Trump says he was going to fire Comey regardless of the DoJ's recommendation. Really?

[OldLady]

You have an assistant director who does the job until the top spot is filled. Nothing lost here at all.

Well, the first member of the "peanut gallery" has spoken.

Look at your ratings ***** and look at mine.

Well, were my point for being here to garner the approbation of total strangers, that might matter to me; however, I am not, so it does not.

The point is less then 50 percent of all your statements cannot garner one agree. That puts you outside normal more then half the time. In short you do not fit the board.

Does ANY conservative "fit" this board? I consider anyone with such inflated ratios as yours to be quacks.

 

[Siete]

You have an assistant director who does the job until the top spot is filled. Nothing lost here at all.

Well, the first member of the "peanut gallery" has spoken.

Look at your ratings ***** and look at mine.

Well, were my point for being here to garner the approbation of total strangers, that might matter to me; however, I am not, so it does not.

The point is less then 50 percent of all your statements cannot garner one agree. That puts you outside normal more then half the time. In short you do not fit the board.

or it could be less than 30% of the voters believe Trump is doing a good job ?


The latest figures include 27% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 46% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19. (see trends).


-19 ... down one from Friday.

oooopsie.

 

[DarkFury]

You have an assistant director who does the job until the top spot is filled. Nothing lost here at all.

Well, the first member of the "peanut gallery" has spoken.

Look at your ratings ***** and look at mine.

Well, were my point for being here to garner the approbation of total strangers, that might matter to me; however, I am not, so it does not.

The point is less then 50 percent of all your statements cannot garner one agree. That puts you outside normal more then half the time. In short you do not fit the board.

Does ANY conservative "fit" this board? I consider anyone with such inflated ratios as yours to be quacks.

No I worked for it like many others here. It is a judgement by your peers.

 

[OldLady]

Donald trump stated in his interview with Lester Holt that he'd decided to fire Comey even before he'd met with the Atty General and the Deputy Atty General. Maybe that's true; maybe it's not.

• If it's true --> Just how profoundly inept (?), indolent (?), ignorant (?) must a POTUS be to have planned to fire the FBI Director and not have at the same time have a replacement individual to appoint on the same day -- to say nothing of a week later -- as firing the existing one?
• If it's not true --> It's yet another lie Trump has told and for which having simply said nothing would have been a better tack.

While the remark/lie itself is minor, that the POTUS doesn't yet have a replacement named is not. Given that the remark is in the scheme of things, of little import, one must ask why anyone, much less a POTUS struggling to overcome legitimate concern -- from outside and within his own party -- that he's a paltering dolt, would deign to make such a trivial comment. If it's true, the man clearly has no idea of what's worth saying and what's not. If it's not true, we have yet another illustration of just how petty a mental midget the man is. None of that is what we need in a POTUS, but it is apparently what Trumpkins think the country deserves.

He's just telling us HE decided, not the AG's office. HE's the boss. Get it now?

Well, then, he could have said that in some way that was as direct and clear as you have, and yet he did not, and neither did he, the boss, think far enough ahead to have someone identified to nominate to replace Comey. Failing to anticipate obvious "next steps" and have them covered when one acts is not not what a good boss does. People don't need "just anyone" as a boss; they, countries, need competent bosses. Repeatedly we receive the evidence of Trump's own words and deeds that he is incompetent.

I think it's true that he couldn't start interviewing or even "vetting" candidates prior to firing Comey because of all the leaks in the WH these days. He is hopefully offering an appointment by Friday, when he leaves for Timbuktu. That's not too bad. What I'm hoping is that it will NOT be a politician or one of his rich friends. We need someone neutral but experienced with investigations and the law. Not a Trump lackey.

 

[DarkFury]

Donald trump stated in his interview with Lester Holt that he'd decided to fire Comey even before he'd met with the Atty General and the Deputy Atty General. Maybe that's true; maybe it's not.

• If it's true --> Just how profoundly inept (?), indolent (?), ignorant (?) must a POTUS be to have planned to fire the FBI Director and not have at the same time have a replacement individual to appoint on the same day -- to say nothing of a week later -- as firing the existing one?
• If it's not true --> It's yet another lie Trump has told and for which having simply said nothing would have been a better tack.

