Trump Fires FBI Director Comey

[Toonces]

Right.

But what stinks is this:  According the the Washington Post, Trump had made the decision to fire Comey before he met with Rosenstein.  He decided "it's time to move on Comey" and directed Rosenstein to write up a memo for reasons Trump could fire Comey.  Rosenstein did so and then Trump fired Comey.  When Trump's organization tried to pin the reason on firing Comey to Rosenstein's memo, as if it was Rosenstein's idea, Rosenstein threatened to resign.

The reporting from numerous sources probably suggests something close to the truth:  Trump didn't like Comey and was looking for an excuse to fire him for a while.  The reasons are varied, but it is an easy step to make a connection that the timing of the firing, coming as it does on the heels of the FBI issuing subpoenas and requesting additional resources into the Russia-Trump connection, was such that Trump specifically did it in order to undermine the investigation.

Perhaps it was just ill-timed.  It feels like there is a motive behind it that is troubling and it's so blindingly obvious that I can only hope that it isn't the motive because it's such an easy conclusion to reach.

[Toonces]

If you read the Slate article, the discuss the extraordinary rapidity with which the firing took place.  Again, one can only conclude that it was an impulsive decision made by Trump....it had to be right now...that happens to coincide with the investigation into his ties with Russia "getting down to brass tacks" according to an FBI agent, or it was done with an ulterior motive.

He could have fired him 3 months ago, or 3 months from now, and it likely would have barely been a blip.  But to do it at this particular moment, in this manner, frankly stinks.

[JasonPratt]

I agree the timing is ultra-suspicious, and that one way or another there's something we don't know about going on in the background to trigger the timing now.

Had Trump done it earlier, though, I suspect it would have been regarded as a sacrificial move to deflect from Trump's campaign promise to prosecute Hillary and see her in jail -- a promise he immediately (and perhaps wisely) reneged on. In that case it would have been read as Comey blundering the case against Clinton, forcing Trump to go back on his promise by rendering further investigation unfeasible due to the well having been poisoned (or whatever).

I would even have wondered if that was the case now, the idea being that Trump decided he couldn't do it during his sensitive first hundred days; but there doesn't seem to be any strong connection of justification by the administration to that rationale. Subsumed under a vaguely general charge of incompetency, perhaps, but that wouldn't serve the rhetorical purpose.

Or perhaps the reason is close after all: Trump wanted Comey to act as his attack dog against the DNC for their election practices, including revisiting the email security scandal, and Comey refused to play along with a plate of flank steak already being chewed on -- a plate Trump, on the other hand, wanted to be trashed. (...not entirely sure that analogy is coherent, but it sounded good in my head before I typed it...  :hide: )

[Gusington]

I wonder why Trump even has a communications team.

[JasonPratt]

I dunno, but having one of them named "Sarah" "Huckabee" "Sanders" distracts me constantly -- I keep thinking that's how I'd start a SNL skit.

[Toonces]

Jason,
Trump could have fired Comey when he took office under the auspices of appointing people of his own choosing to replace Obama appointments, and it would have been seen as business as usual. 

Slate, Washington Post, and I think the Christian Science Monitor all repeat the same reporting of anonymous sources describing Trump's increasing displeasure with Comey because he wouldn't play ball.  But, again, why right now?  The timing is terrible.  Either it's driven by a motive to somehow derail the Russian investigation, or it's another case of Trump being Trump; impulse control isn't his strong suit. 

[bayonetbrant]

Michael Hayden weighs in...  he's hardly a Clinton fan

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/332696-michael-hayden-when-trumps-washington-starts-to

[Toonces]

I typically only check the comments sections to solidify my contempt for humanity, but for that article, they actually do a pretty good case of laying out both sides of the controversy.

[trailrunner]

[DoctorQuest]

^HAHAHAHA!!! Good one!

[Steelgrave]

I typically only check the comments sections to solidify my contempt for humanity

Man, that's sig worthy, Toonces. And as a rule, comments sections typically make me fear for humanity.

[OJsDad]

How the FBI will get revenge for Trumps firing of Comey.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-the-fbi-might-wage-%E2%80%9Cwar%E2%80%9D-on-trump-%E2%80%94-and-how-they-would-actually-do-it/ar-BBB1Wgo?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

[bbmike]

^That's just what the country needs. More infighting. I'm gonna go see if I can get the FAA mad at the Library of Congress.

[trailrunner]

^That's just what the country needs. More infighting. I'm gonna go see if I can get the FAA mad at the Library of Congress.

I work for the DoD.  Don't get us mad, or we'll take the infighting to a whole new level.  Maybe we'll send some Tomahawks to those upstarts at the Census Bureau.  They're always causing trouble.

[JasonPratt]

Jason,
Trump could have fired Comey when he took office under the auspices of appointing people of his own choosing to replace Obama appointments, and it would have been seen as business as usual.

...you've, uh, you've seen American politics recently, right?  ::)

I feel pretty safe saying that most things done by Trump since before the start of his office which touch on his opponents somehow, have NOT been seen as just business as usual. The level of oppositional rhetoric has been extremely high (which Trump hasn't detoxed either).