The FBI director is supposed to have a 10 year term. That went in after J. Edgar Hoover died. Nobody wanted another J. Edgar Hoover FBI Director for Life situation, but having the FBI director be a "pleasure of the President" appointment made it too political.
This makes Andrew G. McCabe acting FBI director. He's in the civil service, not a Presidential appointment. He was an FBI agent and worked his way up. From what little is available about him, he seems to be good at the job.[1] As civil service, he can only be fired for cause.
Appointing a new FBI director requires Congressional approval, and will be controversial.
Actually, not a 10 year term but a term limit of 10 years and apparently even that was waved for Mueller. Big difference. However, I think McCabe will be the acting FBI Director for the remainder of Trump's term which hopefully will be short. I can't imagine a Trump nomination getting past the Senate but then Republicans.
EDIT: I was mistaken. It is a 10 year term. Mueller was given a separate 2 year term.
I'm no fan of Comey either. This all seems very strange and is likely reaching a crisis point.
>As civil service, he can only be fired for cause.
I'm not clear on what "for cause" means for an acting director of the FBI. Wasn't the justification for firing Comey that he mishandled the Clinton email investigation? It looks blown out of proportion to me, but that might count as cause.
Comey was a political appointment rather than the guy who will temporarily replace him as Acting Director (who has civil service protection) and can't be dismissed as Acting Director, only replaced by appointing a new Director of the FBI.
The political heads can be fired by the president at-will.
I believe the parent is incorrect in that if he becomes the head, he can be fired for-cause.
I also believe this is only if it he is appointed head, not if he is just acting-head.
Historically, FBI heads have had near-unanimous approval. Comey was confirmed on a 93-1 vote. His predecessor, Muller, was originally appointed by Bush and confirmed by a 100-0 vote. 10 years later, he got another term under Obama and was confirmed by a 98-0 vote. All their predecessors were confirmed unanimously.
I wouldn't be too sure. Pence had to break the tie for DeVos and I don't even think they can count on him for the vote considering he's only a seat away from the Presidency.
Seemed to be confirmed as real, so here are letters being floated as from Trump, Sessions and Rosenstein firing Comey and blaming the Clinton investigation
Dear Director Comey:
I have received the attached letters from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the United States recommending your dismissal as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have accepted their recommendation and you are hereby terminated and removed from office, effective immediately.
While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.
It it essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission.
I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.
Dear Director Comey:
I have received the attached letters from
the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General
of the United States recommending your dismissal
as the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. I have accepted their
recommendation and you are hereby terminated and
removed from office, effective immediately.
While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on
three separate occasions, that I am not under
investigation, I nevertheless concur with the
judgment of the Department of Justice that you
are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.
It it essential that we find new leadership for
the FBI that restores public trust and confidence
in its vital law enforcement mission.
I wish you the best of luck in your future
endeavors.
Oh, wow, so this is where they are going. Call me cynical, but it sounds like a distraction tactic from the current investigation into Trump's campaign ties to Russian interests.
EDIT: adding to that thought, Trump's team had to add "although you've informed me that there's no investigation"... while Comey himself has said in public hearings there are investigations. Wow, this stinks to high heavens.
> EDIT: adding to that thought, Trump's team had to add "although you've informed me that there's no investigation"... while Comey himself has said in public hearings there are investigations. Wow, this stinks to high heavens.
He actually said "... that I am not under investigation...", quite different, so it doesn't actually contradict anything Comey said in the hearings.
This man cannot help making everything about him. If it was anyone else it would elicit a rueful shake of my head and a comment about a gross display of childishness and saying Na Na Na Na to the bullied kid. But as it comes from the president of the United States, it's terrifying.
We're so concerned that Comey might have messed up the election that we won, a victory that we remind people of at every available opportunity. Bad James Comey! Very naughty!
"Trump just fired the man leading a counterintelligence investigation into his campaign, on the same day that the Senate Intelligence commitee requested financial documents relating to Trump's business dealings from the treasury department that handles money laundering." -Comment from reddit that sums up how strange this is.
