Hacker News Reader

Comment by liquidise | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

> 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?

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com