President Trump Dismisses FBI Director Comey | Hacker News Reader

President Trump Dismisses FBI Director Comey

washingtonpost.com

The FBI director is supposed to have a 10 year term. That went in after J. Edgar Hoover died. Nobody wanted another J. Edgar Hoover FBI Director for Life situation, but having the FBI director be a "pleasure of the President" appointment made it too political.

This makes Andrew G. McCabe acting FBI director. He's in the civil service, not a Presidential appointment. He was an FBI agent and worked his way up. From what little is available about him, he seems to be good at the job.[1] As civil service, he can only be fired for cause.

Appointing a new FBI director requires Congressional approval, and will be controversial.

[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/na-la-fbi-deputy-director-2016...

The looming senate fight to confirm a replacement is going to be absolutely massive.

That depends on how well the GOP sticks together: they only need a simple majority vote to confirm.

The more hurriedly they rush it through, the more political capital they're putting at risk. This (as in the whole ball of wax) is already shaping up to be a larger political upset than anything in most Americans' living memory.

The interesting part is the “hang together or hang separately” aspect: the longer the Republicans in the Congress vocally support Trump's actions the harder it is for them to break with him without penalties.

I don't think it's a long-term success strategy but I'm betting it'll delay whoever is thinking about making the first move.

There are already a few cracks showing in their ranks. A few senators might defect, it really depends on whether they believe that the short-term toxicity will wear off before 2018 rolls around. And considering how well the Democrats have been doing with these fights over the last couple of months, it's very possible that a few of them will care more about their 2018 plans than about getting on Trump's good side. Especially if there's writing on the wall we don't know about.

Shamelessly plagiarizing an earlier comment, McCain would vote to confirm, but he'd feel super bad about it.

Historically, FBI heads have had near-unanimous approval. Comey was confirmed on a 93-1 vote. His predecessor, Muller, was originally appointed by Bush and confirmed by a 100-0 vote. 10 years later, he got another term under Obama and was confirmed by a 98-0 vote. All their predecessors were confirmed unanimously.

It's not supposed to be a political job.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/why-can-president-trump-can-f...

Well Trump just made it one.

Like the Republicans in the Senate give half a shit about looking partisan. I wouldn't put it past them to appoint Scott Baio if Trump requested it.

McCain would vote to confirm, but he'd feel super bad about it.

>As civil service, he can only be fired for cause.

I'm not clear on what "for cause" means for an acting director of the FBI. Wasn't the justification for firing Comey that he mishandled the Clinton email investigation? It looks blown out of proportion to me, but that might count as cause.

The political heads can be fired by the president at-will.

I believe the parent is incorrect in that if he becomes the head, he can be fired for-cause. I also believe this is only if it he is appointed head, not if he is just acting-head.

Trump has asked Congress for the authority to arbitrarily fire civil service employees, but Congress hasn't given it to him.[1] There's a formal process, with appeals, for Federal employees. The FBI's process is unusual, in that they're not under the Merit System Protection Board, but it's a formal process with hearings and warnings.

[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/na-la-fbi-deputy-director-2016...

Comey was a political appointment rather than the guy who will temporarily replace him as Acting Director (who has civil service protection) and can't be dismissed as Acting Director, only replaced by appointing a new Director of the FBI.

Dunno. What is certain is that Trump can't appoint a new Director without Senate confirmation. And I'm not even certain about that. He may be able to appoint an acting Director for an indeterminate amount of time. In particular,

  There are no statutory conditions on the President’s
  authority to remove the FBI Director.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41850.pdf

From the same cite, a President can nominate an acting Director. On the day after the death of long-time Director J. Edgar Hoover, L. Patrick Gray was appointed acting Director.

The Constitution was set up with checks and balances. But it requires the branches of government to do their duty. When you have a corrupt President of the same party that controls Congress, that may be asking too much.

Actually, not a 10 year term but a term limit of 10 years and apparently even that was waved for Mueller. Big difference. However, I think McCabe will be the acting FBI Director for the remainder of Trump's term which hopefully will be short. I can't imagine a Trump nomination getting past the Senate but then Republicans.

EDIT: I was mistaken. It is a 10 year term. Mueller was given a separate 2 year term.

I'm no fan of Comey either. This all seems very strange and is likely reaching a crisis point.

Oh trust me, given the current track of records, the Administration can grt confirmation easily. Hearing is just for show for the Adminstration.

I wouldn't be too sure. Pence had to break the tie for DeVos and I don't even think they can count on him for the vote considering he's only a seat away from the Presidency.

Seemed to be confirmed as real, so here are letters being floated as from Trump, Sessions and Rosenstein firing Comey and blaming the Clinton investigation

Trump: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_apTsDXoAAVKYn.jpg

AG Sessions: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_apUYrXgAAihp2.jpg

Deputy AG Rosenstein: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_apVImXcAIKhfm.jpg

  Dear Director Comey:

  I have received the attached letters from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the United States recommending your dismissal as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have accepted their recommendation and you are hereby terminated and removed from office, effective immediately.

  While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.

  It it essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission.

  I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

It's linked in the sidebar on the NYT article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-comey-f... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/09/us/politics/d...

Honestly, I was hoping the Trump letter at least was satire.

Oh, wow, so this is where they are going. Call me cynical, but it sounds like a distraction tactic from the current investigation into Trump's campaign ties to Russian interests.

EDIT: adding to that thought, Trump's team had to add "although you've informed me that there's no investigation"... while Comey himself has said in public hearings there are investigations. Wow, this stinks to high heavens.

Trump just couldn't help but include it. He has no shame.

> EDIT: adding to that thought, Trump's team had to add "although you've informed me that there's no investigation"... while Comey himself has said in public hearings there are investigations. Wow, this stinks to high heavens.

He actually said "... that I am not under investigation...", quite different, so it doesn't actually contradict anything Comey said in the hearings.

We're so concerned that Comey might have messed up the election that we won, a victory that we remind people of at every available opportunity. Bad James Comey! Very naughty!

This man cannot help making everything about him. If it was anyone else it would elicit a rueful shake of my head and a comment about a gross display of childishness and saying Na Na Na Na to the bullied kid. But as it comes from the president of the United States, it's terrifying.

Well, he is a narcissist, so everything is about him, right?

Sorry, but the horizontal scrolling kills me.

