Trump Fires FBI Director James Comey

[AnnaH]

After the discussion with Trump about Flynn, Comey testified under oath that no one had tried to interfere with his investigations.

 

[t-c]

The Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, during his briefing of the full Senate, has declared that the FBI Russian investigation has moved from a counter-intelligence investigation to a criminal investigation. That means that the DoJ and FBI has found probable cause for obstruction of justice.

 

[MollyMalone]

The Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, during his briefing of the full Senate, has declared that the FBI Russian investigation has moved from a counter-intelligence investigation to a criminal investigation. That means that the DoJ and FBI has found probable cause for obstruction of justice.

ARGH I have no idea where you heard that, t-c, but neither aspect of it is accurate.

** From one of the most complete accounts of what Senator Graham said after the Senate's private session with Deputy AG Rosenstein (boldface mine)
The takeaway I have is that everything he said was that you need to treat this investigation as if it may be a criminal investigation,” Graham told reporters after the briefing from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

He cautioned that he didn’t get to ask Rosenstein to confirm that the investigation, which includes whether Donald Trump campaign officials colluded with Russian officials, [is] now a criminal one.

“It was a counterintelligence investigation before now. It seems to me now to be considered a criminal investigation”....
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/graham-takeaway-rosenstein-briefing-russia-probe-criminal

** A criminal investigation does NOT mean that the DoJ and FBI have found probable cause for obstruction of justice -- or any other crime. As a former career prosecutor, it pains me to see people jump to such conclusions.

 

[t-c]

ARGH I have no idea where you heard that, t-c, but neither aspect of it is accurate.

** From one of the most complete accounts of what Senator Graham said after the Senate's private session with Deputy AG Rosenstein (boldface mine)
The takeaway I have is that everything he said was that you need to treat this investigation as if it may be a criminal investigation,” Graham told reporters after the briefing from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

He cautioned that he didn’t get to ask Rosenstein to confirm that the investigation, which includes whether Donald Trump campaign officials colluded with Russian officials, [is] now a criminal one.

“It was a counterintelligence investigation before now. It seems to me now to be considered a criminal investigation”....
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/graham-takeaway-rosenstein-briefing-russia-probe-criminal

** A criminal investigation does NOT mean that the DoJ and FBI have found probable cause for obstruction of justice -- or any other crime. As a former career prosecutor, it pains me to see people jump to such conclusions.

Lindsey Graham said, "the shock to the body is that it is now a criminal investigation." He qualified later on.

So, what makes them reclassify it from a counter-intelligence to a possible criminal investigation? Is it just semantics or is there actual significance?

 

[MollyMalone]

After the discussion with Trump about Flynn, Comey testified under oath that no one had tried to interfere with his investigations.

Anna, I know there's been lots of this flying around the WorldWideWeb -- and even some banner headlines on, e.g., GatewayPundit & WorldNetDaily trumpeting this "fake news": Comey: Trump never pressured FBI to halt probe.
But when you read the transcript/watch the video of Comey's testimony before the Senate on May 3, there's no doubt but that he is responding to Senator Hirono's query as to whether an Attorney General or senior officials in the Department of Justice had ever sought to halt an FBI investigation & that "no one" refers to higher-ups in DOJ. Below is transcription of dialogue between Senator Hirono & Comey that begins at the timer point of 3:36:10 on C-SPAN's video, before she goes on to ask him about "how would it work" were a special prosecutor named:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?42770...veal-clinton-email-probe-election&start=13013

 

[AnnaH]

M, I understand your point. Comey could have been responding very narrowly. However, had he thought the President were trying to pressure him, it seems unlikely that he would have been so quiet about it. Even McCabe knew nothing about it.
Worth noting, also, is that President Obama defended both Lois Lerner and HRC when they were under investigation. More than allegations in those cases.
The Republicans and Democrats remind me of the harried parent and unruly kid in the supermarket line. The kid screams for candy and the parent gives in. The Democrats may get more than they asked for. I think this is a broad investigation and could kick up dirt on more than the Trump campaign. Of course, we may have no answers for years.

