US attorney moves to charge Andrew McCabe for lying about Hillary probe

mick fry · Feb 16, 2020

Andre0087 said: ↑

I see you brushing off a lot of these accusations and it's really sad to see. Shoot straight and say what's on your mind, quit deflecting. Trump has attempted to appoint judges that have no trial experience and I believe there was even one that never deposed someone before. He's using the power of his office to do what he wants regardless of the legality and Republicans here do what you do best, avoid and deflect.
Click to expand...

My post was regarding you thinking that guy was a judge and I’m the one deflecting. Ok...

Andre0087 · Feb 16, 2020

mick fry said: ↑

My post was regarding you thinking that guy was a judge and I’m the one deflecting. Ok...
Click to expand...

We have a conman as president, anything's possible in this land of opportunity. That's how bad this administration is...who's deflecting again? I've already mentioned the quality of said judges appointed but don't hear anything but crickets from you or anyone else on the matter.

mick fry · Feb 16, 2020

Andre0087 said: ↑

We have a conman as president, anything's possible in this land of opportunity. That's how bad this administration is...who's deflecting again? I've already mentioned the quality of said judges appointed but don't hear anything but crickets from you or anyone else on the matter.
Click to expand...

Quality of judges? So what makes a quality judge in your opinion?

Andre0087 · Feb 16, 2020

mick fry said: ↑

Quality of judges? So what makes a quality judge in your opinion?
Click to expand...

One that has trial experience, that has deposed a witness before, and one that doesn't have a past of racial, gender, or sexual orientation discrimination.

mick fry · Feb 16, 2020

Andre0087 said: ↑

One that has trial experience, that has deposed a witness before, and one that doesn't have a past of racial, gender, or sexual orientation discrimination.
Click to expand...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/9/20962980/trump-supreme-court-federal-judges
I’m going to go back to being crickets now.

Andre0087 · Feb 16, 2020

mick fry said: ↑

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/9/20962980/trump-supreme-court-federal-judges
I’m going to go back to being crickets now.
Click to expand...

Yea, I'm wasting my time, go back to ignore/deceive/deflect mode.

Andre0087 · Feb 16, 2020

It’s hard to keep up with all of President Donald Trump’s questionable nominees for lifetime federal judgeships.

There was Brett Talley, a 36-year-old lawyer and former paranormal activity investigator who tweeted about Hillary Clinton being “rotten” and said his solution to the Sandy Hook shooting massacre “would be to stop being a society of pansies and man up.” Matthew Petersen, also a 36-year-old lawyer, couldn’t answer basic questions about law in his confirmation hearing and was basically shamed into withdrawing. Jeff Mateer, a 52-year-old lawyer who described transgender children as evidence of “Satan’s plan” and endorsed gay conversion therapy, was eventually withdrawn too.

None of those nominees made it through the Senate confirmation process. But a growing number of Trump’s court picks are slipping through despite earning a rare and embarrassing “not qualified” rating by the nonpartisan American Bar Association. And Republicans are ready to confirm even more of them.

This week alone, two of Trump’s court picks who earned the abysmal ABA rating ― Sarah Pitlyk and Lawrence VanDyke ― inched forward. Pitlyk, a 42-year-old lawyer who previously clerked for then-D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday on a party-line vote. VanDyke, a 46-year-old lawyer who is the former solicitor general of both Nevada and Montana, got his confirmation hearing on Wednesday.

“Mr. VanDyke’s accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules,” reads the brutal ABA review of VanDyke. “There was a theme that the nominee lacks humility, has an ‘entitlement’ temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trum...senate-republicans_n_5dbc7351e4b0fffdb0f674af

Commodore · Feb 16, 2020

good summary of what McCabe did, none of which is disputed by anyone

he's a caricature of a ladder climbing careerist dirtbag

unauthorized leaks, lying under oath, diverting resources to cover it up

If that were you or I and McCabe decided he didn't like us, we would be looking at prison time (just ask General Flynn, who testified in support of a woman who brought a sexual discrimination charge against McCabe. McCabe ordered two agents to interview Flynn and then hit him with a perjury charge).

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/why-wasnt-andrew-mccabe-charged/

In October 2016, McCabe directed his counsel, Lisa Page, to leak investigative information about the FBI’s Clinton Foundation probe to reporter Devlin Barrett, then of the Wall Street Journal. The leak had the effect of confirming the existence of the investigation, something the FBI is supposed to resist. While his high rank gave him the power to authorize such a disclosure if it were in the public interest, the IG found that McCabe’s leak “was clearly not within the public interest.”

In fact, the Bureau’s then-director, James Comey, had tried to keep the Clinton Foundation probe under wraps, refusing to confirm or deny its existence even to the House Judiciary Committee. Comey had been right to stay mum: Public revelation would have harmed the probe and thrust the FBI deeper into the politics of the then-imminent 2016 presidential election, in which Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate and her investigation by the Bureau was an explosive campaign issue.