While the remark/lie itself is minor, that the POTUS doesn't yet have a replacement named is not. Given that the remark is in the scheme of things, of little import, one must ask why anyone, much less a POTUS struggling to overcome legitimate concern -- from outside and within his own party -- that he's a paltering dolt, would deign to make such a trivial comment. If it's true, the man clearly has no idea of what's worth saying and what's not. If it's not true, we have yet another illustration of just how petty a mental midget the man is. None of that is what we need in a POTUS, but it is apparently what Trumpkins think the country deserves.

He's just telling us HE decided, not the AG's office. HE's the boss. Get it now?

Well, then, he could have said that in some way that was as direct and clear as you have, and yet he did not, and neither did he, the boss, think far enough ahead to have someone identified to nominate to replace Comey. Failing to anticipate obvious "next steps" and have them covered when one acts is not not what a good boss does. People don't need "just anyone" as a boss; they, countries, need competent bosses. Repeatedly we receive the evidence of Trump's own words and deeds that he is incompetent.

I think it's true that he couldn't start interviewing or even "vetting" candidates prior to firing Comey because of all the leaks in the WH these days. He is hopefully offering an appointment by Friday, when he leaves for Timbuktu. That's not too bad. What I'm hoping is that it will NOT be a politician or one of his rich friends. We need someone neutral but experienced with investigations and the law. Not a Trump lackey.

I hope he picks a real hard ass lawman.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Donald trump stated in his interview with Lester Holt that he'd decided to fire Comey even before he'd met with the Atty General and the Deputy Atty General. Maybe that's true; maybe it's not.

• If it's true --> Just how profoundly inept (?), indolent (?), ignorant (?) must a POTUS be to have planned to fire the FBI Director and not have at the same time have a replacement individual to appoint on the same day -- to say nothing of a week later -- as firing the existing one?
• If it's not true --> It's yet another lie Trump has told and for which having simply said nothing would have been a better tack.

While the remark/lie itself is minor, that the POTUS doesn't yet have a replacement named is not. Given that the remark is in the scheme of things, of little import, one must ask why anyone, much less a POTUS struggling to overcome legitimate concern -- from outside and within his own party -- that he's a paltering dolt, would deign to make such a trivial comment. If it's true, the man clearly has no idea of what's worth saying and what's not. If it's not true, we have yet another illustration of just how petty a mental midget the man is. None of that is what we need in a POTUS, but it is apparently what Trumpkins think the country deserves.

He's just telling us HE decided, not the AG's office. HE's the boss. Get it now?

Well, then, he could have said that in some way that was as direct and clear as you have, and yet he did not, and neither did he, the boss, think far enough ahead to have someone identified to nominate to replace Comey. Failing to anticipate obvious "next steps" and have them covered when one acts is not not what a good boss does. People don't need "just anyone" as a boss; they, countries, need competent bosses. Repeatedly we receive the evidence of Trump's own words and deeds that he is incompetent.

I'm on your side, Xelor. I'm just guessing that was Trump's motivation for offering that second explanation.

There's no need to guess. Rosenstein's memo clearly recommends firing Comey but he was upset when it seemed the WH was putting the full weight of the decision on him, so Trump explained that he had already decided to fire Comey before he saw Rosenstein's recommendation.

 

[OldLady]

Donald trump stated in his interview with Lester Holt that he'd decided to fire Comey even before he'd met with the Atty General and the Deputy Atty General. Maybe that's true; maybe it's not.

• If it's true --> Just how profoundly inept (?), indolent (?), ignorant (?) must a POTUS be to have planned to fire the FBI Director and not have at the same time have a replacement individual to appoint on the same day -- to say nothing of a week later -- as firing the existing one?
• If it's not true --> It's yet another lie Trump has told and for which having simply said nothing would have been a better tack.