 

[MollyMalone]

Lindsey Graham said, "the shock to the body is that it is now a criminal investigation." He qualified later on.
So, what makes them reclassify it from a counter-intelligence to a possible criminal investigation? Is it just semantics or is there actual significance?

Let me first venture an opinion: that it's quite probable that DOJ (more particularly, Mr. Rosenstein) has deemed it appropriate to designate the investigation as a criminal investigative one. What I was pushing back against, in this regard, was the proposition that he made a bald declaration to the Senators when there is no proof of that.

But no, it's not just semantics. For example, the scope & nature, the investigative tools authorized by statute & internal policy guidelines, and to whom reports are given, differ. I really have to head off to work & haven't been able to quickly find online the current version of the Attorney General Guidelines that I expect spell this all out in helpful (probably even numbing) detail. But for the time being, take a look at this 2016 letter; the body of the letter discusses many of the tools used in federal investigations of domestic corporations; it's not all-encompassing, but it's easy to read & not super long. Plus, the footnote gives you an idea of the distinction.
https://www.privacyshield.gov/servlet/servlet.FileDownload?file=015t00000004q0W

Criminal investigations (and prosecutions) are serious matters & shouldn't be launched on whim or "just because." So although you sure don't need to first have probable cause to initiate a criminal investigation, there should be grounded reason(s) to believe it likely that criminal activity is afoot (or that a crime/crimes have occurred).

 

[MollyMalone]

M, I understand your point. Comey could have been responding very narrowly. However, had he thought the President were trying to pressure him, it seems unlikely that he would have been so quiet about it. Even McCabe knew nothing about it. * * *

I would like to offer a follow-up on this, Anna, but I need to earn a living and head off to my office where paying work awaits ; - )

 

[AnnaH]

Correction, i don't know if there is a McCabe comment on Flynn. That business came out after his testimony, I think. Haven't seen anyone support the memo, so far.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I am trying to understand all this as well. Thanks Molly. The lawyers on MSNBC have said that the memos from Comey are not evidence until he testifies himself about them. It is Comey who explains them. It seems he was worried, but thought he had directed the Pres. on proper procedure. The following day Priebus called asking him to do something else.

I admit the only one I see being guilty of something is General Flynn and I cannot see the extent of the guilt. The info coming out is overwhelming. The Russians have infiltrated the highest offices.

Annette

 

[AnnaH]

McCabe's testimony wasn't specific to Flynn. I didn't mean to say that. However, he did testify that there was no interference. Appears he didn't know about the memo or didn't find it significant.
Something I'd like Molly to comment on. I thought a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate an actual crime. What's the crime? FBI investigates and offers proof of a crime. Then there's a prosecution. I thought that's how it works.

 

[House Cat]

On the news stations I watch, they say over and over again that once a special prosecutor is appointed, the investigation becomes very broad. They will look for anything and everything to nail the person being investigated.

They keep bringing up the fact that they were trying to bring down Clinton on a real estate deal and it ended up being Monica that did the deed.

 

[t-c]

if true.

From the NY Times
Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation
By MATT APUZZO, MAGGIE HABERMAN and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
MAY 19, 2017

WASHINGTON — President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”

The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that Mr. Trump dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives. Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.

The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion.

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, did not dispute the account.

In a statement, he said that Mr. Comey had put unnecessary pressure on the president’s ability to conduct diplomacy with Russia on matters such as Syria, Ukraine and the Islamic State.

“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Mr. Spicer said. “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.”

The day after firing Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump hosted Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, in the Oval Office, along with the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey I. Kislyak. The meeting ignited controversy this week when it was revealed that Mr. Trump had disclosed intelligence from an Israeli counterterrorism operation.

A third government official briefed on the meeting defended the president, saying Mr. Trump was using a negotiating tactic when he told Mr. Lavrov about the “pressure” he was under. The idea, the official suggested, was to create a sense of obligation with Russian officials and to coax concessions out of Mr. Lavrov — on Syria, Ukraine and other issues — by saying that Russian meddling in last year’s election had created enormous political problems for Mr. Trump.

