James Comey Fired 11 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,846 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,506 Posts

37 Threads

#1 1 year ago

What a coincidence!

A few hours after the news of grand jury subpoenas in the prosecution of Michael Flynn leaked, the man charged with investigating the President of the United States, is fired by the President of the United States.

The firing was immediately met with suspicion and disdain from both sides of the aisle, with several Republican senators saying they were troubled by the timing of the firing. Additionally, the White House has been unable to substantiate the firing, providing numerous incoherent explanations and reasons.

Mr. Comey wasn't told of his firing directly, instead having to learn of it through TV. The White House didn't bother providing advance warning to the FBI headquarters either, resulting in major confusion and potential security risks as the federal police suddenly stood without a director.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,815 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,996 Posts

6 Threads

#2 1 year ago

And to make sure the irony isn't lost on anyone Trump invites, on the same day, the Russian ambassador and Henry Kissinger, Nixon's secretary of state.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,313 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,143 Posts

5 Threads

#3 1 year ago

You'd think there'd be a principle where you can't be in charge of people who have the power to investigate you.

I mean, even with work. There are reporting systems that I'm not allowed to be in charge of because I'm in charge of systems that report on the same thing and you need to be able to check them off against each other without conflicts of interest being a concern on the part of the people who control them. And that's like a thousand times less serious than this royal shit-show.




Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,846 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,506 Posts

37 Threads

#4 1 year ago

In much the same way you trust someone with a gun to not shoot you, you trust the President to not unduly fire the heads of national security. 

This has only happened once before, in the Clinton years. Though William Session was dismissed under very different circumstances. He was fired due to ethical concerns, and there wasn't an active investigation into potential treason. 

This is more like the criminal firing the cop investigating him. 




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,313 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,143 Posts

5 Threads

#5 1 year ago
"Serio"In much the same way you trust someone with a gun to not shoot you, you trust the President to not unduly fire the heads of national security.

That's... kinda not how trust works though? 'Trust but verify' isn't just a pithy saying, or an obvious contradiction. Taken to its extreme; that you verify every instance; it's nonsense, but in more sane interpretations it's quite insightful: The level of trust that can exist within a system is dependent upon the presence of reasonable redress for grievance. You trust people with a gun not to shoot you because there are consequences for them shooting you. If anyone could shoot any other person down, and that would be the end of it - their families wouldn't seek vengeance, the police wouldn't come after you - you'd shoot anyone you knew had a gun down on sight, because killing them first would be the only safety left to you.

Indeed in instances where the presence of reasonable redress for grievance has been weakened with relation to lethal violence, lethal violence has tended to escalate rather rapidly. Families having long standing squabbles involving the use of lethal force, for instance. Gang violence where you can't be sure who belongs to which gang and the long-term interests of those involved are limited vs immediate gratification.

It's the absence of trust that allows trust to exist. Or, phrased slightly differently, without the ability to test trust and recognise its presence and punish its absence. Without some sort of antibody.... trust is just an invitation for people to screw you over.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,313 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,143 Posts

5 Threads

#6 1 year ago
"Serio"In much the same way you trust someone with a gun to not shoot you, you trust the President to not unduly fire the heads of national security.

That's... kinda not how trust works though? 'Trust but verify' isn't just a pithy saying, or an obvious contradiction. Taken to its extreme that you verify every instance, it's nonsense, but in more sane interpretations it's quite insightful: The level of trust that can exist within a system is dependent upon the presence of reasonable redress for grievance. You trust people with a gun not to shoot you because there are consequences for them shooting you. If anyone could shoot any other person down, and that would be the end of it - their families wouldn't seek vengeance, the police wouldn't come after you - you'd shoot anyone you knew had a gun down on sight, because killing them first would be the only safety left to you.

Indeed in instances where the presence of reasonable redress for grievance has been weakened with relation to lethal violence, lethal violence has tended to escalate rather rapidly. Families having long standing squabbles involving the use of lethal force for instance.

It's the absence of trust that allows trust to exist. Or, phrased slightly differently, without the ability to test trust and recognise its presence and punish its absence. Without some sort of anti-body.... trust is just an invitation for people to screw you over.




Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,846 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,506 Posts

37 Threads

#7 1 year ago

Firing a director of the FBI is not without consequences. Consequences don't have to be legal in nature.  One consequence is that there's now even more division in the Republican party, and there are bipartisan calls for an independent investigation of the entire administration. These calls existed before, but were mostly limited to the Democrats.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,313 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,143 Posts

5 Threads

#8 1 year ago

Mmm, we'll see whether anything actually happens or whether it stays being calls. It's hard to be convinced by a non-systematised means of sanction that - so far - just goes, 'Well, we might talk about maybe doing something.'

You know? Talk's cheap. If he doesn't get hurt over it, he's got away with it.




Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,846 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,506 Posts

37 Threads

#9 1 year ago

Regardless, the consequences are clear now. The United States government has lost the trust of the FBI. The President was supposed to visit the FBI HQ in an attempt to "smooth things over" after the firing of Comey. The Bureau outright told the White House that the President would not be welcome at the FBI, and Andrew McCabe - acting director - has contradicted the White House's statements on the investigation into collusion.

In fact, McCabe has vowed not to update the White House any further on the investigation, and warned them that any attempts to interfere with the probe will result in the Senate being notified.

In addition, Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who has been put as half the reason Comey was fired by the White House, has vehemently distanced himself from the statements by the White House - even threatening to resign. It's within his power - and entirely possible - that he could appoint a special counsel to handle the investigation, but time will tell.




FileTrekker Über Admin

I'm spending a year dead for tax reasons.

267,270 XP

15th December 2002

36 Uploads

22,456 Posts

1,700 Threads

#10 1 year ago
"Serio"Regardless, the consequences are clear now. The United States government has lost the trust of the FBI. The President was supposed to visit the FBI HQ in an attempt to "smooth things over" after the firing of Comey. The Bureau outright told the White House that the President would not be welcome at the FBI, and Andrew McCabe - acting director - has contradicted the White House's statements on the investigation into collusion.

Such a great way to run a country.

But like Nem says, why is it permitted for someone to investigate their boss, effectively? Like all internal investigations, which is what this effectively is, it should be conducted by an impartial - and independent - body.


Danny King | Community Manager | GameFront.com



  • 1
  • 2