While the remark/lie itself is minor, that the POTUS doesn't yet have a replacement named is not. Given that the remark is in the scheme of things, of little import, one must ask why anyone, much less a POTUS struggling to overcome legitimate concern -- from outside and within his own party -- that he's a paltering dolt, would deign to make such a trivial comment. If it's true, the man clearly has no idea of what's worth saying and what's not. If it's not true, we have yet another illustration of just how petty a mental midget the man is. None of that is what we need in a POTUS, but it is apparently what Trumpkins think the country deserves.

He's just telling us HE decided, not the AG's office. HE's the boss. Get it now?

Well, then, he could have said that in some way that was as direct and clear as you have, and yet he did not, and neither did he, the boss, think far enough ahead to have someone identified to nominate to replace Comey. Failing to anticipate obvious "next steps" and have them covered when one acts is not not what a good boss does. People don't need "just anyone" as a boss; they, countries, need competent bosses. Repeatedly we receive the evidence of Trump's own words and deeds that he is incompetent.

I'm on your side, Xelor. I'm just guessing that was Trump's motivation for offering that second explanation.

There's no need to guess. Rosenstein's memo clearly recommends firing Comey but he was upset when it seemed the WH was putting the full weight of the decision on him, so Trump explained that he had already decided to fire Comey before he saw Rosenstein's recommendation.

That's giving Trump a lot of credit.

 

[toobfreak]

Repeatedly we receive the evidence of Trump's own words and deeds that he is incompetent.

What an odd way to take things.

Trump was competent to create many businesses and real estate projects over 40 years successfully and turn nearly all of them highly profitable making $10,000,000,000.00.
Trump was competent to create a TV show so popular and successful that NBC reviled when he cancelled it.
Trump was competent to write a best selling book on success.
Trump was competent to have a gorgeous wife and a beautiful family so talented as to die for.
Trump was competent to run for the highest office in the world beating out sixteen other candidates that in any other year would have been golden choices.
Trump was competent to run against a world renown woman who had been an accomplished lawyer, First Lady of Arkansas and the Whitehouse, Senator of New York, former POTUS candidate and Secretary of State----- and still beat her handily. All with no prior experience setting huge attendance records at his speeches.
Trump was competent to do all of this with a small fraction of Hillary's staff, contributions and budget.
Trump has been competent enough that despite looming opposition by the media and democrats, still in his first 100 days to accomplish a string of successes that would be bragging rights for most!

And out of all of that, you conclude that he is incompetent just because you neither understand nor agree with how he does things. Who is really the incompetent then, him or YOU?

 

[Syriusly]

You have an assistant director who does the job until the top spot is filled. Nothing lost here at all.

Or you could do it the right way- and have already vetted possible candidates and be ready to name the replacement the same day you personally fire the old FBI director.

Remember- Trump didn't have the balls to face Comey when he fired him, and he didn't have the professionalism to ask him to resign, and he didn't have the forethought or planning to plan on his successor.

This was a typical Trump clusterfuck- in the process he ended up with most of his staff repeating the original story- and having Trump contradict them all.

 

[Syriusly]

Donald trump stated in his interview with Lester Holt that he'd decided to fire Comey even before he'd met with the Atty General and the Deputy Atty General. Maybe that's true; maybe it's not.

• If it's true --> Just how profoundly inept (?), indolent (?), ignorant (?) must a POTUS be to have planned to fire the FBI Director and not have at the same time have a replacement individual to appoint on the same day -- to say nothing of a week later -- as firing the existing one?
• If it's not true --> It's yet another lie Trump has told and for which having simply said nothing would have been a better tack.

While the remark/lie itself is minor, that the POTUS doesn't yet have a replacement named is not. Given that the remark is in the scheme of things, of little import, one must ask why anyone, much less a POTUS struggling to overcome legitimate concern -- from outside and within his own party -- that he's a paltering dolt, would deign to make such a trivial comment. If it's true, the man clearly has no idea of what's worth saying and what's not. If it's not true, we have yet another illustration of just how petty a mental midget the man is. None of that is what we need in a POTUS, but it is apparently what Trumpkins think the country deserves.

He's just telling us HE decided, not the AG's office. HE's the boss. Get it now?