  Dear Director Comey:

  I have received the attached letters from
  the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General
  of the United States recommending your dismissal
  as the Director of the Federal Bureau of
  Investigation. I have accepted their
  recommendation and you are hereby terminated and
  removed from office, effective immediately.

  While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on
  three separate occasions, that I am not under
  investigation, I nevertheless concur with the
  judgment of the Department of Justice that you
  are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.

  It it essential that we find new leadership for
  the FBI that restores public trust and confidence
  in its vital law enforcement mission.

  I wish you the best of luck in your future
  endeavors.

"Trump just fired the man leading a counterintelligence investigation into his campaign, on the same day that the Senate Intelligence commitee requested financial documents relating to Trump's business dealings from the treasury department that handles money laundering." -Comment from reddit that sums up how strange this is.

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.

Do you have a link for that?

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-...

I cannot find any evidence of this claim.

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-...

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-...

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

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.

Maybe you meant "he also fired [tweets at] the federal judge".

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.

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.

"Conflict of interest" is practically the man's middle name. Not only does he not avoid them, he seems to actively seek them out.

You probably shouldn't drink anything while reading this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/10/eric-trump-nepoti...

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.

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.

I'm pretty sure there's no conflict of interest. He has only one.

That is quite surreal: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/senate-russia-investi...

Would there be any collaboration between the FBI and Senate Intelligence committee?

Maybe Trump is a genius painter in the closet. A dyslexic Dali channeling is talent through tweets and EOs.

As a painter myself this gave me a hearty giggle.

Painters, in my opinion, should not be heads of state. Once was quite enough.

Are you talking about Bush or Hitler?

To be fair, Bush seems a lot nicer after he took up painting

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.

Only surrealists ones

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.

At this point Trump is looking more and more like Nixon on fast-forward.

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.

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.

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.

There doesn't seem to be any Democrat involvement with this. Every recent development is to do with Trump-Russia investigation.

Seems unlikely that Democrats would have supported him much, but it sounds like they weren't asked to -- they were told at 5.30pm that he was fired, same as everyone else!

FWIW, it has been 43 years since

> The United States House Committee on the Judiciary opens formal and public impeachment hearings against President Richard Nixon.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_9&oldid=77960...

Minus the intelligence and a number of other factors. I seem to be the only leftie in America that rather admires Nixon despite his numerous flaws and considers him a bit of a tragic figure. In an earlier and scrappier era he'd have been considered a great statesman.

Like another comment pointed out, Nixon created the EPA for chissake....unthinkable thing for a Republican today.

Ooh, if you like that one, you should read up his proposal for health care. Were it not for that little Watergate kerfluffle, the whole ACA debate might have never taken place, and the U. S. might have had decent healthcare. (A lot of supposition behind that, though.)

In other words, comparing Trump to Nixon does a disservice to Nixon, IMO.

...and Ronald Reagan instituted the first cap and trade system in the US for the phase out of leaded gasoline, and then a few years later used cap and trade again to reduce the chemicals that damaged the ozone layer. Also unthinkable in today's GOP.

I like to troll time travel threads by joking about warning Nixon.

People don't like it.

Even the Nixon Library trolled Trump:

  FUN FACT: President Nixon never fired the Director of the FBI #FBIDirector #notNixonian

https://twitter.com/NixonLibrary/status/862083605081862145

A very good Nixon parody account is @dick_nixon: https://twitter.com/dick_nixon

Trump also complained that senate rules were unfair to him and congratulated Erdogan on seizing more power and is meeting with Duterte. He just wants to be a strongman and is not afraid to remove obstacles.

To be clear, Sessions said he concurred in the recommendation of his deputy Rothstein, who is a life-long prosecutor. Plus, virtually every former Attorney General agreed that Comey made a terrible mistake in announcing the results of the Clinton investigation.

Yes, indeed I think the supreme irony is that Comey is, in effect, being fired by Trump for helping Trump get elected.

That is the reason they are putting on the books at least. The fact that he is leading an open investigation into Trumps campaign, and that Trump can replace the head of that investigation with another person now is interesting though.

Firing him around January would have had some creedence, not now months later after praising him for months and Trump finding out that Comey has been investigating him and his campaign for almost a year now.

Rod Rosenstein became Deputy Attorney General on April 26th.

Having him write the memo recommending the action isn't really all that strange and goes quite a ways towards explaining the timing.

People would have complained that it was about the investigation anyway in January.

No one knew of the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, even former DNI Clapper, until Comey testified as such on March 20th. Trump firing him any time after this date reeks of a coverup no matter the explanation.

That's when Comey publicly confirmed it, but news about the investigation has been leaking since the moment Trump was elected.

That's just not true. The first credible reporting on the existence of the investigation came from CNN, 10 days prior to Comey's testimony in March.

CNN is credible for anything relating to Trump? What was the actual source?

News is now coming out that Rothstein threatened to resign when the White House was saying that Rothstein was the one who originally wanted to fire Comey. Rothstein wrote the letter, but Trump was the one who asked him to write it.

This is impeachment level shit.

For other ESL speakers wondering why they didn't find much when searching for "rothstein": his name is "Rod Rosenstein".

"Strange" is not the word you're looking for. This is blatant, naked corruption.

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.

That is far from clear: https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/11/13/role-obamacare-premium...

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) )

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.

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.

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.

A tweet from cstross: "In iterated prisoner's dilemmas, Trump ALWAYS defects. Take note."

> 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-dire...

edit: better source

I'm saying that I don't find the stated reason plausible, not least because most of the reasons offered in the letter were known many months ago. Comey could have been invited to submit his resignation back in January if Trump were worried about the appearance of impropriety. I don't want to turn this into a political slanging match but the appearance of propriety seems to be pretty far down his list of concerns.

I agree it's fishy, but "plausible" isn't a high bar to clear. I do think it's plausible. Regarding the timing, the request came from the Deputy Attorney General who started two weeks ago.

It's possible Trump waited until now to assign the request to him to write up, but it just doesn't seem like something he'd do. He's an impulsive blowhard and if he wanted to fire Comey I'd practically expect it over Twitter, not via some covert, deniable request to the Deputy AG.

This obviously rests heavily on our respective prior beliefs. All I can say is I will heavily reconsider my position if a bad AG is nominated. I think you should, too, if it turns out, say, the now-acting AG remains in office for the rest of Trump's turn, which seems like a reasonably positive outcome to me.