The president has been adamant that the meddling did not alter the outcome of the race, but it has become a political cudgel for his opponents.

Many Democrats and some Republicans have raised alarms that the president may have tried to obstruct justice by firing Mr. Comey. The Justice Department’s newly appointed special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was given the authority to investigate not only potential collusion, but also related allegations, which would include obstruction of justice.

The F.B.I.’s investigation has bedeviled the Trump administration, and the president personally. Mr. Comey publicly confirmed the existence of the investigation in March, telling Congress that his agents were investigating Russian efforts to influence the outcome of the presidential election and whether anyone in the Trump campaign had been involved. Mr. Trump has denied any collusion and called the case a waste of money and time.

At first, the White House said Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey based on the recommendation of the Justice Department, and because of Mr. Comey’s handling of the F.B.I. investigation into Hillary Clinton last year. Officials said it had nothing to do with the Russia investigation.

But the president undercut that argument a day later, telling NBC News, “When I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.”

 

[E B]

What an idiot.

 

[E B]

Spicer just confirmed it in his (the WH's) own special way.

 

[t-c]

The leaks are coming from inside the White House. These are no longer Obama hold-overs (if they ever were); these are people who once supported the president. I think it's rats-abandoning-a-sinking-ship time.

 

[E B]

Who do you think this may be? I'm seeing Kushner mentioned a lot:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.2cb3a25ca94c

 

[t-c]

Who do you think this may be? I'm seeing Kushner mentioned a lot:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.2cb3a25ca94c

I read that article, too; it's light on new information. Kushner is the first person who popped into my head, based on nothing stronger than that he's been written about having met with Kislyak and not disclosed. I eliminated Sessions because he's not really a "White House official".

 

[t-c]

The title is the link. From the Washington Post:
Former FBI director Comey to testify publicly

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Last nite Rachael Maddow had a time-line with meetings with the Russians. She began with explaining that a very close friend of Putin was included in a meeting that occurred to establish a back channel for direct Trump and Putin communications which would by-pass regular National Security channels. Jarrod Kushner was involved with General Flynn so that they could do everything under cover.

It seems Trump wanted to partner with Russia on Isis, the Ukraine and Syria. I think he is delusional (REALLY) and wanted to show the world only he could do it.

Jarrod Kushner is probably a person of interest.

Annette

 

[AnnaH]

A, Maddow's source?

 

[MollyMalone]

* * * Something I'd like Molly to comment on. I thought a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate an actual crime. What's the crime? FBI investigates and offers proof of a crime. Then there's a prosecution. I thought that's how it works.

On the news stations I watch, they say over and over again that once a special prosecutor is appointed, the investigation becomes very broad. They will look for anything and everything to nail the person being investigated.
They keep bringing up the fact that they were trying to bring down Clinton on a real estate deal and it ended up being Monica that did the deed.

Prosecutors, as a broad class, don't just take whatever is handed to them by the FBI or their state/local police agencies & stride into court. In every jurisdiction, for example, it's the prosecutor's office that guides grand jury proceedings (which may or may not end in an indictment) and draws up grand jury subpoenas summoning a person to give testimony and/or produce evidence before the grand jury; in many places, search warrant & wiretap applications (which are other investigative tools that may be employed before or after arrest or indictment) are prepared by a prosecutor. Indeed, there are prosecutors who never handle trial court cases; they are only concerned with the conduct of investigations & the assessment of evidence being gathered.

