Subscribe via RSS Feed

The Further Adventures of James Comey, Straight-Shooting Man of Nonpartisan Integritude

[ 160 ] January 13, 2017 |


“You asked for a miracle, Donald?”

James Comey, who threw the election to Donald Trump by repeatedly violating norms and regulations to falsely imply that Hillary Clinton was a crook, refuses to be candid about the FBI’s investigation Trump’s relationship with the Russians even in private:

Embattled FBI director James Comey has refused to clarify whether his organization is investigating Donald Trump’s ties to Russia in a closed briefing on Friday for members of Congress, angering legislators who recall his high-profile interjections about Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Guardian has learned.

Comey’s lack of candor in a classified setting, intended to brief members on the intelligence agencies’ assessment that Russia interfered in the election to benefit Trump, follows a public rebuff this week to senators seeking clarification.

In that earlier hearing, Comey said he would “never comment” on a potential FBI investigation “in an open forum like this”, raising expectations among some attendees of Friday’s briefing that Comey would put the issue to rest in a classified setting.

But according to sources attending the closed-door Friday morning meeting, that was not the case. As such, frustration with Comey was bipartisan and heated, adding to intense pressure on the director of the FBI, whose conduct in the 2016 election itself is now being investigated by an independent US justice department watchdog.

Even in post-parody America, this is astounding conduct.

Here’s the thing: Obama should fire Comey. He should explain exactly why he’s being fired. Every day Comey remains the FBI Director helps to normalize a stolen election. And if the alleged downside is that Trump could appoint a director who’s a mendacious hack who would let Republicans do whatever they want, I have some news: we already have one.


Comments (160)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. nemdam says:

    Still not giving up on my idea that Comey has been compromised. Not saying it’s likely, and extreme hackery is possible, but these events feel too explosive to be explained by mere partisanship.

    • Nobdy says:

      My thought too. It isn’t like an FBI director wouldn’t be a juicy target.

      I feel like a right winger suspecting that our whole government is being run by a shadowy conspiracy from Russia and feeling like my country won’t really be mine with the new president in charge!

      • smott999 says:

        Mine three.
        I mean, he was obviously compromised in that he could not control his rogue NYC office….but im talking Kompromat. From sources East of NYC.

      • UnderTheSun says:

        The latest dossier on Trump was fabricated by a senior ex-MI6 operator with the consent of the British government, who then proceeded to try and interest American media in publishing it before the election. Where are the protests about a foreign government interfering in the presidential election. Why no demands to investigate the British government’s involvement?

        • kvs says:

          Because the research firm was hired by Americans, droog.

          And the research indicates a foreign government was trying to compromise Trump and his staff.

          • UnderTheSun says:

            So why didn’t the research firm publish it themselves rather than have an ex-MI6 operator peddle it around various media outlets as though he was part of a “western intelligence organization”.
            And why did the British government have anything to do with him?

        • Nick056 says:

          This is fun!

          One: oppo research is not like fucking hacking into email. That’s theft and computer fraud. It’s a DNC break-in.

          Two: Shopping oppo research to the press is not like the FBI director breaking agency policy to slip the knife in that bitch Democrat by announcing that you have “new evidence” when … you haven’t even deduped the emails against your existing store to see if anything is actually new.

          But thanks for playing “obscure the coup” my man. Next round we can discuss how quid pro quo Trump foundation graft is not like “shadowy appearances” wherein someone asks for and does not receive State credentials as part of a mission to go to North Korea to free journalists or wherein Hillary Clinton tries to act on behalf of Nobel Prize winning micro finance economists.

          • UnderTheSun says:

            And your evidence that the Russians hacked into the DNC and Podesta e-mail servers is what exactly? All the official reports so far have included no technical details of how the hack was carried out.

            • Ithaqua says:

              And your evidence that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer is what, exactly? All the official reports so far have included no technical details of the precise chemical interactions that occur to cause this effect.

            • Nick056 says:

              You got me! I have nothing except … the judgment of the intelligence community, the actions and statements of Julian Assange, the conduct of Roger Stone, the history of Paul Manafort, statements of Trump himself (“hack the missing emails!”) and the context of the campaign, in which it was patently obvious Clinton was hostile to Putin while Trump was singularly obsequious and enamored of him.

              Other than that, nothing!

