I didn't lie about anything. If you want to dismiss my comments as unrelated to your study, that's your choice. It doesn't detract from their veracity.
Lawmakers Recommend Clinton, Comey, Lynch, McCabe for Criminal Referrals
- Thread starter Optionpro007
- Start date
You equated two different statements as one.
Saying Hillary has health issues doesn't equate as saying Hillary is in serious condition
Or saying US weapons ended up in the hands of jihadists isn't the same as Hillary personally approving sales of weapons to jihadists.
That's outright dishonesty and you attempted that only because it helped your boy win otherwise if CNN or NYT got even a comma wrong, you would jump all over crying about bias and fake news.
Does Hillary ever figure into anything ? She was SOS right? She did have some type of involvement, input correct? Was it intentional, an oversight, misjudgment or just apathy towards her position?
Can we take your usual argument that her lack of public vocalization and disapproval towards arm sales to anti-Gaddafi forces makes her complicit.
What ever.... Tis all just a word game.
And Trumps still President
Last edited:
Was the fake news saying she has some sort of a minor involvement or making unequivocal statement?
Oh and it's all just a word game. Trump said he want to date his daughter, can I go around saying that Trump fucked his own daughter? Because he didn't publicly deny it and he did express intentions to fuck her.
https://www.mediaite.com/online/donald-trump-wont-stop-joking-about-banging-his-daughter/
Works for you? All a word game right?
And Trump is still under investigation by his own DOJ.
The Hidden Bombshell in the McCabe Report
COMMENTARY
By Charles Lipson
RCP Contributor
April 23, 2018
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
The news reports have all focused on the FBI’s second-in-command leaking information to the Wall Street Journal – or authorizing subordinates to do so -- and then lying to investigators about it. This is big news, provided that account is borne out by a subsequent criminal indictment and successful prosecution.
The news will be even bigger if Andrew McCabe pursues a scorched-earth policy against his FBI superior, James Comey, who started the investigation of his deputy. Even a prosecutor fresh out of law school ought to be able to flip McCabe, who is facing serious jail time and thinks he has been betrayed. Such men are dangerous.
McCabe’s testimony is the best way to learn why the FBI and Department of Justice seemingly mishandled everything related to Hillary Clinton and how the intelligence agencies routinely funneled classified material on Donald Trump to friendly news agencies. If there was a high-level conspiracy to obstruct justice in the Clinton investigation or to use the so-called “Deep State” to smear Trump, McCabe would know a lot about it.
He could also respond to the stunning allegation recently leveled by Rep. Devin Nunes, the California Republican who chairs the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. On Sunday, Nunes told Fox News anchorwoman Maria Bartiromo, “We now know that there was no official intelligence that was used to start this investigation” of Trump’s aides. Nunes has read the classified materials, and he is making a deeply troubling allegation: An official investigation was mounted against an American presidential campaign with no official information to support it. If so, then U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies were weaponized for partisan purposes. McCabe would know about that, too, or know if it is untrue.
So would Peter Strzok, number two in the FBI’s counterintelligence section, and his paramour, Lisa Page. They may be talking to investigators already. That would be the most plausible explanation for why they haven’t been fired. As long as they are still on the government payroll, they are available to Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his team of investigators. There are also credible reports that Strzok’s boss, Bill Priestap, is now a cooperating witness. His name is rarely heard in public, but he would have a goldmine of information.
Although the public focus has been on McCabe’s reported deceptions, one of his presumably truthful comments about the Department of Justice may be even more significant. He said flatly that during the last months of the Obama administration, high-ranking Justice Department officials tried to kill the FBI’s on-going investigation into the Clinton Foundation. It happened in a phone call from DOJ’s third-highest official. Although unidentified in the report, the reference apparently is to Matthew Axelrod, whose title at the time was principal associate deputy attorney general.
Here’s what the inspector general report says:
McCabe told the OIG that on August 12, 2016, he received a telephone call from Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General regarding the FBI’s handling of the Clinton Foundation. McCabe said that the PADAG expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking “are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” McCabe told us that the conversation was “very dramatic” and he never had a similar confrontation like [that] call with a high-level Department official in his entire FBI career.
The 35-page report goes on to say that, by leaking that conversation, McCabe was trying “to make himself look good by making senior department leadership, specifically the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, look bad,” Well, yeah.
The same logic should apply to the misappropriated, classified memos James Comey leaked through his friend at Columbia Law School. Comey has said they were meant to force the appointment of a special counsel.