Well, then, he could have said that in some way that was as direct and clear as you have, and yet he did not, and neither did he, the boss, think far enough ahead to have someone identified to nominate to replace Comey. Failing to anticipate obvious "next steps" and have them covered when one acts is not not what a good boss does. People don't need "just anyone" as a boss; they, countries, need competent bosses. Repeatedly we receive the evidence of Trump's own words and deeds that he is incompetent.

I'm on your side, Xelor. I'm just guessing that was Trump's motivation for offering that second explanation.

There's no need to guess. Rosenstein's memo clearly recommends firing Comey but he was upset when it seemed the WH was putting the full weight of the decision on him, so Trump explained that he had already decided to fire Comey before he saw Rosenstein's recommendation.

Yep- Trump was going to try to originally pin this on Rosenstein- and the Clinton email issue- but had really was just looking for an excuse because he wanted to fire Comey over the Russian investigation.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You have an assistant director who does the job until the top spot is filled. Nothing lost here at all.

Well, the first member of the "peanut gallery" has spoken.

Look at your ratings ***** and look at mine.

Well, were my point for being here to garner the approbation of total strangers, that might matter to me; however, I am not, so it does not.

The point is less then 50 percent of all your statements cannot garner one agree. That puts you outside normal more then half the time. In short you do not fit the board.

you do not fit the board.

Well, I am definitely not part of the USMB "echo chamber." As I noted, I do not seek the USMB membership's approbation; thus I have no expectation of obtaining it.

The value place on conformity, as show by your equating "normalcy" with conformity, with USMB opinion again illustrates my point about your being part of the board's "peanut gallery."

 

[DarkFury]

You have an assistant director who does the job until the top spot is filled. Nothing lost here at all.

Well, the first member of the "peanut gallery" has spoken.

Look at your ratings ***** and look at mine.

Well, were my point for being here to garner the approbation of total strangers, that might matter to me; however, I am not, so it does not.

The point is less then 50 percent of all your statements cannot garner one agree. That puts you outside normal more then half the time. In short you do not fit the board.

you do not fit the board.

Well, I am definitely not part of the USMB "echo chamber." As I noted, I do not seek the USMB membership's approbation; thus I have no expectation of obtaining it.

The value place on conformity, as show by your equating "normalcy" with conformity, with USMB opinion again illustrates my point about your being part of the board's "peanut gallery."

I ask now fellow usmb members!!¡
Does dark fury conform?


**** no!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Donald trump stated in his interview with Lester Holt that he'd decided to fire Comey even before he'd met with the Atty General and the Deputy Atty General. Maybe that's true; maybe it's not.

• If it's true --> Just how profoundly inept (?), indolent (?), ignorant (?) must a POTUS be to have planned to fire the FBI Director and not have at the same time have a replacement individual to appoint on the same day -- to say nothing of a week later -- as firing the existing one?
• If it's not true --> It's yet another lie Trump has told and for which having simply said nothing would have been a better tack.

While the remark/lie itself is minor, that the POTUS doesn't yet have a replacement named is not. Given that the remark is in the scheme of things, of little import, one must ask why anyone, much less a POTUS struggling to overcome legitimate concern -- from outside and within his own party -- that he's a paltering dolt, would deign to make such a trivial comment. If it's true, the man clearly has no idea of what's worth saying and what's not. If it's not true, we have yet another illustration of just how petty a mental midget the man is. None of that is what we need in a POTUS, but it is apparently what Trumpkins think the country deserves.

He's just telling us HE decided, not the AG's office. HE's the boss. Get it now?

Well, then, he could have said that in some way that was as direct and clear as you have, and yet he did not, and neither did he, the boss, think far enough ahead to have someone identified to nominate to replace Comey. Failing to anticipate obvious "next steps" and have them covered when one acts is not not what a good boss does. People don't need "just anyone" as a boss; they, countries, need competent bosses. Repeatedly we receive the evidence of Trump's own words and deeds that he is incompetent.

I'm on your side, Xelor. I'm just guessing that was Trump's motivation for offering that second explanation.