        • Chetsky says:

          AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Vlad, tell another! You’ve got me in stitiches!

          Wait wait, my sides! They’re in pain from laughing so hard!

    • David Hunt says:

      You have much less confidence in the power of partisan hackery than I do. Comey made his bones helping Ken Starr try to nail the Clintons. He finally got one of them and all he had to do was deliver the most powerful nation on Earth into the hands Euron Greyjoy Donald Trump.

    • addicted44 says:

      Yeah. I’ve disagreed with Scott’s well justified argument that Comey’s actions were intentional, but this story absolutely seals that I was completely wrong, and that Comey is indeed a hack. At best.

      • nemdam says:

        I didn’t believe they were intentional until we learned last week that the FBI agreed with the rest of the IC that Russia hacked the election in order to help Trump and hurt Hillary. When you believe that, yet still intervene to hurt Hillary, it’s seems irresponsible to not at least speculate that Comey has been compromised. Everything in the past week has only intensified this belief, and this article is by far the best evidence yet. Seriously, who in the HELL stonewalls in a classified intel briefing?

        • JR in WV says:

          Given his experience halping to try to ruin the Clintons years ago working for Ken Starr [a man who couldn’t control the football team at Baylor when he was President of that Baptist University] it could be as simple as that he has so much hate in his heart for Hillary Clinton he was willing to demolish the nation he swore to defend in order to keep Hillary from being able to continue her public service.

          Or he could be a stooge for the Russian leader, who can tell the difference?

  2. jim, some guy in iowa says:

    I wish I could see Obama doing just what you say he should do. It isn’t as if Comey or his replacement would be working for anyone but the czar after Obama’s gone

  3. Steve LaBonne says:

    Obama should have fired him on Nov. 9.

  4. tsam says:

    Ok, the pic and caption–FUCKING BRILLIANT.

  5. Joe_JP says:

    There is a good case that he deserves to be fired and it is good public policy. But, it is unclear that — until this obviously blatant case — Comey was merely “a mendacious hack who would let Republicans do whatever they want” & that he would be one under Trump. This sort of in for an inch, in for a mile argument is a tad bit much with the additional problem of not being necessary.

    [Also, I don’t recall a strong consistent — phrase it this way since you can easily find dissent on such nominations — opposition to Comey from the left when he was nominated. It adds to my general idea that any strong criticism of Obama here comes off a tad after the fact.]

    • jim, some guy in iowa says:

      maybe the left should have put up a bigger fuss about Comey. On the other hand maybe Obama should have learned from the 1990s and named Republicans to jobs like Ag Secretary and Commerce instead of FBI director or Defense Secretary, just to be different

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      I can’t paste the link easily, but I criticized the appointment at the time.

      As for the argument that Comey may not be a partisan hack, you can’t possibly be serious.

      • pillsy says:

        He could be just a spineless idiot who’s easily bullied not just by House Republicans, but also his own subordinates.

        There’s really a wide range of gross character defects and outright pathologies that could explain his behavior.

        • Scott Lemieux says:

          But this doesn’t answer why he only responds to pressure from one side.

          • pillsy says:

            Because Republicans know how to hold a grudge and get payback, and Democrats will do no such thing in order to prove how they’re above such petty political concerns.

            I mean, there’s dumb and spineless, and then there’s literally being a houseplant.

        • jim, some guy in iowa says:

          the thing I come back to is that Comey worked for Ken Starr back in the 90s. It was absolute foolishness for Obama to with one hand name Hillary Clinton Secretary of State and the other name Comey to the FBI directorship- and I’m aware that Comey stood up to the Bush admin, but that doesn’t make up for his previous gig. But this goes back to Obama believing his own press that he was going to *transcend* partisan politics

      • Joe_JP says:

        Comey may not be a partisan hack

        The argument I’m responding to is that he will “mendacious hack who would let Republicans do whatever they want” and yes, taken to such a needless extreme, I can so argue.

        As to opposition, if you were against it, fine, but don’t recall it being anywhere as strong as one gets now. There very well might have been some support for other candidates. A strong consistent sentiment on the left that he was a bad choice? Don’t recall it. Tried to look up the archives around when he was nominated or confirmed. Don’t see anything, though I found something where Erik Loomis said Booker is annoying. Might have been there somewhere.