Do you mean,

"Yes, [I believe that it is plausible because it] is the stated reason [and that alone is sufficiently convincing]"

"Yes, [in case those in the audience didn't catch it,] that is the stated reason [if you can believe it!]"

The latter, but probably without the exclamation point.

Trump praised Comey at the time for how he handled the Clinton email cluster.

This is the difference between soft and hard power. With hard power the investigation stops, with soft power it's deprived of resources and faces higher hurdles.

Or ends up being conducted by someone who has already come to a conclusion.

How childish is it that they had to put in the termination letter something about "thanks for telling me three separate times there's no investigation ON ME"? It's almost like this administration is run by 8 year olds.

The structure of the FBI is created by the Director. To remove the Director of the FBI, is to essentially force a restructure of all the top agents and top management of the FBI. Those top agents run investigations.

If that's not an efficient way to stall an investigation, I don't know what is.

The Director has to run the confirmation gauntlet of the Senate. A Trumpian yes-man will not survive that ordeal.

The Senate confirmed DeVos, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the GOP will bend for Trump.

You don't need a yes man in charge to force a restructure, you just need someone new. An "interim" director who is in the position for a year+ forces a sufficient change to the structure.

sure, he bungled that during the election, but the reasons for dismissal are total nonsense given the timing. im sorry, you really dont find it suspicious? betting markets had comey at 95% change of being FBI director on 6/30 before 3 hours ago. this is a total shock to everyone, please dont act like this makes perfect sense.

Plot twist: it was all an elaborate cover for a plot to take revenge on a former casino rival by anonymously placing an outsize bet.

We are all living in Absurdistan now.

> The implication of this comment only holds if the replacement FBI Director drops the investigation.

How can you possibly trust the authenticity of an investigation headed up by someone hand chosen by the person being investigated, who knows the person they pick will immediately be in charge of the investigation?

If Trump is truly innocent, this is literally the worst thing he could have ever done for himself. This action will form the basis for doubt in plenty of people who could otherwise have been convinced nothing happened.

At this point he is so far past "the appearance of impropriety" that I doubt it can cause him any harm.

It isn't merely about dropping the investigation, it is also setting the tone. The investigation can be denied resources for years, or whatever the investigation reveals can be undermined. An investigation doesn't have to be dropped to be sabotaged.

If that were true, he should have been fired in January. Why was he fired now?

> only holds if the replacement FBI Director drops the investigation

I think everyone can easily think of another scenario where the implication of the original comment still holds true.

Want to take a stab?

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-evi...

but he didn't know of the FBI investigation at first, and is not privy to the details of that one.

Not to mention he's quite out of the loop these past three plus months, being formerly employed, and all.

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?

The full question and answer which addresses this: https://youtu.be/FrS8kid6baw?t=34m14s

I watched that NBC interview here: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/former-dni-jam.... Right after Clapper answered, the interviewer asked him whether the information exists, and Clapper answered that it does not to his knowledge, but he does not know whether more information has come to light since he left office.

The entire existence of spooks is about deception. That's why they don't speak directly or truthfully.

It's more-or-less a Glomar response, crafted to neither confirm or deny that evidence exists. This is frankly the right thing to say when there's an ongoing investigation and the results aren't made available to the speaker.

The only person that is able to answer definitively whether the investigation into Trump and his administration has produced credible evidence of collusion with Russia was just fired by Trump today.

So Comey was personally conducting the investigation solely on his own?

No, he was leading the agency that was conducting the investigation. And a pliant leader, appointed by Trump, may not continue to do so.

Or he may simply actively sabotage an investigation so it ends up saying that nothing is awry.

Fired. Not murdered.

Yes, but anything he says from now on can be dismissed as being based on out-of-date information.

I thought Clapper clarified today that he didn't mean there was no evidence, only that he was uninvolved and did not know of any evidence.

Lack of knowledge of evidence != no evidence.

Instead of relying on selected quotes from the Washington Examiner, you could read the (declassified version of) the report:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3254229/ICA-2017-...

From my quick skim, I would say that the report isn't about collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign but about how Russia's means and motives in interfering in the election.

Just so readers are aware, the Washington Examiner is a conservative leaning org. The "no evidence" quote was pulled from this sentence: "There was no evidence of that included in our report."[1] There is a difference between "not aware of evidence" and "no evidence".

[1] https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/05/09/parroting-t...

That is really highly misleading that they would state it that way.

Graham is a Senator from South Carolina, not North Carolina

Clapper and Yates also testified yesterday that they weren't privy to the results of the FBI's ongoing counterintelligence investigation, which is where evidence of collusion would come from.

381 points, 171 comments, 1 hour ago; as of writing.

Why is this on the second page of HN, and not pole position? I assume/hope that there is some mechanism that stops new content from dominating other content too rapidly.

Wow...I was extremely surprised to see this as well.

I was just about to write this exact comment. Thank you for doing this and saving me the effort! At the time of writing, this should have been #2 on HN.

>Why is this on the second page of HN, and not pole position?

It's mainstream politics.

IIRC there's admin mechanisms for ensuring that less HN-niche-specific content doesn't get overwhelmed by more general news. Basically weighting things by how relevant it is to the overall vision for what HN's content should be.

there's a mechanism to damper but not totally remove some kinds of posts, possibly involving manually mod intervention

http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking-really...

I believe flags push content from the front page. I went to check Lists > Active to see if there was an HN thread on this, because I expect politics to get flagged off the front page of Hacker News.

(Granted, I just think this is "politics" because there's been several events I've expected would end any normal president, but haven't, so...I just really don't know anymore)

It does seem strange that it's down so low. I can understand the general argument that some mainstream news isn't sufficiently hacker-oriented, but the goings-on at the FBI seem quite relevant to the community.

...and now page three?? Those flags really need to be discounted, this is simply ridiculous.

Yeah, what the heck? This one needs to be discussed, and it's directly relevant to Hacker News. The rule of law is critical for anyone interested in new business formation.

I've been looking at this comment for the past 5 minutes, and I really can't tell if you're joking or not.

Because this does not need to be posted on HN or even should be. However you stand on this issue doesn't matter. HN is not a site for political discussions. Go to Reddit if you want that.

