https://youtube.com/watch?v=j_Wg8hceKbI
Charles Krauthammer laid out his immediate thoughts on the firing of James Comey:
It’s so amazing that I think we are only at the very beginning of the story. Here is what is so odd about it. According to the letter by the deputy attorney general, this is about something that occurred on July 5 [Comey’s recommendation to close the Clinton investigation without prosecution]. So we start out with something that is highly implausible. If that was so offensive to the Trump Administration, what you would have done is in the transition, you would have spoken with Comey and said “we are going to let you go.” That’s when a president could very easily make a decision to have a change. That not unprecedented. But to fire him summarily with no warning in the middle of May because of something that happened in July is almost inexplicable. Second, the reason ostensibly is (as you read in that latter) for doing something that you are not supposed to do, to usurp the attorney general, but second: to release all the information which was damaging to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump’s opponent. Do we really believe Donald Trump, after all these months, decided suddenly to fire this guy because he damaged Hillary back in July? Another implausible conjecture. We are left to believe that it might have something to do with the egregious mistake that Comey made in the testimony this week.
BAIER: Although it’s not mentioned in any of these letters.
KRAUTHAMMER It’s not mentioned anywhere. But if you are saying the ostensible reasons are implausible, then you are looking at something we have not heard about, and we end up with that very strange clause that you read in the letter from Trump to Comey. “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation,” — who has been talking about FBI investigations of Trump? This sort of explodes on us without any preparation, without any background. I suspect where this is going to go is to that clause.