        • jim, some guy in iowa says:

          why does it matter so much whether there was a great outcry from the left (and there should have been- I have believed Democrats naming Republicans to important cabinet level positions has been self-defeating since the 1990s but I have no platform)? Obama should have known better without being told

  6. Paul Campos says:

    As such, frustration with Comey was bipartisan and heated

    This proves he is non-partisan.

    Also too, he should be fired because Trump will probably replace him with another billionaire, who will spend his first six months reading How to Run a Federal Intelligence Agency For Dummies, which needless to say would be a big improvement on the status quo

  7. Murc says:

    Obama has proven repeatedly he won’t hold the powerful to account for their wrongdoing, especially if that wrongdoing is even remotely political. He refused to prosecute actual-factual war crimainals and people who stole our entire economy.

    Why would he change his tune for someone who did something so penny-ante as steal an election?

    • VCarlson says:

      This, while repeatedly showing no compunction about tossing the not-so-politically-powerful under the bus (ACORN & Shirley Sherrod, anybody?). He did seem to back off on this somewhat, but he has been remarkably consistent wrt the politically powerful.

  8. Lurking Canadian says:

    Not just fired. Can’t he be arrested for violating this Hatch Act I keep hearing about? I mean, maybe they couldn’t prove it, and maybe (ha!) Sessions would drop the charges, but … fuck, is it a nation of laws or isn’t it?

    • trollhattan says:

      but … fuck, is it a nation of laws or isn’t it?

      Sometimes, when a mommy fascist and a daddy fascist love one another very much….

    • I_am_the_law says:

      The second thing.

    • Sly says:

      The Hatch Act isn’t a criminal statute, its an administrative one. The only penalty it prescribes is removing the offender from their post, and even then the decision can be appealed to an independent review panel called the MSPB (one of the lesser-known agencies created in the wake of the Civil Service Commission being abolished in the late 70s).

  9. Alex.S says:

    So briefly-

    1. The nature of the American campaign system lends itself to foreign spying. Anyone who is not in the executive office already will need to build up a massive campaign staff in slightly under a year, which makes it easier for spies to attach themselves than at any other point. Campaigns do not have the resources (or time) to do the level of background checks that would be needed on everyone in the campaign.

    2. Because of that, it’s relatively easy for the FBI, CIA, NSA, or any other intelligence agency to open up a case on a campaign. It doesn’t take much for rumors to start. And because of the open-ended nature of investigations, a case never needs to be closed.

    3. Based on the precedent of the 2016 campaign, the FBI has announced that they can do whatever they want if they think it’s in the national interest. The definition of “national interest” appears to be “eh, whatevs, we think it’s important”.

    4. Therefore, any intelligence agency can, if they want, take down any Presidential candidate at any time. After all, these are respected non-partisan institutions!

  10. Alex.S says:

    In completely unrelated news,

    Israeli intelligence officials are concerned that the exposure of classified information to their American counterparts under a Trump administration could lead to their being leaked to Russia and onward to Iran, investigative journalist Ronen Bergman reported by Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot on Thursday.

    The intelligence concerns, which have been discussed in closed forums recently, are based on suspicions of unreported ties between President-elect Donald Trump, or his associates, and the government of Vladimir Putin in Moscow.

    • Murc says:

      The Israelis do not get to bitch about people gaining unauthorized access to classified US intel and spreading it to our enemies.


      • humanoid.panda says:

        Um, sorry, but that’s kinda silly. Israel tries to gain access to American secrets. America tries to get access to Israeli secrets. It’s all in the game.
        Having a compromises American president is something else.

        [That being said, the reporter behind this story is not very reliable]

      • Bloix says:

        American intelligence officials told the Israelis, Don’t give us your secrets unless you want the Iranians to have them.

        I don’t think that qualifies as Israelis bitching.

        “the Americans recommended that until it is made clear that Trump is not inappropriately connected to Russia and is not being extorted – Israel should avoid revealing sensitive sources to administration officials for fear the information would reach the Iranians.”,7340,L-4906642,00.html

    • AMK says:

      This explains why the Senate GOPers on the Intelligence Committee just decided to investigate Trump Russia links.

      Seriously. If the Russians want to pull strings in the American political process without all this fucking hassle, just have a few of their oligarchs buy US passports and start writing checks to the GOP.

