently a focus of the investigation is when he had to go and testify that Trump was being a dumbass in declaring that he’d been wiretapped, I think it’s reasonable to say that whatever good will the President had with the FBI as an agency had run out, and expecting them to try and make him look good in public, regardless of who was running the organization, was wishful thinking by that point.
Interesting to note that Pence was in the room when this letter was drafted according to this report.
As much as I disagree wildly with Okrahoma politically, he might not be outright wrong in his assessment. Obviously, there is little question that Trump violated the spirit of the law, and any other person would be looking at obstruction charges. However, the question of the hour is whether the president can be held to the same standard. It’s entirely possible that the constitutional powers of the president allow him to fire and pardon pretty much as he pleases, which might reveal a serious flaw in the constitution’s design (or not), and yet it might still be quite legal. Again, the framers of the constitution, rightly or wrongly, gave the president enormous powers. This is why his maneuver to pardon Arpaio at the expense of the judiciary requires a congressional response, which I unfortunately don’t see forthcoming anytime soon.
This is why I don’t think that Trump will fall because of the Russia investigation itself; if he falls, it will have more to do with Trump’s business practices as a private individual. Mueller might not necessarily recommend federal prosecution, but if there’s enough of a document dump that brings into question Trump’s legendary business ‘acumen’, then this could very well be just as devastating. I think Trump knows he came to power by winning the uneducated vote and by people who hated Hillary Clinton. He might still not have a ton of defectors but even 10-15% drop in support might be enough to force congress’ hand, and if nothing else, take the agenda out of his hands while he’s in power.
Trump’s own lawyers disagree with you. They deemed the letter “problematic” and didn’t intend for it to be public for a reason.
You typo’d “treason” there.
Of course, in one-track-minds “problematic” equals “obstruction of justice”.
No, problematic equals “reveals too much of the actual intent and reasonings behind the firing”
Again, there is nothing wrong, much less criminal, in asking an FBI director to publicly state the truthful statement that he conveyed to the President privately. And nothing wrong, much less criminal, with firing the said FBI director when he refuses the request.
Do you his lawyers had problems with the font size or issues of law?
It’s not criminal, but it’s clearly wrong.
Let’s take, for example, the case that I am a police officer who works in the Special Victims Unit. You ask me whether I have a file on you, for sex crimes. I check, don’t find one, and say, factually, “no”.
Fine. That’s completely reasonable.
Now you ask me, “Would you mind writing a few dozen letters, that I can hand out to girls that I’m dating, which clearly state that I am not a rapist or other form of sexual predator?”
Well no. I’m not going to do that. Yes, factually, you are not currently registered as a sex offender. But I have no interest in certifying that status to a bunch of 3rd parties, and it’s creepy that you’re asking me to.
I’ll also note that my very next step, after you left, would be to start trying to contact your former girlfriends. Your non-criminal status has likely just been put on a timer.
You’re not the boss of the police officer and cannot fire him. The President is, and can. And did.
So, unambiguously, you are stating that it would be completely kosher, reasonable, and unworrying if a police chief went to one of his SVU officers, asked him to print out and sign, “I certify that this man is not a rapist”, certificates, and then fired the officer when that officer refused to do so?
I will unambiguously state that, if this is your standard for reason and justice, then I’m not too concerned with your views any more. (Not that I was previously. But I’ve got better things to do than make points against the clinically insane.)
Change this to the “this man is not currently under investigation” and yes, you’d be right (if the man was actually not under investigation).