The man at the FBI leading the investigation into the Trump / Russia connection was fired upon recommendation from Sessions who said he was recusing himself from all Russia / Trump investigations.
To be clear, Sessions said he concurred in the recommendation of his deputy Rothstein, who is a life-long prosecutor. Plus, virtually every former Attorney General agreed that Comey made a terrible mistake in announcing the results of the Clinton investigation.
Trump also complained that senate rules were unfair to him and congratulated Erdogan on seizing more power and is meeting with Duterte. He just wants to be a strongman and is not afraid to remove obstacles.
Yeah, that was one of my first thoughts about this. I have no love lost for Comey but there's a huge conflict of interest here with Trump and I think the reasons for Trump firing Comey are not the reasons I would want him fired. Comey was doing a balancing act, playing one constituency against another.
It seems like Trump is purging everyone who might provide any level of oversight whatsoever.
James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Monday that he still has not seen any evidence of any kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian foreign nationals.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-N.C., asked if Clapper's prior statement was correct, when he said on NBC that there was "no evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. When asked if that is still accurate, Clapper said Monday, "it is."
On NBC weeks earlier, Clapper said, "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,' that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report."
Just so readers are aware, the Washington Examiner is a conservative leaning org. The "no evidence" quote was pulled from this sentence: "There was no evidence of that included in our report."[1] There is a difference between "not aware of evidence" and "no evidence".
From my quick skim, I would say that the report isn't about collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign but about how Russia's means and motives in interfering in the election.
The only person that is able to answer definitively whether the investigation into Trump and his administration has produced credible evidence of collusion with Russia was just fired by Trump today.
Clapper and Yates also testified yesterday that they weren't privy to the results of the FBI's ongoing counterintelligence investigation, which is where evidence of collusion would come from.
Yep. The great irony here is that Comey almost single-handedly got Trump elected with that late press release about Clinton being under investigation still.
The implication of this comment only holds if the replacement FBI Director drops the investigation. The FBI Director themselves are not conducting the investigation, but have instructed the investigation to be conducted. It stands that we should expect the investigation to continue in Comey's absence. Should it cease, this comment would gain merit.
The reasons cited for the dismissal appear valid on their face: the handling of the Clinton email investigation had a measurable impact on the election and perhaps could have been handled better.
> The implication of this comment only holds if the replacement FBI Director drops the investigation.
How can you possibly trust the authenticity of an investigation headed up by someone hand chosen by the person being investigated, who knows the person they pick will immediately be in charge of the investigation?
If Trump is truly innocent, this is literally the worst thing he could have ever done for himself. This action will form the basis for doubt in plenty of people who could otherwise have been convinced nothing happened.
How childish is it that they had to put in the termination letter something about "thanks for telling me three separate times there's no investigation ON ME"? It's almost like this administration is run by 8 year olds.
So you're saying you find it plausible that Trump fired Comey an excess of administrative zeal on Comey's part might have led to Clinton's loss of the election.
I might find your position more persuasive if Trump didn't display an almost-daily disregard for administrative norms and procedures. I highly doubt that his new nominee will be told to not obstruct any ongoing investigations.
This is the difference between soft and hard power. With hard power the investigation stops, with soft power it's deprived of resources and faces higher hurdles.
The structure of the FBI is created by the Director. To remove the Director of the FBI, is to essentially force a restructure of all the top agents and top management of the FBI. Those top agents run investigations.
If that's not an efficient way to stall an investigation, I don't know what is.
It isn't merely about dropping the investigation, it is also setting the tone. The investigation can be denied resources for years, or whatever the investigation reveals can be undermined. An investigation doesn't have to be dropped to be sabotaged.
sure, he bungled that during the election, but the reasons for dismissal are total nonsense given the timing. im sorry, you really dont find it suspicious? betting markets had comey at 95% change of being FBI director on 6/30 before 3 hours ago. this is a total shock to everyone, please dont act like this makes perfect sense.
~~ He also fired the federal judge who ruled against him in Hawaii. So it's not like this is new behavior. ~~
Don't worry though, this is fine.