  11. keta says:

    Holy Fuck.

    I guess we know what the gist of the next few Trump twiddles will be all about.

  12. ΧΤΠΔ says:

    When you’ve lost Chris Cillizza

  13. urd says:

    The Further Adventures of Scott Lemieux, Obsessed with Comey’s Destruction of the Clinton Presidency

    Fixed the title of today’s installment in a never ending series of how Comey cost Clinton the election.

    • Morbo says:

      How does it feel to be more of a hack than Cillizza?

    • Murc says:

      Indeed, you are correct; Scott is obsessed with the topic.

      I would submit it is a topic eminently worth being obsessed about. I would further advocate to Scott, if he is reading this, that every single post should end with the sentence “James Comey stole the election for Donald Trump.”

      • urd says:

        Sure, let’s obsess over something that was a minor issue and only came into play because Clinton ran a poor campaign. Let’s also allow it to distract us from the fact that a bully, misogynist, and idiot defeated a career politician that was touted as being the most experienced candidate ever for the presidency.

        Guess I’m not okay with sweeping systemic issues plaguing the democratic party and instead of focusing on events that were hardly surprising based on past GOP presidential campaigns.

        • It was not a minor issue. It probably swung the election.

          If there is some other country you prefer to care about, go for it. My country that I care about is the United States of America.

          • urd says:

            It probably swung the election.

            Probably. Wow.

            Funny how it fails to seriously address the real problem that if Clinton had run a better campaign this wouldn’t be an issue. As I’ve said before, it’s like a sports team claiming about not winning because of the refs.

            By focusing on this issue, you almost ensure this type of thing will happen again. So I’m not really sure you do care about this country by continuing to bury your head in the sand regarding this matter.

            • Scott Lemieux says:

              Probably. Wow.

              Funny how it fails to seriously address the real problem that if Clinton had run a better campaign this wouldn’t be an issue.

              Now that is how you apply a double-standard, everyone.

            • howard says:

              one way to identify someone as not being worth taking seriously on election 2016 is the obsession with “if clinton had run a better campaign.”

              because, after all, the entire evidence of american political history is that if you don’t run a perfect campaign you can’t win.

              or maybe, now that i think about it, there are zero examples of such a beast, whereas the unique thing about this election was the fbi putting its thumb on the scales.

              • urd says:

                Another way to identify someone as not being worth taking seriously on this matter is if they conflate “run a better campaign” as being equal to “run a perfect campaign”.

                • addicted44 says:

                  Is there any campaign that could NOT have been better run?

                  Your statement that Clinton should have “run a better campaign” is almost absolutely worthless in of itself.

                  Especially when you add the fact that it’s extremely debatable whether the quality of campaign you run has any effect on the end results.

                  And that you are making this argument in 2016, after Trump ran what was universally acknowledged as a pathetic campaign, and Hillary ran what was, at the very worst, an average campaign, is amazing.

              • Tehanu says:

                And yet another way is to obsessively keep saying, “if you like to keep losing, you losing losers, you, and BTW did I mention that you’re all losers?” Half the trouble we’re in comes from the idea that losing something makes you “a loser” — that is, that one setback (or even more than one, or a big one) proves that you and your entire life are worthless. That’s Il Douche and his kind talking and I’m sick of it.

            • Bloix says:

              Why is the real problem? Isn’t the real problem that the election was stolen? Or is that just a side issue?

              • urd says:

                What is the real problem? The real problem is the democratic party has lost it’s way and in many key aspects has become GOP lite.

                The election was stolen? Voting was rigged? Voting machines were hacked? Really? I’d love to see some proof.

                • Scott Lemieux says:

                  in many key aspects has become GOP lite.

                  Hillary Clinton ran the most left-wing Democratic presidential campaign in decades, the Democratic Party is to the left of where it was in 2008 and far to left of where it was in 1992, and the 2016 election posited the widest ideological gap between the parties since the beginning of the New Deal if not Reconstruction. So your bare assertions about the One Magic Trick Clinton could have used to magically win the election are based on a transparently erroneous premise.

                • urd says:

                  I think you are having a hard time telling your left from your right. That’s what happens when you continually try to aim for the center.

                  The democrats have become more tied to the wealthy, to the corporations, and have piled more bureaucracy on average citizens. They have embraced the security state of Big Brother. And they have colluded with the republicans, or failed to fight them, on multiple fronts.

