• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump Fires James Comey

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guevara

Member
RustyNails said:
I think Paul Begala said that if Trump support falls below 80℅ for Republicans, it will start to cause Republicans to distance themselves from Trump.

Or if Ossof wins GA-8.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me, neither is a sure thing however.

But what does "distancing" themselves even mean? Some republicans already are distancing themselves, without making a big deal of it.
 
S

super-heated plasma

Member
Great article in NY Mag. Perhaps it will be the States to bring down Trump. How ironic for the GOP.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/eric-schneiderman-on-keeping-trump-in-check.html

The evening that Donald Trump fired FBI director James Comey, plunging Washington into chaos and possibly propelling the nation toward a constitutional crisis, the president's most persistent legal antagonist was flying high above America. On a cross-country JetBlue flight, Eric Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York State, was watching a seat-back TV when he learned the news the way almost everyone else — including Comey — did, with a shocking flash. ”There was a group of lawyers on the plane who recognized me," Schneiderman said the next day. As the news spread through the cabin, he began to feel glances directed his way. The usual decorum fell away, and one passenger leaned over to Schneiderman. ”I bet you can't wait for the plane to land," he said.

It wouldn't be fair to say that Schneiderman is enjoying this turbulent political ride we're on, but history has conspired to place him in a vital place on the ground. Since the election decapitated Democrats on the national level, putting Jeff Sessions in charge of the Department of Justice and leaving Republicans in control of congressional oversight, Schneiderman and other Democratic state attorneys general have led the legal resistance to Trump. Long before the Russians — or really anyone — dreamed of a President Trump, Schneiderman was investigating him, pursuing the allegedly fraudulent marketing of his for-profit university. And long before Trump was attacking federal judges, the leaky intelligence community, or law-enforcement officials with a reputation for stubborn probity, he was ridiculing New York's AG as a ”lightweight." The idea that Schneiderman, a compact, tightly wound Upper West Side liberal whose office is accustomed to pursuing consumer scams or busting upstate heroin rings (as he did last week), might be a last line of defense for what he calls ”bedrock principles of the United States" — it's frankly a little preposterous. But the framers of our Constitution designed our system to have hidden pockets of resiliency, and the power of the states is one of them.

”For those of us who are protectors of the rule of law, the state attorneys general," Schneiderman said, ”we have a role to play, to make sure that the system survives." When his plane landed, Schneiderman started contacting his colleagues in other states, as well as Democrats in Washington, coordinating an emergency response. On May 11, he joined a group of 20 attorneys general in signing a letter to Rod Rosenstein, the Justice Department official overseeing the Russia investigation, calling for the appointment of a special counsel.


Even before Comey's firing, some well-placed congressional Democrats had been urging Schneiderman to probe the Trump campaign's suspected Kremlin connection, as far afield as that might seem for a state officeholder. But New York, of course, is home to the Trump Organization and its bank accounts. ”We have jurisdiction over everything because we're New York, and every check clears New York," said former state attorney general (and governor) Eliot Spitzer, whose high-profile prosecutions on Wall Street demonstrated the office's national reach. ”There are odd jurisdictional hooks that sometimes come into play. Money laundering may be implicated here."

Schneiderman, however, said he is hoping that Comey's firing will spur Republicans to back a bipartisan probe. ”It is tremendously important that the FBI not be run as a political operation," he said. ”And it's very important to Americans on both sides of the aisle." He said he talked with contacts who were with the FBI director in L.A. when he was canned who told him they were outraged by the ”sense of total disrespect" conveyed by the abrupt move, with its strong-arm theatrics, like the firing letter delivered by Trump's loyal bodyguard. ”It's not the way you treat the director of the FBI," Schneiderman said, ”whatever your disagreements with him may be."