Ed:
I'm likely misremembering bluster as taking action, since I can't find specific citations. So I retract the comment, and would strike through it (I don't like deleting text), but don't know if I can on HN.
He can't fire a federal judge. There is a due process for impeaching a federal judge from the bench. Neither can Department of Justice (which is part of the executive branch), it is one of the best preserved traditions of our Checks and Balances, despite some of rulings are not agreed by majority (do I have to bring up the stupid ruling of Judge Persky on the People vs Turner case). Therefore, we can't fire or replace a Supreme Court judge except the Congress.
You are probably mistaken that for the firing of the acting AOG Sally Yates for mandating Department of Justice to not to defend Trump's travel ban executive order during her tenure, and the termination of New York-based U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara who was known for going after Wall Street scandals (and who, according to Trump, did not return Trump's calls multiple calls).
--Edit--
I found [1] to be an interesting article on whether impeachment of a judge is limited to Congress.
You might be thinking of Preet Bharara, the US Attorney for the Southern District of NY which would have been in charge of prosecuting the Trump corp, who was fired abruptly by Trump after refusing to resign.
381 points, 171 comments, 1 hour ago; as of writing.
Why is this on the second page of HN, and not pole position? I assume/hope that there is some mechanism that stops new content from dominating other content too rapidly.
Yeah, what the heck? This one needs to be discussed, and it's directly relevant to Hacker News. The rule of law is critical for anyone interested in new business formation.
I believe flags push content from the front page. I went to check Lists > Active to see if there was an HN thread on this, because I expect politics to get flagged off the front page of Hacker News.
(Granted, I just think this is "politics" because there's been several events I've expected would end any normal president, but haven't, so...I just really don't know anymore)
It does seem strange that it's down so low. I can understand the general argument that some mainstream news isn't sufficiently hacker-oriented, but the goings-on at the FBI seem quite relevant to the community.
IIRC there's admin mechanisms for ensuring that less HN-niche-specific content doesn't get overwhelmed by more general news. Basically weighting things by how relevant it is to the overall vision for what HN's content should be.
Because this does not need to be posted on HN or even should be. However you stand on this issue doesn't matter. HN is not a site for political discussions. Go to Reddit if you want that.
What is HN for? I thought it was intellectual discourse and news with potential ramifications that affect the population at large.
I hope you don't answer with "tech" because there are certainly non-technical stories here. And I also hope you don't answer with "science" because there are non-scientific stories as well.
I was just about to write this exact comment. Thank you for doing this and saving me the effort! At the time of writing, this should have been #2 on HN.
Lets just call a spade a spade...this is emergent Facism.
Lots of definitions, but lets go with Britt's[0] 14 point test where I would come up with at least plasuible evidence for 13 of 14 just off the top of my head.
1 - MAGA
2 - Yeah...and for the rule of law/courts
3 - "but her emails" / Mexican rapists / Obama / etc.
4 - for years...since Reagan. This isn't new but it keeps getting worse
5 - "Grab her by the pussy"
6 - working on it, undermining trust in the media and centralizing oneself as the only source of real news is close
7 - yup
8 - Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, more and more...
9 - Oh yeah, agressively look at the EPA efforts under trump.
10 - Yup (Lets talk about Mitch Daniels amongst others)
11 - Yup...[1]
12 - "Lock her up"
13 - I mean...absolutely.[2][3]
14 - borderline...no proof, one could play with definitions here but an ongoing effort.
I'm pretty sure the customary reply from the MAGA camp will be that these are all political appointees, and serve at the President's pleasure.
All that is formally true. But it doesn't make it any less uncanny that such a person would be fired at the very moment he ramps up an investigation into Trump's business activities.
That argument only flies early in the administration, like the first 14 days. We're at day 110+ (I'm not counting). This was done immediately after Comey talked to congress about an investigation into the administration. This can lead to nothing less than an independent commission into Trump.
It's astounding Comey was supposedly fired for misrepresenting the Clinton email thing (by grossly overstating the wrongdoing) and yet they follow-up with "and go after Clinton!!!". I'd comment on the mental gymnastics but it doesn't appear anyone on that page is capable of basic reasoning.