Being a Philosophy grad, I feel compelled to argue that everything is political.

Being a regular lurker, I completely see and agree with your points.

But the quality of the discussion on Reddit is poor. We come to HN because people do their homework here and we want to know their opinions.

What is HN for? I thought it was intellectual discourse and news with potential ramifications that affect the population at large.

I hope you don't answer with "tech" because there are certainly non-technical stories here. And I also hope you don't answer with "science" because there are non-scientific stories as well.

Sure, there are some lesser-known political news items that belong on HN. But this story is on the front page of ever news site in America.

From the submission guidelines: "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."

I think "probably off-topic" is different from strictly "off-topic". I do remember that from the guidelines, though also from the guidelines:

> Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

I think seeing historically uncommon/rare events unfold also falls under gratifying one's intellectual curiosity (though I admit this might be a stretch in this particular story). Additionally, there are multiple stories that pop up (once or twice per day, from my anecdotal experience) that are also stories that'd be covered on TV news.

I'm sure the mod team will respond to this eventually - but flags and downvotes are taken into account quite a bit to combat rampant upvote-rings.

Probably user flags. This article fits the definition of "off topic" per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:

If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

Sally Yates investigates Trump's cabinet: Fired by the Trump administration

Preet Bharara investigates Trump's cabinet: Fired by the Trump administration

Director Comey Investigates Trump's cabinet: Fired by the Trump administration

Berlusconization of the US

Lets just call a spade a spade...this is emergent Facism.

Lots of definitions, but lets go with Britt's[0] 14 point test where I would come up with at least plasuible evidence for 13 of 14 just off the top of my head.

1 - MAGA

2 - Yeah...and for the rule of law/courts

3 - "but her emails" / Mexican rapists / Obama / etc.

4 - for years...since Reagan. This isn't new but it keeps getting worse

5 - "Grab her by the pussy"

6 - working on it, undermining trust in the media and centralizing oneself as the only source of real news is close

7 - yup

8 - Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, more and more...

9 - Oh yeah, agressively look at the EPA efforts under trump.

10 - Yup (Lets talk about Mitch Daniels amongst others)

11 - Yup...[1]

12 - "Lock her up"

13 - I mean...absolutely.[2][3]

14 - borderline...no proof, one could play with definitions here but an ongoing effort.

[0] https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/how-the-stupid-pa...

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/r-reporters-barred-from-china...

[3] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/19/524765086/...

I'm pretty sure the customary reply from the MAGA camp will be that these are all political appointees, and serve at the President's pleasure.

All that is formally true. But it doesn't make it any less uncanny that such a person would be fired at the very moment he ramps up an investigation into Trump's business activities.

That argument only flies early in the administration, like the first 14 days. We're at day 110+ (I'm not counting). This was done immediately after Comey talked to congress about an investigation into the administration. This can lead to nothing less than an independent commission into Trump.

The reply from the MAGA camp is "Trump will appoint someone to go after his political enemies for personal gain" except they're happy about it:

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=comey...

It's astounding Comey was supposedly fired for misrepresenting the Clinton email thing (by grossly overstating the wrongdoing) and yet they follow-up with "and go after Clinton!!!". I'd comment on the mental gymnastics but it doesn't appear anyone on that page is capable of basic reasoning.

His most entrenched base (e.g., people who really support him rather than those who just voted against Clinton) truly believe that anything he does contrary to their expectations is 4-dimensional chess, that will eventually resolve in a fashion that will benefit him and eventually them.

It's like how if you stare at an old TV tuned to static for long enough you can start to see pictures. It's reading intent where there is nothing but random flailing.

Say what you want about the politics, but it's inarguable that Comey, whether he wanted to or not, had become a partisan lightning rod for both sides. The unbiased credibility of the FBI was at stake with Comey at the helm, and this is probably a good move for the country.

Perhaps the country is better served by someone disliked by both sides than by someone handpicked for their loyalty to Trump.

I have to agree with this, and I want to believe that was the needle Comey was threading. I am concerned, however, that his tone in the last hearing (eg. "mildly nauseous", Abedin email forwarding mistakes, immigrant investigation mistakes, etc.) was so flippant that he was almost asking to be fired. By design or by accident, he's departing more independent now than ever.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought his tone was inappropriate. Leave that for the tabloids to sell, don't bring it into the political institution.

The FBI was investigating the president for colluding with a hostile state to influence the election and aid them against the interests of the US. This is the worst thing to happen to the country since Watergate or longer.

Yeah you can tell the Trump-Russia connections are not a quixotic quagmire by how the stories continue to be filled with weasel words and spend 100% of their column inches not presenting any evidence at all.

The problem is the response from the man himself. This could all have been resolved with the release of his financials and being open regarding his business dealings when he made the decision to step into the role of public servant.

This is a complete guess but I think by the nature of the man and his history of bankruptcy and lying, that making those documents public would start even more controversies, even if they would put the Russia ties to rest (if that were truly the case). I'm guessing that he has been advised by the people who know this to not disclose them at any cost.

Your argument would be a lot more plausible had Trump not done absolutely everything in his power to look guilty as hell on a daily basis. This whole thing could've been shut down months ago with the barest modicum of transparency, integrity, leadership, and honesty from the administration.

Trump could have cleared this up in an instant if he had made even a token effort to behave like a responsible, competent, sane adult professional who cares about his his country and the people who live in it. Instead he has escalated this situation at every opportunity, culminating in this moment, which so far is the low-water mark for how low Trump is willing to sink.

None of what I wrote above has anything to do with whether or not Trump is guilty of treason- if he were 100% innocent and the victim of a political witch hunt, every scrap of the criticism above would still apply to him. However, if Trump is as guilty as he appears to be, this whole situation is infinitely worse- not just for Trump himself but for all Americans. I have often disagreed with aspects of my country's governance (under leadership of both parties), but the last 6 months and this moment in particular is a level of shame, embarrassment, and disgust that I have never felt in my 45 years as an American citizen. I love America and the principles upon which it (at least in theory) was founded, and this is just a fucking disgrace.

It was never getting shut down. This story is never going away. Regardless of the veracity - and I'm not taking sides - the alternative to the Russia narrative isn't up for discussion. HRC, etc. will never answer for having lost an election they had won.

> This whole thing could've been shut down months ago with the barest modicum of transparency, integrity, leadership, and honesty from the administration.