Notwithstanding these concerns, according to Horowitz’s report, McCabe orchestrated the leak “to advance his personal interests” — to paint himself in a favorable light in comparison to Justice Department officials amid an internal dispute about the Clinton Foundation probe (specifically, about the Obama Justice Department’s pressure on the Bureau to drop it). As the IG put it: “McCabe’s disclosure was an attempt to make himself look good by making senior department leadership . . . look bad.”

McCabe’s account has been contradicted by Comey, a witness who is otherwise sympathetic to him and hostile to the Trump Justice Department, and whose actions — like his — are being examined in prosecutor John Durham’s probe of the Trump-Russia investigation. Comey’s testimony is directly at odds with McCabe’s version of events, and the IG painstakingly explained why the former director’s version was credible while his deputy’s was not. (Comey was, nevertheless, exceedingly complimentary of McCabe after the IG report was published.)

Page is regarded by McCabe backers as key to his defense. She reportedly told the grand jury that, because McCabe had authority to approve media disclosures, he had no motive to lie about the leak. That’s laughable. McCabe did serially mislead investigators, so plainly he had some reason for doing so. But even putting that aside, the IG’s conclusion was not that McCabe lacked authority to leak; it was that he lacked a public-interest justification for exercising that authority. He leaked for self-promotion purposes, and then he lied about it because it was humiliating to be caught putting his personal interests ahead of the Bureau’s investigative integrity. That said, Page’s account does illuminate a problem for prosecutors: It’s tough to win a case when your witnesses are spinning for the defendant. (Oh, and have you seen Page’s tweet toasting McCabe in the aftermath of the news that the DOJ had closed the investigation?)

Barrett’s Journal article appeared on October 30, 2016. The very next day, McCabe deceived Comey about it, indicating that he had not authorized the leak and had no idea who its source was. In Comey’s telling, credited by the IG, McCabe “definitely” did not acknowledge that he had approved the leak.

Thereafter, the FBI’s Inspection Division (INSD) opened an investigation of the leak. On May 9, 2017, McCabe denied to two INSD investigators that he knew the source of the leak. This was not a fleeting conversation. McCabe was placed under oath, and the INSD agents provided him with a copy of Barrett’s article. He read it and initialed it to acknowledge that he had done so. He was questioned about it by the agents, who took contemporaneous notes. McCabe told the agents that he had “no idea where [the leaked information] came from” or “who the source was.”

On July 28, 2017, McCabe was interviewed by the IG’s office — under oath and recorded on tape. In that session, he preposterously claimed to be unaware that Page, his FBI counsel, was directed to speak to reporters around the time of the October 30 Journal report. McCabe added that he was out of town then, and thus unaware of what Page had been up to. In point of fact, McCabe had consulted closely with Page about the leak. A paper trail of their texts and phone contacts evinced his keen interest in Page’s communications with Barrett. Consequently, the IG concluded that McCabe’s denials were “demonstrably false.”

Clearly concerned about the hole he had dug for himself, McCabe called the IG’s office four days later, on August 1, 2017, to say that, shucks, come to think of it, he just might have kinda, sorta told Page to speak with Barrett after all. He might even have told her to coordinate with Mike Kortan, then the Bureau’s top media liaison, and follow-up with the Journal about some of its prior reporting.

As the IG observed, this “attempt to correct his prior false testimony” was the “appropriate” thing for McCabe to do. Alas, when he was given an opportunity to come in and explain himself, he compounded his misconduct by making more false statements while under oath: In an interview with investigators on November 29, 2017, McCabe purported to recall informing Comey that he, McCabe, had authorized the leak, and that Comey had responded that the leak was a good idea.

These were quite stunning recollections, given that the deputy director had previously disclaimed any knowledge about the source of the leak. But McCabe took care of that little hiccup by simply denying his prior denial. That is, he insisted that he had not feigned ignorance about the leak when INSD interviewed him on May 9. Indeed, McCabe even denied that the May 9 interview had been a real interview. To the contrary, he claimed that agents had casually pulled him aside at the conclusion of a meeting on an unrelated topic, and peppered him out of the blue with a question or two about the Journal leak. As General Flynn could tell you, that sort of thing can be tough on a busy top U.S. government official . . . although Flynn did not get much sympathy for it when McCabe was running the FBI.

Again, the IG concluded that McCabe’s version of events was “demonstrably false.”

As an old trial lawyer, I’d be remiss if I failed to rehearse my favorite part of the IG’s report — the part that would tell a jury everything they needed to know about good ol’ Andy McCabe.

Again, the Journal story generated by McCabe’s leak was published on October 30, a Sunday. Late that afternoon, McCabe called the head of the FBI’s Manhattan office. Why? Well . . . to ream him out over media leaks, that’s why. McCabe railed that New York agents must be the culprits. He also made a similar call to the Bureau’s Washington field office, warning its chief to “get his house in order” and stop these terribly damaging leaks.