Those leaks do make senior law-enforcement leaders look bad. Actually, they make them look politically corrupt. The Horowitz report does not dispute that the DOJ call to McCabe took place or that it was meant to quash a legitimate FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation. If that is confirmed, it is a perversion of the Justice Department and its core function of unbiased application of the law.
We need to know if McCabe is telling the truth about direct political pressure to help the Clintons. If he is, we need to know who told the DOJ official to make that call. That explanation needs to be under oath before a grand jury, since it smells a lot like obstruction of justice and may involve his bosses. All of them are high-level political appointees.
According to a Wall Street Journal article, McCabe says he stood straight and tall and “reiterated past instructions to FBI agents that they were to keep pursuing the work within the authority they had.” But that’s based on McCabe’s self-serving leak. The FBI agents under his command say he was more like a supine munchkin, carrying out the wishes of Loretta Lynch’s people. FBI agents investigating the Clinton Foundation “were given a much starker instruction on the case: ‘Stand down,’” according to the Journal report. “When agents questioned why they weren’t allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come from the deputy director -- Mr. McCabe.” Again, that looks like possible obstruction of justice, done for explicitly partisan-political reasons.
Somebody’s lying here, and maybe more than one person. All these players are, or were, high-ranking officials at the FBI and DOJ. All of them ought to explain themselves before a grand jury. Since those proceedings are secret and indictments take time, we need public reports, and soon, from Horowitz’s office about these allegations. Was there a political attempt by the Department of Justice to protect the Clinton Foundation from an FBI investigation? Was Loretta Lynch herself involved? Was the White House or were the Clintons? Or did McCabe do all this on his own to protect the Clintons?
The OIG report does not dispute the statement, made in the Journal article, that the DOJ official “was ‘very pissed off,’ according to one person close to Mr. McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the Department [of Justice] considered dormant.” As you may have guessed, that “person close to Mr. McCabe” stared at him every morning when he shaved.
Unfortunately, it looks as though a lot of top officials at the FBI and DOJ were shaving the law, violating our basic constitutional promise that the rules must be applied fairly to everyone. That must include the powerful. Equal treatment must include the men and women who lead the agencies we entrust to collect sensitive information, keep it secret, and enforce the law. They are not exempt, like the king’s courtiers or the dictator’s oligarchs. There is spreading evidence that, in the final year of the Obama administration, our country’s top law-enforcement and intelligence officials failed in that most basic responsibility. We need to know if they did, and we need to know who put them up to it.
RCP contributor Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Chicago, where he is founding director of PIPES, the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security. He blogs at ZipDialog.com and can be reached at charles.lipson@gmail.com.
COMMENTARY
By Charles Lipson
RCP Contributor
April 23, 2018
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
The news reports have all focused on the FBI’s second-in-command leaking information to the Wall Street Journal – or authorizing subordinates to do so -- and then lying to investigators about it. This is big news, provided that account is borne out by a subsequent criminal indictment and successful prosecution.
The news will be even bigger if Andrew McCabe pursues a scorched-earth policy against his FBI superior, James Comey, who started the investigation of his deputy. Even a prosecutor fresh out of law school ought to be able to flip McCabe, who is facing serious jail time and thinks he has been betrayed. Such men are dangerous.
McCabe’s testimony is the best way to learn why the FBI and Department of Justice seemingly mishandled everything related to Hillary Clinton and how the intelligence agencies routinely funneled classified material on Donald Trump to friendly news agencies. If there was a high-level conspiracy to obstruct justice in the Clinton investigation or to use the so-called “Deep State” to smear Trump, McCabe would know a lot about it.
He could also respond to the stunning allegation recently leveled by Rep. Devin Nunes, the California Republican who chairs the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. On Sunday, Nunes told Fox News anchorwoman Maria Bartiromo, “We now know that there was no official intelligence that was used to start this investigation” of Trump’s aides. Nunes has read the classified materials, and he is making a deeply troubling allegation: An official investigation was mounted against an American presidential campaign with no official information to support it. If so, then U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies were weaponized for partisan purposes. McCabe would know about that, too, or know if it is untrue.
So would Peter Strzok, number two in the FBI’s counterintelligence section, and his paramour, Lisa Page. They may be talking to investigators already. That would be the most plausible explanation for why they haven’t been fired. As long as they are still on the government payroll, they are available to Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his team of investigators. There are also credible reports that Strzok’s boss, Bill Priestap, is now a cooperating witness. His name is rarely heard in public, but he would have a goldmine of information.
