After days of whisperings and different comments about his decision, yesterday President Donald Trump did an interview with Lester Holt from NBC and explained why he fired FBI Director James Comey.
In his interview he explains everything very well and later, his words become even more truthful when an article came out with evidence of his support.
Comey basically is a person with dangerous morals who has wished to be independent in no winning situation.
via Young Cons
In the article “JAMES COMEY’S CONSPICUOUS INDEPENDENCE: How the fired F.B.I. director’s greatest asset proved his undoing”, the magazine portrays Comey as a man with a ‘dangerous moral vanity’ with a desire to be seen as independent who had been put in a no-win situation.
The no-win situation originated – at least according to this article – from FBI investigators deciding that despite clear evidence that Hillary Clinton was guilty of “practices [that] were sloppy, irresponsible, and in defiance of State Department policies.”
This decision was extremely controversial. As Andrew C. McCarthy wrote in the National Review, “Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation.”
Yet Comey – likely motivated by a desire not to interfere with a presidential election – agreed with the FBI investigators’ recommendation.
This decision would lead to much criticism of Comey, which perhaps spurred his next controversial move, which came in October.
While investigating the sexting scandal involving Anthony Weiner, the spouse of Hillary aide Huma Abedin, the FBI came across classified emails that had been forwarded to him.
Comey felt he had to publicly reveal that the Clinton email investigation was not over.
Comey would justify his October 28th disclosure as a matter of moral obligation: he’d told two congressional committees that the investigation was complete, and plans to review the new material meant that that was no longer true. Before Congress last week, he characterized his decision as a choice between “speak” and “conceal.”
The decision to not charge Hillary as well as the decision to announce a reopening of an investigation into her actions earned Comey a reputation as a show-boater, but he insisted afterwards that he “did the right thing at each turn.”
Clinton wasn’t interviewed until July 2. That means a couple of months before the subject of the investigation was interviewed, Comey was plotting a course of action to make the decision not to recommend charges against her seem more palatable to the public. It’s clear in the piece that not only was there never any indication that Comey was going to recommend charges against her, but that Comey knew about an email sent by a Democratic operative who believed that Attorney General Loretta “Lynch would protect Clinton.” Comey never raised the issue with Lynch.
Comey’s claim to the moral high ground then crumbles.
It was his own fault. He was the one who made the decision not to charge her. He knew her shady businesses and did not care. These two and even more of his actions justify his firing.