                  News flash: society and culture isn’t static. Using benchmarks from the past to demonstrate how “left” the party is today fails to take into account the values that are tied to those positions today. As an example: Are the democrats better today than in 1992 on LGBT issues? Sure, so is a majority of America. But even this approach has issues. Are the democrats better on racial issues now than in 1992 or 2008? Not really.

                  So spare me your speeches on how much more to the left the current democratic campaigns have been compared to the past. I look at the increased racial unrest, the increased income disparity, and the overall deterioration of our environment as facts against any “left-wing” resurgence of the democratic party. I look at a democratic party that is more concerned with it’s political position rather than taking risks and fighting for what is right. I see a party more focused on keeping its political powder “dry” than fighting for US citizens.

                • Scott Lemieux says:

                  And they have colluded with the republicans, or failed to fight them, on multiple fronts.

                  The idea that Dems are collaborating with Republicans more and/or fighting them less than they were 20 or 40 years ago might be the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard.

                • efgoldman says:

                  What is the real problem?

                  Too goddamned many feral cats.

                • urd says:

                  Funny you would say that when the enough democrats just colluded with the republicans to block the drug import bill…

                  Sucks when facts break through the fantasy you call a reality.

                • urd says:

                  Too many goddamned humans…

                • Tehanu says:

                  “…the increased racial unrest” is the Democrats’ fault? Are you out of your mind? IF there’s “increased” racial unrest, it’s because the goddam racists and bigots who voted for Trump* have never accepted, and continue not to accept, the very basis of the American experiment, the idea that ALL humans are equal. Large majorities of the black & Hispanic people in this country are NOT living in ghettos or members of crime gangs; they’re working and raising families just like everybody else, and it’s white Trump supporters who refuse to admit that — and to you, that’s because of the Democrats? Just what color is the sky in your world?

                  * (and I don’t care who they voted for in previous elections)

            • AttorneyAtPaw says:

              If she’d run a better campaign? That’s like justifying a no-charge decision against a speeding wrong-way driver who caused a collision, on the ground that it wouldn’t have happened had the victim had quicker reflexes.

        • Murc says:

          Sure, let’s obsess over something that was a minor issue

          James Comey acted to install Donald Trump. That is not a minor issue.

          and only came into play because Clinton ran a poor campaign.

          Clinton won by a wide margin. Her campaign had its share of missteps. It was not by any means poor.

          Every political campaign has its share of missteps. Not every political campaign involves the FBI director intervening in it to install his preferred candidate.

          Let’s also allow it to distract us from the fact that a bully, misogynist, and idiot defeated a career politician that was touted as being the most experienced candidate ever for the presidency.

          Not sure how this is relevant.

          • urd says:

            So James Comey rigged the votes to make sure Drumpf became president? You have facts that demonstrate Comey was able to see the future and plan what actions would win Drumpf the election?

            Much of that wide margin came from CA. In any case, the margin you reference is irrelevant for purposes of who becomes president. She lost the Electoral College which is what matters. She had more missteps than most campaigns. And this is not a democrat losing to a republican. This was a career democrat, that had the DNC favoring her in the primaries running against a buffoon who had no political or public service experience, and who the GOP was desperately trying to get rid of. I can’t think of a more lopsided contest. A contest she lost.

            Dirty tricks during political campaigns are hardly new. While this is may be the most extreme, it is not new nor should it come as a surprise as I said before.

            You’re not sure how someone who was the butt of jokes for even trying to run for president beating someone who was considered a shoe in is relevant to how poorly her campaign was run?

            • Bloix says:

              Oh, the hell with it. Let’s talk about how Ralph Nader didn’t swing the election to Bush instead.

              • urd says:

                Well, since he didn’t, not much to discuss.

                • (((Malaclypse))) says:

                  You are a profoundly stupid man.

                  I thought you would want to know.

                • urd says:

                  Ah, insults. The refuge of a losing argument.

                  You really should focus on your creative writing responses instead. I mean that in all honesty; it was really good.

                  Arguing factual matters, not so much. You get easily frustrated and throw out insults instead of evidence.

              • Tehanu says:

                Or how since California went so heavily for Clinton, those votes don’t really count because Californians aren’t “really” Americans. Or how “urd” left the “t” off his nym.