More importantly for current events, although "special prosecutor" is the term you often hear, the actual position held by by Lawrence Walsh and Ken Starr (the most famous, I think, of special prosecutors at the federal, national level in recent memory) was that of "Independent Counsel." Here's a link to the text of the court order naming Ken Starr:
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-06/news/mn-24149_1_independent-counsel
Although that order delineates the scope of Starr's investigation to a fairly narrow degree, the order appointing Lawrence Walsh as Independent Counsel for purposes of an investigation into "Iran-Contra" or "Contra-gate" was more open-ended and akin to the order appointing Robert Mueller as a Special Counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice. (Congress let the statutory framework for Independent Counsel expire in 1999, so that's why there's now a different MO & it's not an order by 3 federal judges.)
Hope this has been helpful

 

[E B]

Comey's opening statement for tomorrow (!): https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf

 

[redwood66]

EB thanks for posting this. I can totally see Trump doing all of that. It is something that irks me about powerful people and their expectations to be treated differently than the rest of us. Especially wealthy land developers of which I have had plenty of experience dealing with in my last position in government. The rules should not apply to them because of their status. I would not do it and let the management above me roll over and cave. Thank goodness they backed me and assumed responsibility for it.

Trump can be happy that at least Comey has finally said he was not under investigation personally. LOL. This will be a show for sure tomorrow.

Edit - I am not sure if this proves obstruction if he did not direct Comey to do it. Especially since none of the investigators knew anything about it. I am sure the lawyers will hash all that out. It is totally wrong that Trump stepped in it like this but it does not surprise me reading what he said.

 

[t-c]

Comey's opening statement for tomorrow (!): https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf

Welp, now we know for sure that there are memos of Comey's meetings with Trump. Let's see if Trump produces the tapes

 

[t-c]

EB thanks for posting this. I can totally see Trump doing all of that. It is something that irks me about powerful people and their expectations to be treated differently than the rest of us. Especially wealthy land developers of which I have had plenty of experience dealing with in my last position in government. The rules should not apply to them because of their status. I would not do it and let the management above me roll over and cave. Thank goodness they backed me and assumed responsibility for it.

Trump can be happy that at least Comey has finally said he was not under investigation personally. LOL. This will be a show for sure tomorrow.

Edit - I am not sure if this proves obstruction if he did not direct Comey to do it. Especially since none of the investigators knew anything about it. I am sure the lawyers will hash all that out. It is totally wrong that Trump stepped in it like this but it does not surprise me reading what he said.

Trump may not have been under investigation then, but I bet he is now.

 

[E B]

Edit - I am not sure if this proves obstruction if he did not direct Comey to do it. Especially since none of the investigators knew anything about it. I am sure the lawyers will hash all that out. It is totally wrong that Trump stepped in it like this but it does not surprise me reading what he said.

It's not just that he didn't directly order it, he asked him, informally, and then fired him when he wouldn't and admitted as much. It isn't as much of a slam dunk as having him on tape saying something like "Just watch me obstruct this justice, Comey, mwahahaha," but it's pretty clear.

 

[redwood66]

It's not just that he didn't directly order it, he asked him, informally, and then fired him when he wouldn't and admitted as much. It isn't as much of a slam dunk as having him on tape saying something like "Just watch me obstruct this justice, Comey, mwahahaha," but it's pretty clear.

Like I said I am sure the lawyers will have a go at this one. Maybe another "no reasonable prosecutor" moment.

 

[mary poppins]

DC Bars to Open Early for Comey Hearing Watch Parties

WASHINGTON — What’s a showdown without an audience?

The latest must-watch event — former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee — has some D.C. bars opening their doors as early as 9 a.m. on Thursday, June 8, to host viewing parties complete with food and drinks.

As Comey faces questions regarding his discussions with President Donald Trump about the federal investigation into Russia’s election meddling, watch partygoers can “watch the drama unfold” while tucking into “FBI”-themed fare or nursing Covfefe cocktails.

Click through the gallery below for the D.C. establishments holding Comey hearing watch parties.

The names of drink and food specials are topical and amusing.

http://wtop.com/dc/2017/06/14136931/slide/4/

 

[AnnaH]

Watch parties, ha! With Comey these's always a big buildup followed by nothing.
The request for loyalty and the letting the Flynn thing go seems inappropriate, but I don't see that going anywhere legally.
That Comey is an odd duck. I don't know that I could name another FBI director since Hoover. He has been so public. All that going back and forth on HRC. Trump should not have kept Comey in the first place, and he's paying for that mistake.
Trump just named Comey's replacement, Christopher Wray. DOJ guy and nonpolitical.