That seems naive to me. This whole Russia smoke/fire thing is the left's version of the Benghazi scandal, IMO. Do you think Democrats are above a partisan stoking of fires to try to shut down their opponents, or is that just something Republicans do?

Whether or not they're above it, there isn't any evidence that they've done it.

They are not remotely similar; Benghazi was investigated multiple times by republicans and each they time found nothing. It was a fake scandal. Dems are merely trying to have an investigation of something that actually happened; we all saw Wikileaks interfere with the election in a partisan manner only releasing things to damage Clinton. It warrants an investigation, it's not fake, it's not being investigated repeated times, they are not comparable situations.

> but the last 6 months and this moment in particular is a level of shame, embarrassment, and disgust that I have never felt in my 45 years as an American citizen.

I personally felt more disgust when we bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital. But I guess Trump's kind of outlandish too.

> Your argument would be a lot more plausible had Trump not done absolutely everything in his power to look guilty as hell on a daily basis.

As a counterpoint:

"Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak" - Sun Tzu

That would apply if we were talking about a general in a war and his philosophy for dealing with his enemies. It might also be applicable to a metaphorical general in a metaphorical war, like when people use this quote when discussing competition in business. However if a public servant is thinking in these terms about his interactions with his own constituents and his colleagues after taking office, something is seriously wrong with that person. Running for office is a completely different activity than executing the responsibilities of that office after winning it.

When we're talking about not just a public servant, but arguably the public servant with more responsibility on his shoulders than any other human being in America if not the planet, the same principles apply a million times over.

No-one has published _direct_ evidence of collusion, but there's plenty of _circumstantial_ evidence.

I would like to think that if there were solid, credible, _direct_ evidence of collusion then even the House "Freedom Caucus" would be voting for impeachment.

This is way worse than Watergate.

Nixon tried to cover up what were, by comparison, activities of little to no consequence. He didn't even need the extra intel on the Democrats. He already had the election in the bag.

Trump on the other hand, is under investigation for possible collusion with the nation's primary adversary.

... depending on who replaces him. If we are going by previous appointments (Jeff Sessions) we could get a complete partisan hack undermining the FBI for political gain.

the appointment needs confirmation, so at least we can hope that some people will say no to obvious patsies.

i agree he fucked up, but it strains credulity to think that the timing of this has anything to do with that. so, your first point is correct, but its not a good move for the country because, in all likelihood, its just a way for trump to protect himself from getting busted. i think you are blinded by partisanship if firing Comey now does not raise suspicion in you. if trump is guilty of money laundering / collusion / bribery / ??, which seems reasonably likely to me, it would be better for everyone if that came to light and was punished yes?

Your point is not without merit, but this was an abrupt firing rather than a regretful request for resignation. I believe it would be a mistake to judge this by the normal standards of administrative decision-making.

Comey was leading an investigation into his campaign and was fired by Sessions who was forced to recuse himself from the investigation after outcries of corruption. You think it's good for the country for him for Comey to be replaced with Trump's replacement?

Yea dont forget, Many agents said they despised how comey trashed the reputation of the fbi. He even said old friends at the fbi refused to shake his hands.

He muat have been fired to prevent a internal fbi mutiny.

Mods, please let this one live. This is big news and we can't ignore it. I don't care what the policies are about political stories. I also don't care if I can go somewhere else to read about it. I want to know what _this_ community's opinions are on the matter.

Well I would be certainly interested in the circumstances especially considering that I always believed he was pro trump. Some even said he played an important role Trump won the election because he opened an investigation into Clinton's emails right before the election.

He was pressured by Trump partisans in the FBI and elsewhere (in accordance with his obligations) to release that and Obama blocked him from writing an Op-ed about Trump before the election.

I think he genuinely tried to stay neutral but the GOP partisans threatened to leak stuff so he tried to do damage control ineffectually.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/report-obama-re...

> Report: Obama Rejected Comey Op-Ed on Russia’s Election Meddling

http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-reviewing-more-clinton-emails-51...

> The truth is Comey didn’t have a choice. Because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-28/leaked-memo-james-c...

> Now, it is the democrats turn to rage at Comey and the FBI, although Comey likely did not have much choice: had he kept the information secret, it certainly would have leaked as we predicted; as such his best recourse was to come clean, although many have speculated about the cryptic nature of the disclosure.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/james-comey-fbi-direc...

> The story broke in the Daily Mail on September 21, and the F.B.I. seized the laptop on October 3. Within a couple of days, the New York F.B.I. agents, who had a warrant to look only at Weiner-related information, knew there were Clinton e-mails on the laptop, and the prosecutors in D.C. were informed.

> Often, a retired agent says, those in the field are suspicious of Washington. “Dreamland,” they called it in his day, because they believed those who weren’t on the ground investigating cases were clueless. “[Agents] out in the field never want to give a case to D.C., because they believe headquarters is a hindrance to their investigations,” says the agent, who also notes there is a paranoia that politics might interfere at headquarters. New York has an especially dim view of Washington and a reputation for fierce independence. “There is a renegade quality to the New York F.B.I.,” says a former prosecutor, which, he claims, can take the form of agents leaking to the press to advance their own interests or to influence an investigation. “New York leaks like a sieve,” concurs another former prosecutor

> Comey chose Washington because he wanted to be close enough to get daily updates, according to CNN, but he may also have been worried about leaks from New York. A former D.O.J. official says that, as early as 2015, a rumor was floating around that the F.B.I. agents in New York were cracking jokes about seeing Hillary Clinton in handcuffs. “It was widely understood that there was a faction in that office that couldn’t stand her and was out to get her,” this person says.

that's not what he did. there already was an investigation. What comey announced right before the elections was that they had found more of clinton's emails in another, unrelated case. That invesigation was into Anthony Weiner, who was married to Clinton's advisor Huma Abedin. Weiner was sexting a 15-year-old, Abedin was forwarding some emails to weiner's computer to be printed out. In investigating weiner's computer they found clinton's emails (forwarded by abedin). That's what Comey announced. I have no idea why he decided to announce that specific information, at that time.

Yep. If you believe that Comey's final investigation swung the election, you also gotta realize that the election was swung because Anthony Weiner is a sleezeball.

The odds that sleezeball would be married to Clinton's top advisor...Bill actually officiated their wedding.