Although the public focus has been on McCabe’s reported deceptions, one of his presumably truthful comments about the Department of Justice may be even more significant. He said flatly that during the last months of the Obama administration, high-ranking Justice Department officials tried to kill the FBI’s on-going investigation into the Clinton Foundation. It happened in a phone call from DOJ’s third-highest official. Although unidentified in the report, the reference apparently is to Matthew Axelrod, whose title at the time was principal associate deputy attorney general.
Here’s what the inspector general report says:
McCabe told the OIG that on August 12, 2016, he received a telephone call from Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General regarding the FBI’s handling of the Clinton Foundation. McCabe said that the PADAG expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking “are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” McCabe told us that the conversation was “very dramatic” and he never had a similar confrontation like [that] call with a high-level Department official in his entire FBI career.
The 35-page report goes on to say that, by leaking that conversation, McCabe was trying “to make himself look good by making senior department leadership, specifically the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, look bad,” Well, yeah.
The same logic should apply to the misappropriated, classified memos James Comey leaked through his friend at Columbia Law School. Comey has said they were meant to force the appointment of a special counsel.
Those leaks do make senior law-enforcement leaders look bad. Actually, they make them look politically corrupt. The Horowitz report does not dispute that the DOJ call to McCabe took place or that it was meant to quash a legitimate FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation. If that is confirmed, it is a perversion of the Justice Department and its core function of unbiased application of the law.
We need to know if McCabe is telling the truth about direct political pressure to help the Clintons. If he is, we need to know who told the DOJ official to make that call. That explanation needs to be under oath before a grand jury, since it smells a lot like obstruction of justice and may involve his bosses. All of them are high-level political appointees.
According to a Wall Street Journal article, McCabe says he stood straight and tall and “reiterated past instructions to FBI agents that they were to keep pursuing the work within the authority they had.” But that’s based on McCabe’s self-serving leak. The FBI agents under his command say he was more like a supine munchkin, carrying out the wishes of Loretta Lynch’s people. FBI agents investigating the Clinton Foundation “were given a much starker instruction on the case: ‘Stand down,’” according to the Journal report. “When agents questioned why they weren’t allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come from the deputy director -- Mr. McCabe.” Again, that looks like possible obstruction of justice, done for explicitly partisan-political reasons.
Somebody’s lying here, and maybe more than one person. All these players are, or were, high-ranking officials at the FBI and DOJ. All of them ought to explain themselves before a grand jury. Since those proceedings are secret and indictments take time, we need public reports, and soon, from Horowitz’s office about these allegations. Was there a political attempt by the Department of Justice to protect the Clinton Foundation from an FBI investigation? Was Loretta Lynch herself involved? Was the White House or were the Clintons? Or did McCabe do all this on his own to protect the Clintons?
The OIG report does not dispute the statement, made in the Journal article, that the DOJ official “was ‘very pissed off,’ according to one person close to Mr. McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the Department [of Justice] considered dormant.” As you may have guessed, that “person close to Mr. McCabe” stared at him every morning when he shaved.
Unfortunately, it looks as though a lot of top officials at the FBI and DOJ were shaving the law, violating our basic constitutional promise that the rules must be applied fairly to everyone. That must include the powerful. Equal treatment must include the men and women who lead the agencies we entrust to collect sensitive information, keep it secret, and enforce the law. They are not exempt, like the king’s courtiers or the dictator’s oligarchs. There is spreading evidence that, in the final year of the Obama administration, our country’s top law-enforcement and intelligence officials failed in that most basic responsibility. We need to know if they did, and we need to know who put them up to it.
RCP contributor Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Chicago, where he is founding director of PIPES, the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security. He blogs at ZipDialog.com and can be reached at charles.lipson@gmail.com.
Correcto. McCabe needs to be flipped and there is plenty of matieral to work with to do it.
Both he and Steele know about the FBI connections to the dossier and they both know about Bloomenthals connections to the clinton campaign and foundation and the feeding of material to and from Susan Rice, Brennan, and Clapper.
The justice department may not indict McCabe because covering up for their own is what they do. But if they do, they can get a treasure trove from him, mostly because he participated in all of it. But this is not an easy one for the justice department. If they dont indict him, they there will be a political and legal firestorm from both the agents and public about how - once again- there are HQ Specials for the central office types, and it will not satisfy the demand for at least some scalps out of this mess. On the other hand, if they do indict him, then rosenstein, the camp clinton, comey, rice and the intel goons, etc. are going to take hits, bigtime.