Fair enough. I've forsworn speculating upon and explaining Trump's mad remarks and deeds for unlike Lear, all there is to know about the man cannot be found in a text.

 

[OldLady]

Donald trump stated in his interview with Lester Holt that he'd decided to fire Comey even before he'd met with the Atty General and the Deputy Atty General. Maybe that's true; maybe it's not.

• If it's true --> Just how profoundly inept (?), indolent (?), ignorant (?) must a POTUS be to have planned to fire the FBI Director and not have at the same time have a replacement individual to appoint on the same day -- to say nothing of a week later -- as firing the existing one?
• If it's not true --> It's yet another lie Trump has told and for which having simply said nothing would have been a better tack.

While the remark/lie itself is minor, that the POTUS doesn't yet have a replacement named is not. Given that the remark is in the scheme of things, of little import, one must ask why anyone, much less a POTUS struggling to overcome legitimate concern -- from outside and within his own party -- that he's a paltering dolt, would deign to make such a trivial comment. If it's true, the man clearly has no idea of what's worth saying and what's not. If it's not true, we have yet another illustration of just how petty a mental midget the man is. None of that is what we need in a POTUS, but it is apparently what Trumpkins think the country deserves.

He's just telling us HE decided, not the AG's office. HE's the boss. Get it now?

Well, then, he could have said that in some way that was as direct and clear as you have, and yet he did not, and neither did he, the boss, think far enough ahead to have someone identified to nominate to replace Comey. Failing to anticipate obvious "next steps" and have them covered when one acts is not not what a good boss does. People don't need "just anyone" as a boss; they, countries, need competent bosses. Repeatedly we receive the evidence of Trump's own words and deeds that he is incompetent.

I think it's true that he couldn't start interviewing or even "vetting" candidates prior to firing Comey because of all the leaks in the WH these days. He is hopefully offering an appointment by Friday, when he leaves for Timbuktu. That's not too bad. What I'm hoping is that it will NOT be a politician or one of his rich friends. We need someone neutral but experienced with investigations and the law. Not a Trump lackey.

I hope he picks a real hard ass lawman.

That's okay by me, so long as he's not about to kiss Trump's ass.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, the first member of the "peanut gallery" has spoken.

Look at your ratings ***** and look at mine.

Well, were my point for being here to garner the approbation of total strangers, that might matter to me; however, I am not, so it does not.

The point is less then 50 percent of all your statements cannot garner one agree. That puts you outside normal more then half the time. In short you do not fit the board.

Does ANY conservative "fit" this board? I consider anyone with such inflated ratios as yours to be quacks.

No I worked for it like many others here. It is a judgement by your peers.

No I worked for it like many others here.

Wow. He actually worked to obtain strangers' affirmation. Talk about things that, for individuals not seeking elected office, are not worth having. Truly, dude. You really, really need to get out more and earn the approval of people who get to know you personally rather than merely as a posting avatar in an Internet forum.

 

[DarkFury]

Look at your ratings ***** and look at mine.

Well, were my point for being here to garner the approbation of total strangers, that might matter to me; however, I am not, so it does not.

The point is less then 50 percent of all your statements cannot garner one agree. That puts you outside normal more then half the time. In short you do not fit the board.

Does ANY conservative "fit" this board? I consider anyone with such inflated ratios as yours to be quacks.

No I worked for it like many others here. It is a judgement by your peers.

No I worked for it like many others here.

Wow. He actually worked to obtain strangers' affirmation. Talk about things that, for individuals not seeking elected office, are not worth having. Truly, dude. You really, really need to get out more and earn the approval of people who get to know you personally rather than merely as a posting avatar in an Internet forum.

People of real life bore me. I don't like to be bored. Your just a piss ant here and my guess is you will remain as such.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Donald trump stated in his interview with Lester Holt that he'd decided to fire Comey even before he'd met with the Atty General and the Deputy Atty General. Maybe that's true; maybe it's not.