There were a number of unwise actions from the Clintons and their retinue (in this case as well as others). I honestly don't know what level of impact Comey's statements had on the election.

You critique your political opponents without using tabloid language.

He's not my political opponent. Sleezeball is a euphemism for what he did, is it not? He was sexting a 15-year old girl and his infant son was included in some of his pictures.

What is he?

Just be an adult, dude. This isn't the NY Post website.

I'm a left-leaning liberal registered Democrat so I'm not sure in what way someone would consider Weiner to be my "political opponent", but the guy is absolutely a sleazeball.

Being a sleazeball transcends politics and party lines and there are many Democrat and Republican sleazeballs.

Just in order to keep the record straight, I find it necessary to point out that Comey's specific testimony (last week) on the forwarding of emails was false, and that false testimony may be directly related to his being dismissed today.

https://www.propublica.org/article/comeys-testimony-on-huma-...

just as likely, if not more likely, that he was fired for correcting the record today. (doubtful but who knows)

The Comey announcement was certainly one of the decisive factors in the election but it's generally seen as ineptness rather than an attempt to swing the election to Trump.

Nobody really knew why he did it... until he explained, in detail. Now we know.

He thought Hillary was going to win, and after the Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton, didn't want to seem like he favored Hillary to avoid backlash from the GOP and Trump's base. He needed to maintain his impartiality. And in that misjudgement, he did hand Trump the presidency.

The one professional prognosticator who came closest to predicting a Trump win at 33% agrees with the letter playing an outsize role - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probab...

There's also a follow up by I believe the NYT that downplays the letter. Per the trajectory of the polls leading into the date it was released, she wa on the way down both nationally and in the key swing states.

The release of the letter coincided with polls that showed that slide yet predated its release (in collection).

It's not that it didn't have an impact. Just that it probably wasn't the deciding factor.

The results in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were so close-- under 1%-- that even if the letter only induced a 1% shift, it was THE deciding factor. If you read the 538 story, this is his "Little Comey" version.

That doesn't mean Hillary didn't make a huge strategic mistake in going after Trump's competence and character rather than focusing on the issues. She did. She totally did.

Nate Silver came closest to predicting a Trump win? That's laughable. The USC poll had Trump as winning, and I'd be surprised if there weren't more pollers who had an accurate reading (I only know of the few most popular ones).

They were off by several points. That poll just measured the PV.

Flashbacks to Nixon's downfall.

fingers crossed, i guess.

None of the safety guards that caused Nixon to get knocked down after the Saturday Night Massacre are functioning right now. The AG is a loyalist, the House and Senate are in his pocket (and appear to be intentionally sandbagging their own investigations).

Title 28 (CFR), Chapter VI, Part 600

Specific allegations of criminal behavior by the President require a special prosecutor, or they require a finding of no merit. As Sessions has already recused himself, the deputy AG makes the finding. All very publicly.

The only thing missing here, as compared to Nixon or Clinton, is specific allegations. Its been under investigation since July 2016 without any specific allegations against the President.

Not to say associated may not be indicted. I suspect Flynn is going to serve jail time.

A friendly reminder to both sides that whatever the current administration does, the next can undo.

This is especially important when the majority party decides to give itself more power and inadvertently gives their successors more than they intended.

This is not true. Rolling back regulations on green house gas emissions, removing regulations on clean water, denying healthcare to millions of people... Those deaths cannot be undone, the aquifers cannot be cleaned, and the carbon can't be removed from the atmosphere.

Let's tone down the hyperbole.

Edit:

I don't like having a political argument in this forum. I don't want hn to turn into r/politics.

I'm not swayed by emotional pleas from celebrities or others crying about a bill they haven't read. Who are these folks dying by the millions? From what I see mortality rates rose since obamacare came about:

"We know that the same year Obamacare’s insurance expansion provisions took effect, there was a pronounced, and statistically significant, surge in U.S. adult mortality."

http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/25/running-numbers-mortalit...

So you can get some facts together or continue crying. Your choice.

You have an ability to raise the dead no one else knows about?

Or technology to scrub co2 from the air?

It's that sort of attitude that really hurts people. My children those that suffered because of attitudes like that. This affects people's lives. It's not hyperbole. It's real.

Do you have health insurance? Have you rejected it because it increases your chance of mortality? Would you refuse health coverage for your children because it would increase their mortality rate?

Your assertion is as callous as it is absurd.

Nobody wrote "millions of deaths". What was said was that millions would be denied coverage, which would result in deaths.

I have this weird dream, and I am well aware it will never come true, that people will learn how to aim their political anger correctly. There's enough of a problem to be solved and we don't need people muddying up the view of it with rampant misunderstandings based on emotion.

I was not necessarily speaking as to the effects of their policies, but rather their attempts to expand their own power even if that gives their opponents more power next cycle.

It is a shame about the environmental repercussions though.

The republicans have Gerrymandered themselves into every seat in almost every non-coastal state.

We're about to find out in the coming years how much republicans own this country.

Or perhaps the country was not as progressive as we all thought and this is our wake up call.

Comey's book deal is going to be enormous. His great, great, great grandchildren will be buying Maserati's with the proceeds. He just needs to withstand another six months of testifying on the hill in front of at least two standing committees and probably a special committee.

there are more important things to ponder... than his books and children's luxury cars. good god, I still can't believe trump fired him.

He was too much of a wildcard. Trump wants to wrap up the Russia thing and he needs someone who is more subservient to do that.

This is an interesting card to play if that's indeed his goal. Trump doesn't get to appoint an "acting" head of the FBI AFAIK, he can only recommend a new director, and you can bet your ass that the DNC won't let that slide without a bigly fight at the confirmation hearing.

This move really doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't know what Trump gains here other than a few weeks of pretending he won.

He's sending a message to the replacement. Do what I want or I'll can you. We'll see if it works.

Moot to the acting director though, who can only be gotten rid of for cause or by senate approving a nominee.

I believe the senate only needs a simple majority to approve the nominee, though, so it might not be that difficult for them to get rid of the acting head if they feel pressure

> This move really doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't know what Trump gains here other than a few weeks of pretending he won.

Trump isn't exactly big on forethought.

If I'm not mistaken, he's the first FBI director to be fired.

Edit: I was, in fact, mistaken.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/31/1589230/-Only-One-U...