McCabe is in a tough spot. He lost the early bird special part of his retirement package but will get the rest later at age sixty or something like that. He knows that reality cannot be undone. So now he would want to try to move on and just get a position where he can work up to those years but a perjury conviction or plea will take his law license even on a plea deal, as happened to Bubba for five years before it was reinstated per the deal.
Mueller would not think twice if he needed McCabes testimony. He would just indict him and not worry about anyone's personal dilemma. He would protect the fbi second, but his legacy comes first. But McCabe's case has been referred to a u.s. attorney and I dont know whether that person is inside or outside the swamp so will just have to see.
McCabe got the goods though, if anyone squeezes him. Steele too.
Obama Justice Dept.’s attempts to influence investigations exposed in McCabe probe
By Jeff Mordock - The Washington Times - Monday, April 23, 2018
Tucked inside the inspector general’s report on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was the story of an August 2016 phone call from a high-ranking Justice Department official who Mr. McCabe thought was trying to shut down the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundationwhile Hillary Clinton was running for president.
The official was “very pissed off” at the FBI, the report says, and demanded to know why the FBIwas still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the case dormant.
Former FBI officials said the fact that a call was made is even more stunning than its content.
SEE ALSO: Justice Department to turn over 2016 election investigation documents to Congress
James Wedick, who conducted corruption investigations at the bureau, said he never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases during 35 years there. He said it suggested interference.
“It is bizarre — and that word can’t be used enough — to have the Justice Department call the FBI’s deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption investigation,” he said. “They can have some input, but they shouldn’t be operationally in control like it appears they were from this call.”
Although the inspector general’s report did not identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Department officials said it was Matthew Axelrod, who was the principal associate deputy attorney general — the title the IG report did use.
Mr. McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.
He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBIagents taking overt steps in the Clinton Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign.
“According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ‘are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?’” the report said. “McCabe told us that the conversation was ‘very dramatic’ and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a high-level department official in his entire FBI career.”
In a footnote to the report, the inspector general says the Justice official agreed with the description of the call but objected to seeing that “the Bureau was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was totally unfair.”
Mr. Axelrod, whom the Federal Register and Justice Department documents at the time identified as the principal associate deputy attorney general and whose LinkedIn page says he held that position from February 2015 through January 2017, didn’t respond to repeated requests last week from The Washington Times for comment.
Ron Hosko, a former assistant director at the FBI, wondered if the call to Mr. McCabe was made because Justice Department officials believed he would be more sympathetic than the FBI’s New York field office, which was overseeing the Clinton Foundation investigation.
As the election approached, questions surrounded Mr. McCabe’s objectivity with regard to the Clinton investigation. His wife, running for a state Senate seat in Virginia in 2015, had accepted a nearly $700,000 donation from an organization linked to Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe. A longtime Clinton confidant, Mr. McAuliffe chaired Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Mr. McCabe recused himself from the Clinton investigation three weeks before Election Day.
“You run the risk of more publicity by going to the field,” Mr. Hosko said. “If I am that agent and I’ve been told to shut down something I’ve been working on, I’m screaming bloody murder.”
Mr. Axelrod quit the Justice Department on Jan. 30, 2017, the same day President Trump fired his boss, Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, for refusing to defend his travel ban executive order.
He is now a lawyer in the Washington office of British law firm Linklaters LLP.
In a March 2017 interview with The New York Times, Mr. Axelrod said he left the department earlier than he had planned.
“It was always anticipated that we would stay on for only a short period,” he said of himself and Ms. Yates. “For the first week we managed, but the ban was a surprise. As soon as the travel ban was announced there were people being detained and the department was asked to defend the ban.”
Ms. Yates also didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment from The Times.
Those familiar with Justice Departmentoperations said they don’t believe the principal associate deputy attorney general would have made the McCabe call without consulting with his supervisor, which would have been Ms. Yates.
“In my experience these calls are rarely made in a vacuum,” said Bradley Schlozman, who worked as counsel to the PADAG during the Bush administration. “The notion that the principle deputy would have made such a decision and issued a directive without the knowledge and consent of the deputy attorney general is highly unlikely.”
Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official who is now a legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the proper chain of command for the Justice Department to follow up on an investigation would involve the head of the Criminal Division, not the PADAG, calling the FBI.
“There is no way I would have ever called the FBIon my own unless I raised concerns with my boss or my boss told me to do so,” he said. “I have a hard time believing this guy did this without consulting with Sally Yates unless he was a complete lone ranger and off the reservation.”
The inspector general is examining the way the FBI and Justice Department handled investigations into Mrs. Clinton during the election.