Say what you want about the politics, but it's inarguable that Comey, whether he wanted to or not, had become a partisan lightning rod for both sides. The unbiased credibility of the FBI was at stake with Comey at the helm, and this is probably a good move for the country.
I have to agree with this, and I want to believe that was the needle Comey was threading. I am concerned, however, that his tone in the last hearing (eg. "mildly nauseous", Abedin email forwarding mistakes, immigrant investigation mistakes, etc.) was so flippant that he was almost asking to be fired. By design or by accident, he's departing more independent now than ever.
The FBI was investigating the president for colluding with a hostile state to influence the election and aid them against the interests of the US. This is the worst thing to happen to the country since Watergate or longer.
Nixon tried to cover up what were, by comparison, activities of little to no consequence. He didn't even need the extra intel on the Democrats. He already had the election in the bag.
Trump on the other hand, is under investigation for possible collusion with the nation's primary adversary.
Yeah you can tell the Trump-Russia connections are not a quixotic quagmire by how the stories continue to be filled with weasel words and spend 100% of their column inches not presenting any evidence at all.
Comey was leading an investigation into his campaign and was fired by Sessions who was forced to recuse himself from the investigation after outcries of corruption. You think it's good for the country for him for Comey to be replaced with Trump's replacement?
... depending on who replaces him. If we are going by previous appointments (Jeff Sessions) we could get a complete partisan hack undermining the FBI for political gain.
Your point is not without merit, but this was an abrupt firing rather than a regretful request for resignation. I believe it would be a mistake to judge this by the normal standards of administrative decision-making.
i agree he fucked up, but it strains credulity to think that the timing of this has anything to do with that. so, your first point is correct, but its not a good move for the country because, in all likelihood, its just a way for trump to protect himself from getting busted. i think you are blinded by partisanship if firing Comey now does not raise suspicion in you. if trump is guilty of money laundering / collusion / bribery / ??, which seems reasonably likely to me, it would be better for everyone if that came to light and was punished yes?
Yea dont forget, Many agents said they despised how comey trashed the reputation of the fbi.
He even said old friends at the fbi refused to shake his hands.
He muat have been fired to prevent a internal fbi mutiny.
Mods, please let this one live. This is big news and we can't ignore it. I don't care what the policies are about political stories. I also don't care if I can go somewhere else to read about it. I want to know what _this_ community's opinions are on the matter.
Readit News
This makes Andrew G. McCabe acting FBI director. He's in the civil service, not a Presidential appointment. He was an FBI agent and worked his way up. From what little is available about him, he seems to be good at the job.[1] As civil service, he can only be fired for cause.
Appointing a new FBI director requires Congressional approval, and will be controversial.
[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/na-la-fbi-deputy-director-2016...
EDIT: I was mistaken. It is a 10 year term. Mueller was given a separate 2 year term.
I'm no fan of Comey either. This all seems very strange and is likely reaching a crisis point.
I'm not clear on what "for cause" means for an acting director of the FBI. Wasn't the justification for firing Comey that he mishandled the Clinton email investigation? It looks blown out of proportion to me, but that might count as cause.
I believe the parent is incorrect in that if he becomes the head, he can be fired for-cause. I also believe this is only if it he is appointed head, not if he is just acting-head.
Deleted Comment
It's not supposed to be a political job.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/why-can-president-trump-can-f...
Deleted Comment
Trump: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_apTsDXoAAVKYn.jpg
AG Sessions: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_apUYrXgAAihp2.jpg
Deputy AG Rosenstein: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_apVImXcAIKhfm.jpg
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
EDIT: adding to that thought, Trump's team had to add "although you've informed me that there's no investigation"... while Comey himself has said in public hearings there are investigations. Wow, this stinks to high heavens.
He actually said "... that I am not under investigation...", quite different, so it doesn't actually contradict anything Comey said in the hearings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-comey-f...https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/09/us/politics/d...
Looking corrupt as hell? Most certainly.
It seems like Trump is purging everyone who might provide any level of oversight whatsoever.
Dead Comment
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-N.C., asked if Clapper's prior statement was correct, when he said on NBC that there was "no evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. When asked if that is still accurate, Clapper said Monday, "it is."