> When Bill Clinton took office in January , 1993, his FBI Director was William S. Sessions, serving an appointment made by Ronald Reagan at the time of the Iran-Contra affair. Making it clear that the new President did not want the Republican FBI Director in his Administration, Clinton’s newly appointed Attorney General, Janet Reno, quietly pressured Mr. Sessions to resign.

Big difference between that and outright firing. Behind the scenes pressure is politics as usual.

> Although Sessions denied that he had acted improperly, he was pressured to resign in early July, with some suggesting that President Clinton was giving Sessions the chance to step down in a dignified manner. Sessions refused, saying that he had done nothing wrong, and insisted on staying in office until his successor was confirmed. As a result, President Clinton dismissed Sessions on July 19, 1993.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Sessions

Sorry I quoted the wrong bit. He was actually fired.

> ut the stubborn Republican FBI Director refused to go voluntarily, finally provoking Bill Clinton to telephone Mr. Sessions on July 20, 1993. The President called twice. The first call was to tell the Director he was fired. The second was to tell the Director it was effective immediately. That’s cold, man.

He was fired for misuse of funds.

The IG investigation into Mr. Sessions revealed all kinds of wrongdoing. Not political at all.

This is going to make an amazing movie in a decade or two.

Oh it'll spawn a whole genre. Having written several scripts myself I've naturally been fascinated by the political machinations going on over the last couple of years, but the #1 difficulty (besides the constant flow of new events that Change Everything) is the sheer outlandishness of it all. I guarantee you that if I had a time machine and went back two or three years into the past with a hot script, virtually everyone in Hollywood would shake their heads and say 'too many unlikely plot twists, nobody would buy this, go take more writing classes until you understand causality, pacing, motivation, character arcs, and real life, kiddo.'

A common refrain among both my movie biz friends and political scientist friends these days is 'I'm living in a fucking cartoon.' Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. At this point Rick and Morty comes off as a bit unimaginative.

Trump just wanted to be sure that Comey's statement last year about the iPhone hack cost was true.

"more than I will make in the remainder of this job, [...]"

President Trump cares little about protecting the Office of the President...his administration has a well-documented history of putting the thumb on the scale regarding the investigation of collusion between his campaign and Russian agents/agencies...this is damaging the credibility in the office...this firing was also clearly decided on and then the rationale was secured afterward...it baffles the mind that Trump rationalizes this executive action by claiming that Comey was "mean to Clinton" when only a few days ago Comey had his trust...the reasoning cited, and involvement of Sessions in interfering an investigation that he recused himself from, is bogus... It is not unreasonable to claim that a cover-up is in full swing!

Everyone should read the letter that the Deputy Attorney General wrote to the Attorney General in recommending that Comey be fired. It's brutal: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/fbi-dire...

This and Comey's recent misstatements to Congress about Huma Abedin forwarding sensitive emails to Anthony Weiner are alone grounds for Trump to fire Comey. Whether Trump had other motives... I mean, who knows? It's all speculation.

I agree with every word of that latter. He deserved to be fired.

However, the idea that Trump fired the FBI director for causing Clinton to bleed is just a teensy bit hard to swallow.

And if they're going to fire him for going after Clinton, why wait until May? Why not January?

I think he was waiting for the right reason to fire him. This letter plus the assist from Comey's recent screwup in front of the Senate gives Trump the perfect excuse to fire him. Comey should have just shut up and did his investigation.

If that was the case, why didn't any of the three letters mention Comey screwing up in front of that committee? They only mentioned his severe misjudgment in Hillary's emails 10 days before the election. Nah. Doesn't pass the smell test.

Now don't get me wrong, he WAS fired because those investigations upset Trump. And that very likely WAS the reason. But it wasn't the reason they stated.

Someone better than me in English, please explain the meaning of the word 'recuse'?

Step aside from, typically due to a conflict of interest.

To remove oneself from involvement in the proceedings. In this case, since AG Sessions was considered to have conflict of interest in the Russian interference matter, he 'recused' himself, i.e., removed himself from the investigations.

In this instance, step away from active involvement in investigations concerning a specific subject to avoid appearance of a conflict of interest. Comey still reported to Sessions as A.G. but would not have had to report updates about the investigations into Trump & Russia.

I have only seen the word in the context of a court case.

A judge may recuse themselves from a case when they feel that they cannot judge it objectively (or that a strong objective argument could be made that they cannot judge it objectively). It means they withdraw from the case. So if a case should go before five judges, and two of them recuse, those two won't participate and the decision will be issued by the other three judges.

Not a native English speaker, but I understand it as "step aside and agree not to interfere"

to remove oneself from duty in a proceeding usually due to conflicts of interest.

i.e., A judge in Florida recently recused herself from a case involving USF's football coach because she was a USF alumna.

In this case, it seems to mean "deputize somebody else who can put their name on the letters instead of me".

Trump is soon going to run out of people to fire.

Don't worry, there are PLENTY of people worth firing in DC

He fires on a whim. You say one wrong word that hurts his ego, and you're gone no matter how much of a darling you were before. Like someone said elsewhere he demands absolute loyalty from his minions, but has none himself.

At this point we should demand an immediate Impeachment.

Which can only mean something else happened today that Trump's covering up in the headlines by firing Comey

Why isn't this on the front page?

Oh, this has got to burn. The man that gave him the office......

Mr. Comey just acquired a badge of honor. No, I'm not being sarcastic. It's getting to the point where being fired is more honorable than remaining.

Can someone clarify if comey is pro trump or not?

Well I'd give you his email address but it doesn't seem to route to him anymore

Comey threw the election for Trump. I'd say he's pro Trump. This firing thing resulted after Comey went too far "off reservation" in looking at Trump.

I've generally had the impression that Comey is a more traditional conservative; he might prefer Republicans rather than Democrats be in control of the federal government, but he's never shown much love of Trump himself.

Comey is a boy scout. He is righteous man for better or worse, has conservative leanings, but he is considered an honorable man especially for his actions during Ashcroft's hospitalization

That is a good way of putting it. I believe he felt required by the obligations of the office to say something about the discovery of the email on Weiner's computer, and I tend to agree, even though I am not in any way a Trump supporter. It was my opinion from the time Clinton's clandestine email server was revealed that she was not viable as a candidate on account of it, and if Comey's statement was as instrumental as many of her supporters claim, then that hunch proved correct (though I am not sure, myself, whether the statement was decisive.)