Like many Democrats, Schneiderman had contradictory feelings about Comey. He had relied on the FBI as a partner in investigations and had hoped its director's reputation for independence would provide a solid check on Trump. At the same time, he was highly critical of Comey's actions during the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Schneiderman campaigned for Clinton, and on Election Night, he absorbed the news of her defeat — which many attributed to Comey — at her party at the Javits Center. The next morning, he presided over an emotional meeting at the attorney general's offices in lower Manhattan at which he told his staff to rally and to begin thinking about how to play a rearguard role.

"When Trump was elected, it became very clear to me, having known him for some time, that there were going to be new challenges," Schneiderman told me in April in an interview at his Broadway office, which looks out on the harbor and the World Trade Center memorial — a reminder of the stakes of law enforcement in New York. ”This is a president who doesn't like to see checks on his power," he said, and a Congress with ”a real reluctance to serve as a check on the Executive branch."

Before there was ‘Lyin' Ted' and ‘Little Marco,' there was ‘Clockwork Eric.'
”The states are able to serve as a backup," he said. Particularly New York, whose attorney general's office is perhaps the most powerful in the country, aided by the Martin Act, a state law that gives sweeping powers to investigate financial fraud. Past occupants of the office have used that power to raise their political profiles — both of Schneiderman's immediate predecessors, Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo, ended up as governor. It's no secret that Schneiderman would like to follow that example, and his confrontational stance toward Trump has made him a popular figure on the left. But it could also be an effective litigation strategy. Schneiderman and other state attorneys general led the successful counterattack against Trump's initial Muslim-nation immigration ban, and similar lawsuits could slow the administration's moves on civil rights and environmental regulations. ”I think that we're in a situation now," Schneiderman said, ”where the confrontations provoked very early on have set up an unprecedented set of battle lines."

Firing Comey opened up a new front. Beyond the implications for the Russia investigation, Trump's actions have sent a very public message to the law-enforcement bureaucracy about the president's tolerance for questioning. Schneiderman has experienced his vindictive streak firsthand, during his investigations of Trump University and, last year, of the Trump Foundation's fund-raising practices. Trump filed an ethics complaint against him (it was dismissed) and set up a website to attack him. The New York Observer — Jared Kushner's newspaper — published a memorably savage hit piece. ”The front page of the Observer was my picture as the Malcolm McDowell character in A Clockwork Orange," he recalled. ”So before there was ‘Lyin' Ted' and ‘Little Marco,' there was ‘Clockwork Eric.' I've seen the scorched-earth approach for years."

Trump vowed never to settle the Trump University case. He did, right after the election, for $25 million. It may prove to be a template for future legal dramas. Trump may have the power to squelch federal investigators, but Schneiderman's office has a staff of some 650 attorneys and formidable resources. In what was widely viewed as a preparatory move for cases to come, he recently hired a public-corruption prosecutor who worked for Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for New York controversially ousted by Trump. (The Trump Foundation investigation, for one, is ongoing.)

”If it's hard to get checks on the presidency from Congress, we're going to try to fill that space," Schneiderman said. ”I'm willing to bet on the rule of law. I think at the end of the day, it's what people want. I will bet on that to survive this presidency."
Click to expand...


ALSO:
Manafort's Real-Estate Deals Said to Be Probed by N.Y.'s Top Cop
 
B

BobTheFork

Member
Guevara said:
Makes sense to me, neither is a sure thing however.

But what does "distancing" themselves even mean? Some republicans already are distancing themselves, without making a big deal of it.
Click to expand...

It means no longer responding to anything he actually says or does when asked about it but only verbally supporting the necessity of any policy he tries to create.
 
D

Deleted member 10571

Unconfirmed Member
Tahnit said:
Strong rumors on the twitter verse that within 24-72 hours arrests will be made. they will go after small fish first and try and get them to talk.

These people have been right before. So here's hoping.
Click to expand...

Strong rumors on the facebook verse that this is bullshit.



Link your "rumors", man.
 
N

NewFresh

Member
Tovarisc said:
vQQcbBj.png

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/864155944841875457

Rich from a guy who publicly attacked / threatened Comey.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but #BlueLivesMatter

I swear he is like the greatest hits of your crazy uncles facebook page.
 
