Politics Andrew McCabe, Ex-Deputy Director of F.B.I., Will Be Faulted for Leaks

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Lanny said:
The Nobel prize and the Pulitzer prize are something no rational person demeans.

Your clues are simply not credible or should I say incredible.
Click to expand...

You denied Krugman (Nobel Prize) and NYTimes (Pulitzer Prizes) as not credible already.


Lanny said:
Oh by the way, in the business world all top executives take advantage of expert opinions. Do they listen to Joe Shmoe who cleans the bathrooms when confronted with a technical problem? No, they go to the experts on the subject. Now, the Nobel prize is considered the leading expert on six different subjects (actually five but a sixth is sorta considered a Nobel prize).
Click to expand...

Do you listen to fools like Krugman who are wrong most of the time?

That speaks volumes to the value of the Nobel Prize.

:lol:
 
Denny Crane said:
You denied Krugman (Nobel Prize) and NYTimes (Pulitzer Prizes) as not credible already.




Do you listen to fools like Krugman who are wrong most of the time?

That speaks volumes to the value of the Nobel Prize.

:lol:
Click to expand...

I don't recall denying the Times. I do recall questioning one of the opinion writers.

As for Krugman, every economist gets it wrong sometime or another. It's the nature of economics.
 
Denny Crane said:
You denied Krugman (Nobel Prize) and NYTimes (Pulitzer Prizes) as not credible already.




Do you listen to fools like Krugman who are wrong most of the time?

That speaks volumes to the value of the Nobel Prize.

:lol:
Click to expand...

Krugman wrong most ot the time? I wouldn't know but I would say he's probably right more often than most.
 
Lanny said:
Krugman wrong most ot the time? I wouldn't know but I would say he's probably right more often than most.
Click to expand...

You may want to find out what Krugman won his Nobel for. Or maybe you don't.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngo...l-krugman-rejected-by-his-peers/#30a5c1bf4eb7

Voodoo Economics: Paul Krugman Rejected By His Peers

Paul Krugman has become an embarrassment to the economics profession. Despite his Nobel Prize and despite his previous high regard in the profession, his twice-a-week editorials in The New York Times are causing even progressive economists to treat him as somewhat of a kook.

Since 2011, the United States has followed what Krugman correctly calls a policy of “austerity.” For example, the federal budget deficit has declined from 8.4% of GDP in 2011 to a predicted 2.9% of GDP for all of 2014. All along the way Paul Krugman protested that such policies would prolong the recession and even push us into a “low-grade depression.”

In fact the opposite occurred. As Jeffrey Sachs wrote the other day:

… rather than a new recession, or an ongoing depression, the US unemployment rate has fallen from 8.6% in November 2011 to 5.8% in November 2014. Real economic growth in 2011 stood at 1.6%, and the IMF expects it to be 2.2% for 2014 as a whole… [It is likely] that aggregate growth for all of 2015 will be above 3%.​

Sachs, who is every bit as left wing as Krugman, writes:

Not one of [Krugman’s] New York Times commentaries in the first half of 2013, when “austerian” deficit cutting was taking effect, forecast a major reduction in unemployment or that economic growth would recover to brisk rates. On the contrary, 'the disastrous turn toward austerity has destroyed millions of jobs and ruined many lives,' he argued, with the US Congressexposing Americansto 'the imminent threat of severe economic damage from short-term spending cuts.' As a result,'Full recovery still looks a very long way off,' he warned. 'And I’m beginning to worry that it may never happen.'​

And Sachs makes the more general point that you can believe in progressive government without buying into Krugman’s kooky economic theories:

There is nothing progressive about large budget deficits and a rising debt-to-GDP ratio. After all, large deficits have no reliable effect on reducing unemployment, and deficit reduction can be consistent with falling unemployment.​
 
Denny Crane said:
You may want to find out what Krugman won his Nobel for. Or maybe you don't.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngo...l-krugman-rejected-by-his-peers/#30a5c1bf4eb7

Voodoo Economics: Paul Krugman Rejected By His Peers

Paul Krugman has become an embarrassment to the economics profession. Despite his Nobel Prize and despite his previous high regard in the profession, his twice-a-week editorials in The New York Times are causing even progressive economists to treat him as somewhat of a kook.

Since 2011, the United States has followed what Krugman correctly calls a policy of “austerity.” For example, the federal budget deficit has declined from 8.4% of GDP in 2011 to a predicted 2.9% of GDP for all of 2014. All along the way Paul Krugman protested that such policies would prolong the recession and even push us into a “low-grade depression.”

In fact the opposite occurred. As Jeffrey Sachs wrote the other day:

… rather than a new recession, or an ongoing depression, the US unemployment rate has fallen from 8.6% in November 2011 to 5.8% in November 2014. Real economic growth in 2011 stood at 1.6%, and the IMF expects it to be 2.2% for 2014 as a whole… [It is likely] that aggregate growth for all of 2015 will be above 3%.​

Sachs, who is every bit as left wing as Krugman, writes:

Not one of [Krugman’s] New York Times commentaries in the first half of 2013, when “austerian” deficit cutting was taking effect, forecast a major reduction in unemployment or that economic growth would recover to brisk rates. On the contrary, 'the disastrous turn toward austerity has destroyed millions of jobs and ruined many lives,' he argued, with the US Congressexposing Americansto 'the imminent threat of severe economic damage from short-term spending cuts.' As a result,'Full recovery still looks a very long way off,' he warned. 'And I’m beginning to worry that it may never happen.'​

And Sachs makes the more general point that you can believe in progressive government without buying into Krugman’s kooky economic theories:

There is nothing progressive about large budget deficits and a rising debt-to-GDP ratio. After all, large deficits have no reliable effect on reducing unemployment, and deficit reduction can be consistent with falling unemployment.​
Click to expand...