It is worth remembering McCabe’s October 30 scolding of subordinates when you think about how he later claimed that, on the very next day, he’d freely admitted to his superior, Comey, that he himself was the source of the leak. Quite the piece of work, this guy: To throw the scent off himself after carefully arranging the leak, McCabe dressed down the FBI’s two premier field offices, knowing they were completely innocent, and then pretended for months that he knew nothing about the leak.

This is the second-highest-ranking officer of the nation’s top law-enforcement agency we’re talking about, here.
Click to expand...

DoJ keeps charging people like decorated combat veteran Michael Flynn with lying to investigators, and lets their own people slide for the same or worse behavior. People aren't going to put up with that forever.

Sweet Lou 4 2 · Feb 17, 2020

Commodore said: ↑

good summary of what McCabe did, none of which is disputed by anyone

he's a caricature of a ladder climbing careerist dirtbag

unauthorized leaks, lying under oath, diverting resources to cover it up

If that were you or I and McCabe decided he didn't like us, we would be looking at prison time (just ask General Flynn, who testified in support of a woman who brought a sexual discrimination charge against McCabe. McCabe ordered two agents to interview Flynn and then hit him with a perjury charge).

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/why-wasnt-andrew-mccabe-charged/

DoJ keeps charging people like decorated combat veteran Michael Flynn with lying to investigators, and lets their own people slide for the same or worse behavior. People aren't going to put up with that forever.

Click to expand...

And yet despite all the conspiracy theories and right-wing propaganda against him, Barr couldn't even dig up anything to go after him with. How is it possible he did all these things wrong but Trump's people can't press any kind of charge against him???

Could it be you are being misled?

Amiga · Feb 17, 2020

Commodore said: ↑

good summary of what McCabe did, none of which is disputed by anyone

he's a caricature of a ladder climbing careerist dirtbag

unauthorized leaks, lying under oath, diverting resources to cover it up

If that were you or I and McCabe decided he didn't like us, we would be looking at prison time (just ask General Flynn, who testified in support of a woman who brought a sexual discrimination charge against McCabe. McCabe ordered two agents to interview Flynn and then hit him with a perjury charge).

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/why-wasnt-andrew-mccabe-charged/

DoJ keeps charging people like decorated combat veteran Michael Flynn with lying to investigators, and lets their own people slide for the same or worse behavior. People aren't going to put up with that forever.

Click to expand...

The OIG reports said it was within his power to release to the media, but it was a policy violation. How can it be an unauthorized leak when it’s within his power?

The DOJ did go after prosecuting him but couldn’t secure a grand jury to move forward. A grand jury process has no defense presence and only require a simple majority. It should be relatively easy but they failed. Are they so incompetent or is it simply because they have extremely weak legal basis for the case?

NewRoxFan · Feb 17, 2020

txtony said: ↑

The OIG reports said it was within his power to release to the media, but it was a policy violation. How can it be an unauthorized leak when it’s within his power?

The DOJ did go after prosecuting him but couldn’t secure a grand jury to move forward. A grand jury process has no defense presence and only require a simple majority. It should be relatively easy but they failed. Are they so incompetent or is it simply because they have extremely weak legal basis for the case?
Click to expand...

but... but, the daily caller said...

Sweet Lou 4 2 · Feb 17, 2020

txtony said: ↑

The OIG reports said it was within his power to release to the media, but it was a policy violation. How can it be an unauthorized leak when it’s within his power?

The DOJ did go after prosecuting him but couldn’t secure a grand jury to move forward. A grand jury process has no defense presence and only require a simple majority. It should be relatively easy but they failed. Are they so incompetent or is it simply because they have extremely weak legal basis for the case?
Click to expand...

@Commodore disappears

Invisible Fan · Feb 17, 2020

txtony said: ↑

The OIG reports said it was within his power to release to the media, but it was a policy violation. How can it be an unauthorized leak when it’s within his power?

The DOJ did go after prosecuting him but couldn’t secure a grand jury to move forward. A grand jury process has no defense presence and only require a simple majority. It should be relatively easy but they failed. Are they so incompetent or is it simply because they have extremely weak legal basis for the case?
Click to expand...

Deep state lies!

Buck Turgidson · Feb 17, 2020

Sweet Lou 4 2 said: ↑

@Commodore disappears
Click to expand...

Only until Randian blog #5 gives him more material to post here.

Forums

US attorney moves to charge Andrew McCabe for lying about Hillary probe

mick fry Member

Andre0087 Member

mick fry Member

Andre0087 Member

mick fry Member

Andre0087 Member

Andre0087 Member

Commodore Contributing Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

Buck Turgidson Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

US attorney moves to charge Andrew McCabe for lying about Hillary probe

mick fry Member

Andre0087 Member

mick fry Member

Andre0087 Member

mick fry Member

Andre0087 Member

Andre0087 Member

Commodore Contributing Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member Supporting Member

Amiga 10 years ago... Supporting Member

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member Supporting Member

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

Buck Turgidson Member

Share This Page

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member