The report on Mr. McCabe was a separate matter, stemming from questions about a media leak he made to try to protect his reputation, the inspector general said.
Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
By Jeff Mordock - The Washington Times - Monday, April 23, 2018
Tucked inside the inspector general’s report on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was the story of an August 2016 phone call from a high-ranking Justice Department official who Mr. McCabe thought was trying to shut down the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundationwhile Hillary Clinton was running for president.
The official was “very pissed off” at the FBI, the report says, and demanded to know why the FBIwas still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the case dormant.
Former FBI officials said the fact that a call was made is even more stunning than its content.
SEE ALSO: Justice Department to turn over 2016 election investigation documents to Congress
James Wedick, who conducted corruption investigations at the bureau, said he never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases during 35 years there. He said it suggested interference.
“It is bizarre — and that word can’t be used enough — to have the Justice Department call the FBI’s deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption investigation,” he said. “They can have some input, but they shouldn’t be operationally in control like it appears they were from this call.”
Although the inspector general’s report did not identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Department officials said it was Matthew Axelrod, who was the principal associate deputy attorney general — the title the IG report did use.
Mr. McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.
He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBIagents taking overt steps in the Clinton Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign.
“According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ‘are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?’” the report said. “McCabe told us that the conversation was ‘very dramatic’ and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a high-level department official in his entire FBI career.”
In a footnote to the report, the inspector general says the Justice official agreed with the description of the call but objected to seeing that “the Bureau was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was totally unfair.”
Mr. Axelrod, whom the Federal Register and Justice Department documents at the time identified as the principal associate deputy attorney general and whose LinkedIn page says he held that position from February 2015 through January 2017, didn’t respond to repeated requests last week from The Washington Times for comment.
Ron Hosko, a former assistant director at the FBI, wondered if the call to Mr. McCabe was made because Justice Department officials believed he would be more sympathetic than the FBI’s New York field office, which was overseeing the Clinton Foundation investigation.
As the election approached, questions surrounded Mr. McCabe’s objectivity with regard to the Clinton investigation. His wife, running for a state Senate seat in Virginia in 2015, had accepted a nearly $700,000 donation from an organization linked to Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe. A longtime Clinton confidant, Mr. McAuliffe chaired Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Mr. McCabe recused himself from the Clinton investigation three weeks before Election Day.
“You run the risk of more publicity by going to the field,” Mr. Hosko said. “If I am that agent and I’ve been told to shut down something I’ve been working on, I’m screaming bloody murder.”
Mr. Axelrod quit the Justice Department on Jan. 30, 2017, the same day President Trump fired his boss, Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, for refusing to defend his travel ban executive order.
He is now a lawyer in the Washington office of British law firm Linklaters LLP.
In a March 2017 interview with The New York Times, Mr. Axelrod said he left the department earlier than he had planned.
“It was always anticipated that we would stay on for only a short period,” he said of himself and Ms. Yates. “For the first week we managed, but the ban was a surprise. As soon as the travel ban was announced there were people being detained and the department was asked to defend the ban.”
Ms. Yates also didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment from The Times.
Those familiar with Justice Departmentoperations said they don’t believe the principal associate deputy attorney general would have made the McCabe call without consulting with his supervisor, which would have been Ms. Yates.
“In my experience these calls are rarely made in a vacuum,” said Bradley Schlozman, who worked as counsel to the PADAG during the Bush administration. “The notion that the principle deputy would have made such a decision and issued a directive without the knowledge and consent of the deputy attorney general is highly unlikely.”
Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official who is now a legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the proper chain of command for the Justice Department to follow up on an investigation would involve the head of the Criminal Division, not the PADAG, calling the FBI.
“There is no way I would have ever called the FBIon my own unless I raised concerns with my boss or my boss told me to do so,” he said. “I have a hard time believing this guy did this without consulting with Sally Yates unless he was a complete lone ranger and off the reservation.”
The inspector general is examining the way the FBI and Justice Department handled investigations into Mrs. Clinton during the election.
The report on Mr. McCabe was a separate matter, stemming from questions about a media leak he made to try to protect his reputation, the inspector general said.
Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Awwwww...in case the libtards didn't get to give Lyin Andy their bonus checks yet, here's yet another opportunity to be "charitable" to a dirtbag who's worth $15 million plus already has $550,000 in his "legal defense fund" - go for it!
https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/andrew-mccabe-wants-your-money-again/
What a scumbag.
https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/andrew-mccabe-wants-your-money-again/
What a scumbag.
Disgusting.