monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Just did. Don't be naïve.

As I said, don't be naïve. Clearly a Trump attempt to blunt the investigation and bring it under his control so he can kill it.

As I said, don't be naïve. Clearly a Trump attempt to blunt the investigation and bring it under his control so he can kill it.

TO REPEAT FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME, SINCE YOU SEEM UNABLE TO PROCESS THE TRUTH. TRUMP LOST THE ELECTION BY NEARLY THREE MILLION VOTES. THOSE SURE LOOK AND SOUND LIKE NAZI RALLIES IN THE THIRTIES.

One intelligence official who works on Russian espionage matters said they were more determined than ever to pursue such cases. Another said Comey’s firing and the subsequent comments from the White House are attacks that won’t soon be forgotten. Trump had “essentially declared war on a lot of people at the FBI,” one official said. “I think there will be a concerted effort to respond over time in kind.

Posting pix of Trump crowds and somehow implying they deny the FACT that the election repudiated his agenda is the BS.

Despite the antidemocratic Electoral Collegfe, the people DID NOT support Trump, and that is undeniable.

Before his firing, FBI Director James Comey had been set to testify at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on global threats Thursday morning. So the new acting FBI director, Andrew McCabe — who had been Comey’s deputy and is now in charge while the administration looks for a permanent replacement — stepped in instead.


Naturally, McCabe was asked several questions about the FBI’s Russia investigation and about Comey’s firing. And on several specifics, his answers contradicted the story the White House has been telling, and suggested the Russia probe is still full steam ahead, for now at least.

On Wednesday, White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed the Russia investigation was “probably one of the smallest things” the FBI had “going on their plate.” When asked about that comment, McCabe wouldn’t agree. “We consider it to be a highly significant investigation,” he said instead.

Sanders also said that the White House would “love” for the investigation “to be completed so that we can all move on.” But McCabe signaled he had no intention of doing so. “It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this investigation vigorously and completely,” he testified.

The administration has also claimed that rank-and-file FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey. Perhaps unsurprisingly (given that Comey was his boss), McCabe disputed that. “Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does to this day,” he said. “I can confidently tell you that the majority, the vast majority of FBI employees, enjoyed a deep and positive connection to Director Comey.”

McCabe also maintained that in his view, the Russia investigation was not being deprived of needed resources. Some press reports had suggested that Comey had asked for more resources for the investigation before he was fired, but McCabe said he wasn’t aware of that and it didn’t fit with what he knew about how those requests were made. “I believe we have the adequate resources to do it, and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately," he testified.

And overall, McCabe maintained that the investigation would continue despite Comey’s dismissal. “There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. Quite simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, from protecting the American people, from upholding the Constitution,” he said.

By around noon, however, the action had moved away from the public hearing, as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — who wrote the letter criticizing Comey that the White House cited in the firing — arrived on Capitol Hill to meet with senators in private.

McCabe also maintained that in his view, the Russia investigation was not being deprived of needed resources. Some press reports had suggested that Comey had asked for more resources for the investigation before he was fired, but McCabe said he wasn’t aware of that and it didn’t fit with what he knew about how those requests were made. “I believe we have the adequate resources to do it, and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately," he testified.

There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. Quite simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, from protecting the American people, from upholding the Constitution,” he said.

When the NYT publishes an assertion from an anonymous source who is "familiar with the situation," then, by God, we KNOW the truth. It can't be hidden or denied after that exemplary display of investigative journalism.

Acting FBI chief declines to say if Trump is under investigation

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The man who took over from ousted FBI Director James Comey declined to say on Thursday whether he ever heard Comey tell Donald Trump that the president was not a target of an investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.

In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe also pledged that he would inform the panel of any effort by the White House or others to interfere with the agency's probe into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

giujohn wrote:

She can't pick another director he has a 10-year term he can only be removed for cause either by the president or congress I say again for cause.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-prakash-bamzai-how-independent-is-the-fbi-director-20161102-story.html

Quote:

The Constitution says Comey, like all FBI directors, is something like an “at will” employee.

Quote:

That’s how the provision’s chief congressional sponsor, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.), understood the statute when the 10-year term was enacted in 1976. He observed that it imposed “no limitation on the constitutional power of the president,” who can remove the FBI director “at any time, and for any reason that the president sees fit.” And it’s how the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently interpreted the statute. The court said (albeit in passing in a decision on another issue) that, under Supreme Court precedent “such tenure provisions do not prevent the president from removing at will a director at any time during the director’s tenure.”

Byrd’s understanding, and the Court of Appeals’, is based on the constitutional principle, derived from Article II, Section 1, that the president supervises the executive branch of the government

Quote:

The president’s power in this regard is not a mere legal technicality but rather a central part of our constitutional framework. Every four years, the nation elects a chief executive, based on his or her platform, which may include promises about how the executive branch will direct its limited law enforcement resources. Those elections and promises would be a meaningless charade if an incoming president could not remove subordinates who refused to carry out the platform chosen by the people.

__________

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Sessions

Quote:

Although Sessions denied that he had acted improperly, he was pressured to resign in early July, with some suggesting that President Clinton was giving Sessions the chance to step down in a dignified manner. Sessions refused, saying that he had done nothing wrong, and insisted on staying in office until his successor was confirmed. As a result, President Clinton dismissed Sessions on July 19, 1993. Sessions was five and a half years into a ten-year term as FBI director; however, the holder of this post serves at the pleasure of the President.[7]

________

http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/james-comey-fired-fbi-director-hillary-clinton-email-private-server-influence-election/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2002/06/how_do_you_dump_the_fbi_director.html

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/10/how-independent-is-the-fbis-director/

Quote:

It is sometimes assumed that the President can oust an FBI director only “for cause” – that is, for some misconduct in office. But, as a Congressional Research Service study of the director’s office pointed out two years ago, “there are no statutory conditions on the President’s authority to remove the FBI director.”

The constitutional reality is that, if a government official is clearly placed within the Executive Branch, that official serves at the pleasure of the President, and can be fired “at will.” That history has had a recent illustration: earlier this month, the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., struck down part of a law by which Congress created a single director to lead the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau – a law that specified that the director could be removed by the President only “for cause.”

The appeals court simply deleted that phrase from the law, thus making the agency’s head subject to being fired by the President for any reason, or no reason at all.

The sun's output over the last solar cycle, when the temp rise has been most apparentt, declined to the level of a century ago (a slight decline, but a decline). No, it's not the sun. And NO indication another Maunder minimum is on the way. Bullshit "science" on your part, gooey.