He's neither. He, like most other members of the U.S. government, is someone simply interested in doing their job to the best of their ability. He's not immune to making mistakes. But, he's also not pushing some partisan agenda.

Once you get a degree of separation or two away from the politicrats, you end up with regular, ethical and moral people actually trying to make things work. That may be surprising to some, but, if you think about it, it's already pretty obvious that the people at the top do a poor job of representing anyone else, including their subordinates.

I don't think anyone can tell. His behavior has been very inconsistent. His reveal of the re-opened inquiry into Clinton's emails a week before the election blew every reasonable legal professional's mind in this country on matters concerning the presidential election. It's incredibly unusual for law enforcement or legal professionals to make comments which would invite speculation about ongoing investigations, let alone the highest law enforcement official in the land. It would have suggested that he favored Trump. Otherwise, what unbiased human would do such a thing? On the other hand, Comey seemed perfectly happy to then turn around and re-enter the public discourse on the matter of Trump's relationship with Russia. No one can figure him out. There's definitely an argument that this erratic behavior warrants termination, but days after he confirmed details about investigations into Trump-Russia? I swear Tom Clancy couldn't write a better story than this.

Anyone have a link to the contents of the memo that recommended firing, and contained the reasons for that recommendation?

Allegedly: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_apUYrXgAAihp2.jpg

Thanks! Unfortunately that one leaves out the reasons memo.

Perhaps you seek this?: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/862073335009738752

That's it, many thanks!

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3711113/Comey-Whi...

The thought of Trump nominating an FBI director is bone chilling. Summed up with what's known about Flynn and every other suspicious data point we have what I am increasingly sure that is a modern day coup of the USA.

Time to pause tech and effect change, this is leading to a future darker than I can possibly contemplate.

It's about time. Comey has politicized the FBI in ways that have damaged its reputation for years to come.

Why are we discussing politics on HN ?

It's time for this dictator to be impeached. People need to start marching on Washington.

Christi will be appointed FBI director, and Comey will get a nice job in the Trump organization for falling on the sword.

Hopefully there's a silver lining and that this means the encryption backdoor push (led by Comey) will slow to a crawl or be forgotten. He was already preparing a push for FISA Amendments renewal together with Dianne Feinstein (who is apparently having a change of heart about her own retirement).

Don't count on it. Trump will likely put someone very right wing into the position and the attack on encryption will intensify.

So the right wing wants to reduce encryption? And the left doesn't? Republican Senator Rand Paul has been at the forefront of fighting for privacy protections. Chuck Schumer sure hasn't.

Well, change 'right wing' to 'Trumpist' and the statement becomes basically accurate.

Rand Paul is not what many would be referring to when they say right wing. Rand and Ron Paul are both libertarians that are pro-individual-liberty and clash with the rest of the GOP routinely. They are anomalies.

> Rand and Ron Paul are both libertarians that are pro-individual-liberty and clash with the rest of the GOP routinely.

I strongly believe the average libertarian would disagree with this statement. Rand has made it clear that he is a Republican first.

Trump has proven he doesn't give a damn about privacy, either.

You're right. The Democrats have been much more aggressive at attacking our privacy over the past 10 years or so. But it isn't really a partisan issue (yet).

It's not a matter of right-wing vs left-wing, it's a matter of authoritarian/security-above-all vs personal freedom. I mean, we're talking about a President who advocated to "boycott Apple" in response to them not decrypting the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone.

* http://gizmodo.com/trump-calls-for-boycott-of-apple-products...

* https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/70079517002382540...

You're correct that this is an issue that tends to cross party lines.

Franken tends to be pro-encyption, so does Rand Paul.

It's not a right-left issue. It's a bipartisan issue that speaks to almost every U.S. citizen.

And it's equally bipartisan when people hate this.

This is not a right-left issue. It's a pro/against law enforcement at the expense of constitutional rights issue. There are many on both sides of the aisle who can legitimately support this idea.

maybe we haven't explained it to their constituents appropriately, lets protect our 2nd amendment rights to encryption.

You must be joking. The law-and-order MAGA candidate, who attacked Apple repeatedly for not building the FBI backdoor after the San Bernardino shootings, is going to appointment someone who doesn't want encryption backdoors?

I'd give you 10 for 1 on that bet. No one running in the last election (or in office & with real power in recent memory) was any sort of real civil libertarian and I would be stunned if the current powers that be put someone of that ilk up for the position.

When I watched the hearing I think I heard Comey say that he + the intelligence community did not want encryption backdoors, but instead wanted to look for 'alternatives' (w/e that would mean).

However, I would imagine Trump would be the opposite, and be calling for backdoors. I wouldn't be surprised if he compared encryption to suspicion of terrorism..

There is no alternative to backdoors. Other than trying to ban encryption again.

Unfortunately that mode of thinking seems to be bipartisan. Recall Clinton's stance on the San Bernardino case:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-...

You expect that from an administration with autocratic tendencies?

Trump had to dismiss Comey. Comey damaged the FBI in his recent sessions with Congress to the point the FBI was on the defensive trying to set the record right. Considering the erratic behavior with both the Clinton and Russia issues it is doubtful that Comey was capable of continuing in such an office.

Like or dislike Trump, there have been many on the Democratic Party side calling for Comey to be gone and the odd part is many are now rushing to the guy's defense. That and he was fired over incorrect testimony about a Clinton aide, testimony that painted her in a worse position than deserved.

Irrational is the best way to describe the reaction of many. I was really shocked by some in the press, it is near impossible to separate journalist from opinion editors when they cannot separate the roles themselves

You make good points but this is more of a defenestration than a normal termination.

Dems were calling for Comey to be fired when he commented on the Clinton investigation. If Trump truly was swayed by that, he would have fired Comey at the beginning of his term. The timing of the firing is incredibly fishy.

> Like or dislike Trump, there have been many on the Democratic Party side calling for Comey to be gone and the odd part is many are now rushing to the guy's defense. That and he was fired over incorrect testimony about a Clinton aide, testimony that painted her in a worse position than deserved.

Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing overall is complicated, so no, people aren't just going to be singing "Ding, dong, the witch is dead". But the manner in which it was done was a bad thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com