• If it's true --> Just how profoundly inept (?), indolent (?), ignorant (?) must a POTUS be to have planned to fire the FBI Director and not have at the same time have a replacement individual to appoint on the same day -- to say nothing of a week later -- as firing the existing one?
• If it's not true --> It's yet another lie Trump has told and for which having simply said nothing would have been a better tack.

While the remark/lie itself is minor, that the POTUS doesn't yet have a replacement named is not. Given that the remark is in the scheme of things, of little import, one must ask why anyone, much less a POTUS struggling to overcome legitimate concern -- from outside and within his own party -- that he's a paltering dolt, would deign to make such a trivial comment. If it's true, the man clearly has no idea of what's worth saying and what's not. If it's not true, we have yet another illustration of just how petty a mental midget the man is. None of that is what we need in a POTUS, but it is apparently what Trumpkins think the country deserves.

He's just telling us HE decided, not the AG's office. HE's the boss. Get it now?

Well, then, he could have said that in some way that was as direct and clear as you have, and yet he did not, and neither did he, the boss, think far enough ahead to have someone identified to nominate to replace Comey. Failing to anticipate obvious "next steps" and have them covered when one acts is not not what a good boss does. People don't need "just anyone" as a boss; they, countries, need competent bosses. Repeatedly we receive the evidence of Trump's own words and deeds that he is incompetent.

I think it's true that he couldn't start interviewing or even "vetting" candidates prior to firing Comey because of all the leaks in the WH these days. He is hopefully offering an appointment by Friday, when he leaves for Timbuktu. That's not too bad. What I'm hoping is that it will NOT be a politician or one of his rich friends. We need someone neutral but experienced with investigations and the law. Not a Trump lackey.

That's not too bad.

I think you and I have differing expectations for the quality of performance demonstrated individuals in executive roles. In my mind, "not too bad" is still bad, and bad is always unacceptable. Its being so is one of the few things about which I feel comfortable saying "always."

What I'm hoping

Good on you. I had hope for a Trump presidency some three, nearly four now, years ago. Trump has dashed those hopes repeatedly over the past two years. I no longer have hope for the man or his presidency.

 

[OldLady]

Well, were my point for being here to garner the approbation of total strangers, that might matter to me; however, I am not, so it does not.

The point is less then 50 percent of all your statements cannot garner one agree. That puts you outside normal more then half the time. In short you do not fit the board.

Does ANY conservative "fit" this board? I consider anyone with such inflated ratios as yours to be quacks.

No I worked for it like many others here. It is a judgement by your peers.

No I worked for it like many others here.

Wow. He actually worked to obtain strangers' affirmation. Talk about things that, for individuals not seeking elected office, are not worth having. Truly, dude. You really, really need to get out more and earn the approval of people who get to know you personally rather than merely as a posting avatar in an Internet forum.

People of real life bore me. I don't like to be bored. Your just a piss ant here and my guess is you will remain as such.

One word, pissant.
We all have our reasons for being here; if earning a bunch of ratings is your thing, that's fine. However, I fail to see how you managed it, since looking at a typical thread, such as this one, you've got barely a rating on any of your posts. So how do you end up averaging more than one per post for every single post? Do you do it in the FZ, pm your friends and have a winner fest, or hire one of those "Clickers" or what? Or are you a hacker who can worm into the USMB system and give yourself an additional thousand or two agrees when no one is looking? Or WAIT, WAIT I KNOW!!!!! You've got a sock!!!! You come in and hit your posts using your sock account! Brilliant!

 

[DarkFury]

The point is less then 50 percent of all your statements cannot garner one agree. That puts you outside normal more then half the time. In short you do not fit the board.

Does ANY conservative "fit" this board? I consider anyone with such inflated ratios as yours to be quacks.

No I worked for it like many others here. It is a judgement by your peers.

No I worked for it like many others here.

Wow. He actually worked to obtain strangers' affirmation. Talk about things that, for individuals not seeking elected office, are not worth having. Truly, dude. You really, really need to get out more and earn the approval of people who get to know you personally rather than merely as a posting avatar in an Internet forum.

People of real life bore me. I don't like to be bored. Your just a piss ant here and my guess is you will remain as such.

