Under pressure from the white house, Mccabe fired hours from retirement.

[TreeFrogTrader]

The IG and people in charge of the oversight are allegedly handovers from previous adminstration, so the allegations may hold merit. What doesn't, and experts agree, is the expedience in which it took place, and the lack of supporting documents handed to the defense.

The "expedience" was set in motion by McCabe who suddenly announced his retirement. Everyone- McCabe especially- knows that the normal process for removing an employee can take months but the IG and the Department had to work within the time available to them or else just let McCabe leave voluntarily just because he outmaneuvered them.

On what basis do you state that the supporting documents were not made known to the defense?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Exhibit B in the unjust termination suit.

Yeh sure. Trump pointing out that McCabe's wife received 750k from the party that was headed by the woman he was investigating is going to get McCabe exonerated.

Let's hope that your next exhibits are better.

Let's put the IG before the Congressional Committee to have him testify on how he was influenced by Trump. I presume that works for both of us.

 

[gwb-trading]

Let's put the IG before the Congressional Committee to have him testify on how he was influenced by Trump. I presume that works for both of us.

I believe the IG is independent and not biased -- or at least will use that as a starting point.

Normally when an FBI agent is fired there is a confirming statement from the IG supporting the firing issued at the same time as the announcement. Where is it in the McCabe case?

I would be happy to see the IG in front of Congress announcing how they arrived at a decision on the allegations and if they recommended termination for McCabe as the personnel action. I don't think that any testimony about being influenced by Trump or other politicians is needed.

I think we may find out shortly that the I.G. Office of Professional Responsibility did not clearly recommend any employment action in the McCabe case. Sessions took it upon himself to take action based on the information for OPR and no recommendation being put forward.

We will see what the upcoming weeks reveal.

 

[Poindexter]

I believe the IG is independent and not biased -- or at least will use that as a starting point.

Normally when an FBI agent is fired there is a confirming statement from the IG supporting the firing issued at the same time as the announcement. Where is it in the McCabe case?

Why should there be "a confirming statement from the IG supporting the firing"? That's not in the IG's lane. But it is in the Office of Professional Responsibility's lane and THEY recommended the firing, based on the IG report. What part of that don't you understand?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...eneral-on-firing-of-fbis-mccabe-idUSKCN1GT04O

I think we may find out shortly that the I.G. Office of Professional Responsibility did not clearly recommend any employment action in the McCabe case. Sessions took it upon himself to take action based on the information for OPR and no recommendation being put forward.

And you think that based on what, specifically?

 

[Snarkhund]

The IG recommended dismissal for cause. Sessions simply agree and signed off. President Trump was not in the decision cycle at all.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Normally when an FBI agent is fired there is a confirming statement from the IG supporting the firing issued at the same time as the announcement. Where is it in the McCabe case?

.

Alright, I have no idea where and how you arrive at some of what you describe as the normal process.

Now you seem to have progressed on to saying that " normally when an FBI agent is fired there is a confirming statement from the IG." As if to say that the IG normally weighs in on the firing of all FBI agents. They do not. Most firings do not involve the IG at all. He is not part of the process at all unless it arises as part of his investigation and the AG or designee makes the final decision based on but not limited to the IG's referral.

In addition, I think I already pointed out that Sessions quoted from the IG's referral as part of the announcement. You are chomping at the bit so hard that you are assuming that if something is not available to you personally on the weekend that it will not be available soon in normal order. And as I have said, elements of his firing are part of a criminal investigation so you will not see the whole thing at this time, nor do you have a right to see it. The IG made a referral, the internal designated personnel committee reviewed it, additional personal testimony and pleading was received from McCabe and then the deed was done. You may find out more next week or you may find out more if there is committee hearing, or you may find out more if he is indicted or you may find out more through the daily leakings. But you are pulling all sorts of rules out of thin air based on what you want to see but how you feel does not establish a rule.