            • efgoldman says:

              She had more missteps than most campaigns.

              Of course. She kept tripping over feral cats that should have been killed.

            • Mike G says:

              Much of that wide margin came from CA.

              Here’s the “tell” of a bullshit artist.

              “Hey, they were just California votes, they aren’t as legit as REAL votes from other states.”

              • urd says:

                The only bullshit going on here is in your comment.

                “Hey, they were just California votes, they aren’t as legit as REAL votes from other states.”

                Please point to where I said anything remotely like that. This is something you pulled out of your own ass. A tell indeed.

                • Tehanu says:

                  Allow me to reference my comment (2:21 pm) just above. If more than one person thinks you said something, perhaps they’re right and you don’t actually know what you said:

                  Murc said:

                  Clinton won by a wide margin.

                  You replied:

                  Much of that wide margin came from CA.

                  Any normal person reading that response could — and did — easily conclude that you meant that the wide margin didn’t matter because it came from California. If that’s not what you meant, I suggest you learn to speak English.

          • Scott Lemieux says:

            Clinton won by a wide margin.

            In conditions that favored the Republican candidate. Even if you attribute all of the 4 or so points of overachievement to Trump being bad — which is actually plausible — that makes her an OK candidate, not a terrible one.

        • Abbey Bartlet says:

          that was touted as being the most experienced candidate ever for the presidency.

          This is of course inaccurate.

          • wjts says:

            It wasn’t universally true, but there were Clinton supporters who made that claim. Sady Doyle called her “the most qualified and experienced Presidential candidate in memory”.

            • Abbey Bartlet says:

              Most qualified and experienced to be President of the United States, yes, absolutely. As I read his comment, turd is trying to make it sound as though people claimed she was the most qualified and experienced as a candidate.

          • Murc says:

            This is of course inaccurate.

            … it is?

            I mean… Hillary Clinton has a credible claim to being the most experienced candidate ever to run for the Presidency. Certainly in the top five. She spearheaded major and enormous policy initiatives and tax forces when her husband was in both the Arkansas statehouse and in the White House, Senator, Secretary of State… a long career spanning over three decades.

            She might not be number one, but she’s way, way up there.

        • smott999 says:

          Urd your baby boy is now under investigation for doing pretty much exactly what Scott has been “obsessing” about, furthermore given he had explosive info about Trump all along, and sat on it favor of releasing a nothing burger about Weiner’s laptop , and tipping the election, would make it at least passingly likely that your boy Comey was Kompromatted out his AZZ.

          So please, go away. Or at least STFU.

      • tsam says:

        Well yeah but it’s over now Y SO SERIOUS?

      • Sly says:

        I would further advocate to Scott, if he is reading this, that every single post should end with the sentence “James Comey stole the election for Donald Trump.”

        Seconded, and I don’t even require that he go all Cato the Elder and write it in Latin.

    • Stag Party Palin says:

      I can’t understand why it has taken so long to put Urd in my pie filter. Better late than never.

    • efgoldman says:

      Fixed the title of today’s installment

      We should fix it to “kill all the feral cats.”

    • Bri2k says:

      I’m grateful that you so clearly demonstrate your “thoughtful” input should be ignored. It makes it much easier to read the threads. Your first initial is T isn’t it?

  14. Captain Oblivious says:

    James Comey has refused to clarify whether his organization is investigating Donald Trump’s ties to Russia

    Because it’s not.

  15. LosGatosCA says:

    A Republican president would have fired his Democratic FBI director in ——

    Oh, I see my error.

  16. glasnost says:

    I don’t think this is warranted. I don’t think James Comey’s reasons for not wanting to talk about this are pro-Trump in any way whatsoever. If it’s an ongoing investigation, i.e. they’re actually trying to collect evidence etc., then of course they don’t want to talk about it. Talking about it will allow it to get into the press, and that will just make whoever on Trump’s team is guilty get additionally tipped off.

    To put it another way – the announcement about the cache of emails, spineless and election-interfering though it was, was a dead wire. The emails weren’t going anywhere, and since he was just ass-covering and didn’t think they were going to amount to anything, there was no investigation to screw up.

    The more you think Trump is actually guilty, and the harder you’re trying to actually have an investigation, the more you would want to say no comment to any questions from anyone. Do you want the Trump administration to know how the FBI is going about investigating his team, really?