M

MechDX

Member
Bufbaf said:
Strong rumors on the facebook verse that this is bullshit.



Link your "rumors", man.
Click to expand...

Twitter search Louise Mensch. I was intrigued by her tweets when I found out about her a couple weeks ago but man she is basically a rumor mongering attention seeker. Her timeline is a mess of weird retweets and speculation posed as "insider info"
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I wouldn't equate Taylor and Mensch. Taylor has been more accurate and has actually been involved in those circles. Not saying everything he is saying right now is true, but no way is he as untrustworthy as Mensch.
 
T

TheLostBigBoss

Banned
Plinko said:
I wouldn't equate Taylor and Mensch. Taylor has been more accurate and has actually been involved in those circles. Not saying everything he is saying right now is true, but no way is he as untrustworthy as Mensch.
Click to expand...

Taylor hyped up the same shit Mansch was saying with "PEOPLE GOING TO JAIL TOMORROW".

He's just as bad and just as unreliable.
 
D

Deku Tree

Member
Plinko said:
I wouldn't equate Taylor and Mensch. Taylor has been more accurate and has actually been involved in those circles. Not saying everything he is saying right now is true, but no way is he as untrustworthy as Mensch.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence of Taylor's invovement? A quick google revealed to me a Daily Kos article discrediting Taylor and his credentials. They claimed that he was a low level volunteer for the Clinton campaign in 1993, and they seemed to be saying that Taylor was overstating his credentials in his Twitter profile.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
TheLostBigBoss said:
Taylor hyped up the same shit Mansch was saying with "PEOPLE GOING TO JAIL TOMORROW".

He's just as bad and just as unreliable.
Click to expand...

I was away for awhile, but most of what Taylor had been pushing had been slow burn stuff. Saying that indictments had been sealed but not saying when they would actually be opened, that type of thing. I hadn't seen him do otherwise, but like I said, I was gone for awhile.
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
TheLostBigBoss said:
Can we simply ban Mensch and Taylor from this thread?
Click to expand...

I seriously don't understand why people still follow them after their rumors come up empty every damn time. Mensch especially comes across as very unhinged. Dunno how people look at her crazy ass timeline of her retweeting herself every 5 minutes and think that's good info to follow.
 
M

Moofers

Member
I don't care about Mensch but I would like to hear about why some here are so certain Taylor is making shit up. I'm seeing more and more sources pick up what they're both saying (see Raw Story recently for example). Sometimes it feels like GAF is never convinced until something is on CNN which is just puzzling to me.

I'm of the mind that we are all about to see Taylor and Mensch proven right. Not sure when, but I think it's coming.
 
smokeymicpot

smokeymicpot

Beat EviLore at pool.
GoldenEye 007 said:
Hm, still will feel like he'll try to offer clarifications/justification to placate the Senators. If he really was pissed, he'd have resigned out of protest and really created some waves. But I just don't have confidence that is the case here.
Click to expand...

Why resign and get someone else in there. This is better off.
 
L

Lambtron

Unconfirmed Member
GoldenEye 007 said:
Hm, still will feel like he'll try to offer clarifications/justification to placate the Senators. If he really was pissed, he'd have resigned out of protest and really created some waves. But I just don't have confidence that is the case here.
Click to expand...
If he resigned out of protest, he couldn't push the case forward.
 
T

TheLostBigBoss

Banned
Moofers said:
I don't care about Mensch but I would like to hear about why some here are so certain Taylor is making shit up. I'm seeing more and more sources pick up what they're both saying (see Raw Story recently for example). Sometimes it feels like GAF is never convinced until something is on CNN which is just puzzling to me.

I'm of the mind that we are all about to see Taylor and Mensch proven right. Not sure when, but I think it's coming.
Click to expand...

Because people want verification and more than two people sourcing each other when it comes to breaking news.
 