As far as whether Sessions acted with or without a recommendation from the IG, the answer is that he acted with one. You say otherwise or need to see this or that but you are not the one in the loop. Sessions can still act properly even if the IG did not inform you of the basis of his recommendation.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

 

[Poindexter]

And as I have said, elements of his firing are part of a criminal investigation

Exactly. I've seen reports that McCabe changed or had agents change their 302s. Don't know if that's true but if it is, the only "p-word" that's appropriate for McCabe is prison, not pension.

 

[jem]

I am a big believer in the court system that person is innocent until proven guilty.
So I hope this guy is not guilty and really was a good civil servant.

However, after reading the paige and storzk texts (spelling) I would be willing bet that Andy was the Andy mentioned and that they were part of a plan to take Trump down. (with many more deep state people.)

....

So... if Trump is guilty of something impacting national security...
They and those who helped them are heros who apparently broke the law and risked their freedom. I will applaud them for it.

If Trump is not guilty of something impacting national security but guilty of tax evasion or something similar ... 2 wrongs don't make a right. They and trump and everyone involved in the conspiracy should be punished and most likely wiht prison time.

If Trump is not found to be guilty of anything. And, they did have a plan to take a an elected president .... every single person involved from leakers to the doers to those who change security protocals to acccomodate leaks and make it difficult to determine the criminals should see hard time for a very long time.

This conspiracy to take down an elected president is high stakes brinkmanship. If you break the law and you are wrong... you must pay the price for the future of the country.

 

[gwb-trading]

Alright, I have no idea where and how you arrive at some of what you describe as the normal process.

Now you seem to have progressed on to saying that " normally when an FBI agent is fired there is a confirming statement from the IG." As if to say that the IG normally weighs in on the firing of all FBI agents. They do not. Most firings do not involve the IG at all. He is not part of the process at all unless it arises as part of his investigation and the AG or designee makes the final decision based on but not limited to the IG's referral.

In addition, I think I already pointed out that Sessions quoted from the IG's referral as part of the announcement. You are chomping at the bit so hard that you are assuming that if something is not available to you personally on the weekend that it will not be available soon in normal order. And as I have said, elements of his firing are part of a criminal investigation so you will not see the whole thing at this time, nor do you have a right to see it. The IG made a referral, the internal designated personnel committee reviewed it, additional personal testimony and pleading was received from McCabe and then the deed was done. You may find out more next week or you may find out more if there is committee hearing, or you may find out more if he is indicted or you may find out more through the daily leakings. But you are pulling all sorts of rules out of thin air based on what you want to see but how you feel does not establish a rule.

Andrew McCabe is a federal employee. He is also an FBI agent which is a specialized category of Federal employee. As a non-appointed job-protected FBI agent and a federal employee there are an entire set of written documentation that must be provided when an employee is terminated with cause at the time of the announcement or before. Even though the FBI is one of the few branches of federal government where the employees are not unionized there are still a huge number of requirements for paperwork and tracking when an FBI employee is terminated with cause which must be followed. I expect the process was followed in this case but the documentation supporting the termination is either missing or weak IMO.

There are also limits on what anyone in the executive branch can further state about the terminated employee beyond what is directly found in the required termination documents (which for the media are public records with certain personal information redacted to align with personal privacy laws and record keeping requirements). The tweets from Donald Trump regarding McCabe are actionable from a unjust employment termination perspective.

Here is a law blog that digs into detail regarding the firing process for Andrew McCabe... as outlined in the lengthy article we should withhold judgement. Note the Justice watchdog report on Clinton email and Comey issues expected in spring -- so we will find out some more details pertinent to this matter at that time.

What We Know, and Don’t Know, About the Firing of Andrew McCabe
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-firing-andrew-mccabe

"We will refrain from speculating on the reason for the rush to fire McCabe before his retirement. But it is peculiar. Why, one wonders, could the Justice Department not have handled his misconduct—if there was misconduct—the way it usually does: by detailing it in the inspector general’s report and noting that the subject, who has since retired, would otherwise be subject to disciplinary action?"