    Also, while I think Comey’s statements on HRC showed cowardice and partisan bias, you’re out of your mind to suggest that BO should fire him. Thank god BO isn’t a fucking idiot, and thus won’t do it. Leaking politically damaging accusations is something like one percent of what the security services of a nation are capable of doing to suppress political opposition. An FBI director appointed by Trump would bring the spectre of arbitrary detention of US Democratic Senators, House Reps, public officials, targeted surveillance, organized harassment, – an open door limited only by the courts, for now, and only what they find out about – from becoming a genuine police state.

    I don’t care how angry you are about this, you should take down this post – at this point, you’re actively pursuing a Jill Stein heighten the contradictions strategy. When Donald Trump appoints an FBI director, the chances of the literal, not figurative, end of American democracy rise by at least 200%. For the love of god, if you could stop actively working towards the further expansion of Donald Trump’s power, that would be great.

    • “I don’t care how angry you are about this, you should take down this post”

      What the everlasting f — oh. “Glasnost.” Ha, ha.

    • kvs says:

      It’s an interesting pretzel you’ve twisted to justify Comey repeatedly discussing a Clinton investigation while staying silent about Trump, comrade.

      • MyNameIsZweig says:

        Of course, that pretzel only holds together if you completely forget about Comey’s second bite at the EMAILZZZ apple, in which he absolutely and unequivocably DID comment on an ongoing investigation, and not – in Glasnost’s words – a “dead wire.”

        And even then, it’s still a pretzel made of bullshit.

    • TopsyJane says:

      For the love of god, if you could stop actively working towards the further expansion of Donald Trump’s power, that would be great.

      I think it would be great if Scott had that kind of pull with Obama. “Comey’s gotta go. Lemieux has spoken!”

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      “James Comey is refusing to brief members of Congress in private meetings because of a fifty-dimensional-chess campaign to indict the man he acted to put in the White House. I am not a crackpot.”

      • glasnost says:

        “Let’s give Donald Trump a gold-lettered invitation to appoint someone personally loyal to him, and ideologically pro-fascist, in place of a conventional Republican, at the head of America’s secret police, because it’s about sending a message! And I literally cannot imagine more intense domestic repression than insunuating letters to Congress! It’s unpossible that Donald Trump’s personal FBI Director could be worse? I have very good political judgment.”

        Edit: Maybe America’s republican-appointed judges should all resign too, so DJT can appoint their replacements! After all James Comey broke the law, and our court system did NOTHING! It’ll send a message! Fuck with us, and we’ll hurl the keys to our defensive fortifications literally into your lap in a spasm of rage!

        • Murc says:

          Let’s give Donald Trump a gold-lettered invitation to appoint someone personally loyal to him, and ideologically pro-fascist, in place of a conventional Republican,

          From all the evidence I’ve seen, Comey is in fact personally loyal to trump and ideologically pro-fascist.

          He rigged a Presidential election on Trump’s behalf. How much more personally loyal can you get?

        • efgoldman says:

          It’s unpossible that Donald Trump’s personal FBI Director could be worse? I have very good political judgment.”

          The Peach Pustule is completely within his rights to fire Comey and name a director, so this isn’t really much of an argument.

        • Scott Lemieux says:

          personally loyal to him…ideologically pro-fascist…conventional Republican

          But you repeat yourself.

  17. jim, some guy in iowa says:

    ooo, a couple of Trump’s fellow waterboys stopped in

  18. e.a.foster says:

    wouldn’t answer questions in a closed door meeting, wonder if he’d answer questions if Biden went and asked? No one is going to fire anyone at this late date. No one in office, who is leaving cares anymore. They are getting one with their lives.

    As to who if anyone will replace the guy, he may just be kept on. Its not like he hasn’t done Trump favours.

    We will just have to wait a few more days to see how it all plays out.

    I do wonder if in all of this goings on any one has thought to ask Trump’s wife how she feels about all of this or did she organize it?

  19. MDrew says:

    I would definitely call that accountability, if it happened. Thanks for this.

  20. […] it was against policy and precedent, and it was definitely biased toward Trump. We can see this in his current refusal to discuss the FBI’s investigation of the Trump-Russia issue with congress even in private. […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.