S

Sephzilla

Member
GoldenEye 007 said:
Hm, still will feel like he'll try to offer clarifications/justification to placate the Senators. If he really was pissed, he'd have resigned out of protest and really created some waves. But I just don't have confidence that is the case here.
Click to expand...

If he was pissed resigning would probably be the worst way to send a message to Trump
 
D

Damaniel

Banned
Moofers said:
I don't care about Mensch but I would like to hear about why some here are so certain Taylor is making shit up. I'm seeing more and more sources pick up what they're both saying (see Raw Story recently for example). Sometimes it feels like GAF is never convinced until something is on CNN which is just puzzling to me.

I'm of the mind that we are all about to see Taylor and Mensch proven right. Not sure when, but I think it's coming.
Click to expand...

At least CNN and other traditional media outlets make the effort to vet and verify sources. I don't see any evidence from Taylor and Mensch of anything beyond talking out of their asses. I hate to toss around 'fake news' like they love to do on the right, but I consider them to be borderline 'fake news' at this point.
 
smokeymicpot

smokeymicpot

Beat EviLore at pool.
Damaniel said:
At least CNN and other traditional media outlets make the effort to vet and verify sources. I don't see any evidence from Taylor and Mensch of anything beyond talking out of their asses. I hate to toss around 'fake news' like they love to do on the right, but I consider them to be borderline 'fake news' at this point.
Click to expand...

Yup just because they were right once doesn't make them right all the time.
 
T

TheCochese

Banned
Moofers said:
I don't care about Mensch but I would like to hear about why some here are so certain Taylor is making shit up. I'm seeing more and more sources pick up what they're both saying (see Raw Story recently for example). Sometimes it feels like GAF is never convinced until something is on CNN which is just puzzling to me.

I'm of the mind that we are all about to see Taylor and Mensch proven right. Not sure when, but I think it's coming.
Click to expand...

They aren't confirming what they are reporting, just reporting what they are saying. This is an important distinction.

Like, for example, I found my way to a long rant by someone named broadsword_six on Twitter. Sounds like he knows what he is talking about, with it all going down eventually, but how do we know it's not all bullshit? I can't even give you the dude's real name much less confirm if his sources are good. The only thing more than that with Taylor is that you know his resume (and it isn't stellar), and Mensch's history makes reasonable people shy away.
 
G

GoldenEye 007

Member
I was just framing it from a Watergate perspective. From my understanding, things really accelerated when Nixon tried to get his AGs to fire the special prosecutor. They refused, he fired them, then fired the prosecutor himself.

Just seemed like it rocked the boat hard and sent a message that Nixon was not acting within his powers. But I see your point. I'm just apprehensive about putting my trust in Rosenstein.
 
W

Wallach

Member
GoldenEye 007 said:
I was just framing it from a Watergate perspective. From my understanding, things really accelerated when Nixon tried to get his AGs to fire the special prosecutor. They refused, he fired them, then fired the prosecutor himself.

Just seemed like it rocked the boat hard and sent a message that Nixon was not acting within his powers. But I see your point. I'm just apprehensive about putting my trust in Rosenstein.
Click to expand...

Did Nixon fire the prosecutor himself? I thought he still found someone else to do it after multiple resignations.
 
G

GoldenEye 007

Member
Wallach said:
Did Nixon fire the prosecutor himself? I thought he still found someone else to do it after multiple resignations.
Click to expand...
Yup, you're right. Sorry.

He was promised a SCOTUS appointment. Didn't get it tben, but Reagan later nominated that person and they were denied by the Senate.
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Moofers said:
I don't care about Mensch but I would like to hear about why some here are so certain Taylor is making shit up. I'm seeing more and more sources pick up what they're both saying (see Raw Story recently for example). Sometimes it feels like GAF is never convinced until something is on CNN which is just puzzling to me.

I'm of the mind that we are all about to see Taylor and Mensch proven right. Not sure when, but I think it's coming.
Click to expand...