On NBC weeks earlier, Clapper said, "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,' that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-clapper-still-no-evi...
[1] https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/05/09/parroting-t...
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3254229/ICA-2017-...
From my quick skim, I would say that the report isn't about collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign but about how Russia's means and motives in interfering in the election.
Does this imply that there was evidence and he did not include it?
Lack of knowledge of evidence != no evidence.
Dead Comment
The reasons cited for the dismissal appear valid on their face: the handling of the Clinton email investigation had a measurable impact on the election and perhaps could have been handled better.
How can you possibly trust the authenticity of an investigation headed up by someone hand chosen by the person being investigated, who knows the person they pick will immediately be in charge of the investigation?
If Trump is truly innocent, this is literally the worst thing he could have ever done for himself. This action will form the basis for doubt in plenty of people who could otherwise have been convinced nothing happened.
I might find your position more persuasive if Trump didn't display an almost-daily disregard for administrative norms and procedures. I highly doubt that his new nominee will be told to not obstruct any ongoing investigations.
If that's not an efficient way to stall an investigation, I don't know what is.
I think everyone can easily think of another scenario where the implication of the original comment still holds true.
Want to take a stab?
Would there be any collaboration between the FBI and Senate Intelligence committee?
Dead Comment
~~ He also fired the federal judge who ruled against him in Hawaii. So it's not like this is new behavior. ~~
Don't worry though, this is fine.
Ed:
I'm likely misremembering bluster as taking action, since I can't find specific citations. So I retract the comment, and would strike through it (I don't like deleting text), but don't know if I can on HN.
You are probably mistaken that for the firing of the acting AOG Sally Yates for mandating Department of Justice to not to defend Trump's travel ban executive order during her tenure, and the termination of New York-based U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara who was known for going after Wall Street scandals (and who, according to Trump, did not return Trump's calls multiple calls).
--Edit--
I found [1] to be an interesting article on whether impeachment of a judge is limited to Congress.
[1]: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/removing-federal-judges-...
Deleted Comment
Why is this on the second page of HN, and not pole position? I assume/hope that there is some mechanism that stops new content from dominating other content too rapidly.
If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
(Granted, I just think this is "politics" because there's been several events I've expected would end any normal president, but haven't, so...I just really don't know anymore)
It's mainstream politics.
I hope you don't answer with "tech" because there are certainly non-technical stories here. And I also hope you don't answer with "science" because there are non-scientific stories as well.
Being a regular lurker, I completely see and agree with your points.
http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking-really...
Preet Bharara investigates Trump's cabinet: Fired by the Trump administration
Director Comey Investigates Trump's cabinet: Fired by the Trump administration
Lots of definitions, but lets go with Britt's[0] 14 point test where I would come up with at least plasuible evidence for 13 of 14 just off the top of my head.
1 - MAGA
2 - Yeah...and for the rule of law/courts
3 - "but her emails" / Mexican rapists / Obama / etc.
4 - for years...since Reagan. This isn't new but it keeps getting worse
5 - "Grab her by the pussy"
6 - working on it, undermining trust in the media and centralizing oneself as the only source of real news is close
7 - yup
8 - Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, more and more...
9 - Oh yeah, agressively look at the EPA efforts under trump.
10 - Yup (Lets talk about Mitch Daniels amongst others)
11 - Yup...[1]
12 - "Lock her up"
13 - I mean...absolutely.[2][3]
14 - borderline...no proof, one could play with definitions here but an ongoing effort.
[0] https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/how-the-stupid-pa...
[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/r-reporters-barred-from-china...
[3] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/19/524765086/...
All that is formally true. But it doesn't make it any less uncanny that such a person would be fired at the very moment he ramps up an investigation into Trump's business activities.
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=comey...
Deleted Comment
Nixon tried to cover up what were, by comparison, activities of little to no consequence. He didn't even need the extra intel on the Democrats. He already had the election in the bag.
Trump on the other hand, is under investigation for possible collusion with the nation's primary adversary.
He muat have been fired to prevent a internal fbi mutiny.