One word, pissant.
We all have our reasons for being here; if earning a bunch of ratings is your thing, that's fine. However, I fail to see how you managed it, since looking at a typical thread, such as this one, you've got barely a rating on any of your posts. So how do you end up averaging more than one per post for every single post? Do you do it in the FZ, pm your friends and have a winner fest, or hire one of those "Clickers" or what? Or are you a hacker who can worm into the USMB system and give yourself an additional thousand or two agrees when no one is looking? Or WAIT, WAIT I KNOW!!!!! You've got a sock!!!! You come in and hit your posts using your sock account! Brilliant!

None of the above. Flame zone is fun for what it is but I am not a full time Tennant of there. 80 percent of my ratings come in politics. As for today I have collected about 30.. As for this thread it's at best second tier and I and at least one other are just slumming. It's Sunday so it's slow.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Donald trump stated in his interview with Lester Holt that he'd decided to fire Comey even before he'd met with the Atty General and the Deputy Atty General. Maybe that's true; maybe it's not.

• If it's true --> Just how profoundly inept (?), indolent (?), ignorant (?) must a POTUS be to have planned to fire the FBI Director and not have at the same time have a replacement individual to appoint on the same day -- to say nothing of a week later -- as firing the existing one?
• If it's not true --> It's yet another lie Trump has told and for which having simply said nothing would have been a better tack.

While the remark/lie itself is minor, that the POTUS doesn't yet have a replacement named is not. Given that the remark is in the scheme of things, of little import, one must ask why anyone, much less a POTUS struggling to overcome legitimate concern -- from outside and within his own party -- that he's a paltering dolt, would deign to make such a trivial comment. If it's true, the man clearly has no idea of what's worth saying and what's not. If it's not true, we have yet another illustration of just how petty a mental midget the man is. None of that is what we need in a POTUS, but it is apparently what Trumpkins think the country deserves.

He's just telling us HE decided, not the AG's office. HE's the boss. Get it now?

Well, then, he could have said that in some way that was as direct and clear as you have, and yet he did not, and neither did he, the boss, think far enough ahead to have someone identified to nominate to replace Comey. Failing to anticipate obvious "next steps" and have them covered when one acts is not not what a good boss does. People don't need "just anyone" as a boss; they, countries, need competent bosses. Repeatedly we receive the evidence of Trump's own words and deeds that he is incompetent.

I'm on your side, Xelor. I'm just guessing that was Trump's motivation for offering that second explanation.

There's no need to guess. Rosenstein's memo clearly recommends firing Comey but he was upset when it seemed the WH was putting the full weight of the decision on him, so Trump explained that he had already decided to fire Comey before he saw Rosenstein's recommendation.

That's giving Trump a lot of credit.

If you followed the news, you know that's exactly what happened. Rosenstein strongly recommended Comey be fired, but objected to the decision being attributed entirely to his memo. The next day the President stated that he had already decided to fire Comey before seeing Rosenstein's memo. If the President were not trying to mollify Rosenstein, why else would he have said he had already decided to fire Comey?

Here's Rosenstein's letter; note that all the reasons he gives to fire Comey are based on information available to everyone.


May 9, 2017

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

FROM: ROD J. ROSENSTEIN

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation's premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.

The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution.


It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.


In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his "goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it." But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then - if prosecution is warranted - let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.

Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would "speak" about the decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or "conceal" it. "Conceal" is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.


My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Ford, wrote that "it is not the bureau's responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted." Silberman believes that the Director's "Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt the bureau will ever completely recover." Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton, joined with Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had "chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department's traditions." They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to "preserve, protect and defend" the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, observed the Director "stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion" because the FBI director "doesn't make that decision."


Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision "an error in judgement." Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama, said the Director’s decision"was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season." Holder concluded that the Director "broke with these fundamental principles" and "negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI."

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual events as"real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation," that is "antithetical to the interests of justice."

Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President H.W. Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was"astonished and perplexed" by the decision to "break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections." Ayer's letter noted, "Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department's widely-respected, non-partisan traditions."

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.

Rosenstein's Case Against Comey, Annotated