I think you're conflating a bunch of stuff. I love reading Mensch because I love the catharsis of her Chaos Emeralds reporting style, but I would never source it because she cray. However, I'd also caveat that with her getting some pretty obscure stuff right on the nose - not guessable stuff, but like, server ping stuff and a few of the maybe-predictable but still unlikely connection threads.

But there are really three different types of gafers right now -

1. folks like you and I, just reacting to news and making their own predictions based on the facts.

2. People who're pessimistic and just don't want to get "invested" in a success that may never come - and thinking about worst case scenarios.

3. And people who's hobby or job it is to continually cloud these discussions with concern trolling and sometimes much clumsier and more obvious distractions.

There's a fourth type, just real Trump supporters who genuinely believe there's no fire under the smoke, or know it's true and are "colluding" with the messaging, but they are few and far between and mostly get ignored.


Obviously number 3 muddies the waters for sane discussion but there's not much the mods can do unless they break to TOU or admit they're deliberately trolling/obfuscating/astroturfing.


So no matter what, the "real news" and the "showed up on CNN" position is a reasonable place to discuss from and the most stable foundation. What's infuriating is the occasional idiot who looks at the Comey firing or Flynn's cavalcade of shenanigans and states that there's nothing going on there. Those people are an affront to even stupidity and should be on your ignore list already.
 
F

Felix Lighter

Member
If he feels Comey's firing was falsely attributed to him, he should have began the process of appointing a special independent prosecutor. What could be more damning than knowing for certain that the President and the AG are lying to the public about why they fired the FBI head?
 
Thaedolus

Thaedolus

Gold Member
Stinkles said:
I think you're conflating a bunch of stuff. I love reading Mensch because I love the catharsis of her Chaos Emeralds reporting style, but I would never source it because she cray. However, I'd also caveat that with her getting some pretty obscure stuff right on the nose - not guessable stuff, but like, server ping stuff and a few of the maybe-predictable but still unlikely connection threads.

But there are really three different types of gafers right now -

1. folks like you and I, just reacting to news and making their own predictions based on the facts.

2. People who're pessimistic and just don't want to get "invested" in a success that may never come - and thinking about worst case scenarios.

3. And people who's hobby or job it is to continually cloud these discussions with concern trolling and sometimes much clumsier and more obvious distractions.

There's a fourth type, just real Trump supporters who genuinely believe there's no fire under the smoke, or know it's true and are "colluding" with the messaging, but they are few and far between and mostly get ignored.


Obviously number 3 muddies the waters for sane discussion but there's not much the mods can do unless they break to TOU or admit they're deliberately trolling/obfuscating/astroturfing.


So no matter what, the "real news" and the "showed up on CNN" position is a reasonable place to discuss from and the most stable foundation. What's infuriating is the occasional idiot who looks at the Comey firing or Flynn's cavalcade of shenanigans and states that there's nothing going on there. Those people are an affront to even stupidity and should be on your ignore list already.
Click to expand...

The most reasonable of takes
 
N

NH Apache

Banned
I think Rosenstein got worked and I think the briefing will be an explanation of the timeline for the request rather than a history of Comey.

Rosenstein was held in pretty high regard prior to nomination. I think he was asked to analyze the validity of Comey continuing in his current position. He blindly ended his analysis finalizing that he should be fired, ultimately the right decision, but wrong timing.

Rosenstain immediately protested following the firing. Calling for a full Senate briefing on this is more likely to show everything related to the request and how the process went down rather than a history on Comey.

I don't think anything will come of the briefing other than a immunizing effect for Rosenstein, which is why he is calling the briefing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Elon Musk vs Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court
Social Opinion News
12
1K
AJUMP23 replied
CNN: Kelly called Comey to express anger over firing; considered resigning as SoHS
2
53
11K
Opto replied
AP: Trump likely to reveal this week whether secret tapes exist
2 3 4
163
18K
Angelus Errare replied
Former FBI Director James Comey gets a $2 million book deal
41
5K
rjinaz replied
Press secretary: Justice Department ‘should certainly look at’ prosecuting Comey
2
85
12K
lazygecko replied
Top Bottom