I've run out of time and energy for this kind of highly probable drivel.
 
How do you know it's "drivel?" Statements like that don't look very good.

Sachs is a progressive Harvard trained economist who is now professor at Columbia. Doesn't that appeal to authority enough for you?

Since reading a few paragraphs seems to be too much effort for you, is one enough? How about one sentence?

I can find no examples of Krugman being right. Plenty of examples of him being flat out wrong. Brian showed you a few, which you don't seem to want to acknowledge. And here is Krugman's peer saying every one of Krugman's commentaries in the NY Times were wrong, for the first half of 2013.

Every one of Krugman's commentaries was wrong.

"Not one of [Krugman’s] New York Times commentaries in the first half of 2013, when “austerian” deficit cutting was taking effect, forecast a major reduction in unemployment or that economic growth would recover to brisk rates. On the contrary, 'the disastrous turn toward austerity has destroyed millions of jobs and ruined many lives,' he argued, with the US Congress exposing Americans to 'the imminent threat of severe economic damage from short-term spending cuts.' As a result,'Full recovery still looks a very long way off,' he warned. 'And I’m beginning to worry that it may never happen.'"



 
Denny Crane said:
How do you know it's "drivel?" Statements like that don't look very good.

Sachs is a progressive Harvard trained economist who is now professor at Columbia. Doesn't that appeal to authority enough for you?

Since reading a few paragraphs seems to be too much effort for you, is one enough? How about one sentence?

I can find no examples of Krugman being right. Plenty of examples of him being flat out wrong. Brian showed you a few, which you don't seem to want to acknowledge. And here is Krugman's peer saying every one of Krugman's commentaries in the NY Times were wrong, for the first half of 2013.

Every one of Krugman's commentaries was wrong.

"Not one of [Krugman’s] New York Times commentaries in the first half of 2013, when “austerian” deficit cutting was taking effect, forecast a major reduction in unemployment or that economic growth would recover to brisk rates. On the contrary, 'the disastrous turn toward austerity has destroyed millions of jobs and ruined many lives,' he argued, with the US Congress exposing Americans to 'the imminent threat of severe economic damage from short-term spending cuts.' As a result,'Full recovery still looks a very long way off,' he warned. 'And I’m beginning to worry that it may never happen.'"
Click to expand...

I don't know it's drivel I just strongly suspect it as I pointed out. I base this on previous experience as I also pointed out.
 
barfo said:
I was at LaGuardia the other day and there was a robot running around outside the terminal. Not sure why.

barfo
Click to expand...
It's because you were at LaGuardia which is one fucked up place to get to. Call it mild entertainment.
 
Statement by Andrew McCabe

I have been an FBI Special Agent for over 21 years. I spent half of that time investigating Russian Organized Crime as a street agent and Supervisor in New York City. I have spent the second half of my career focusing on national security issues and protecting this country from terrorism. I served in some of the most challenging, demanding investigative and leadership roles in the FBI. And I was privileged to serve as Deputy Director during a particularly tough time.

For the last year and a half, my family and I have been the targets of an unrelenting assault on our reputation and my service to this country. Articles too numerous to count have leveled every sort of false, defamatory and degrading allegation against us. The President's tweets have amplified and exacerbated it all. He called for my firing. He called for me to be stripped of my pension after more than 20 years of service. And all along we have said nothing, never wanting to distract from the mission of the FBI by addressing the lies told and repeated about us.

No more.

The investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has to be understood in the context of the attacks on my credibility. The investigation flows from my attempt to explain the FBI's involvement and my supervision of investigations involving Hillary Clinton. I was being portrayed in the media over and over as a political partisan, accused of closing down investigations under political pressure. The FBI was portrayed as caving under that pressure, and making decisions for political rather than law enforcement purposes. Nothing was further from the truth. In fact, this entire investigation stems from my efforts, fully authorized under FBI rules, to set the record straight on behalf of the Bureau, and to make clear that we were continuing an investigation that people in DOJ opposed.

The OIG investigation has focused on information I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor. As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter. It was the type of exchange with the media that the Deputy Director oversees several times per week. In fact, it was the same type of work that I continued to do under Director Wray, at his request. The investigation subsequently focused on who I talked to, when I talked to them, and so forth. During these inquiries, I answered questions truthfully and as accurately as I could amidst the chaos that surrounded me. And when I thought my answers were misunderstood, I contacted investigators to correct them.

But looking at that in isolation completely misses the big picture. The big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized, public servants are attacked, and people who are supposed to cherish and protect our institutions become instruments for damaging those institutions and people.

Here is the reality: I am being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey. The release of this report was accelerated only after my testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed that I would corroborate former Director Comey's accounts of his discussions with the President. The OIG's focus on me and this report became a part of an unprecedented effort by the Administration, driven by the President himself, to remove me from my position, destroy my reputation, and possibly strip me of a pension that I worked 21 years to earn. The accelerated release of the report, and the punitive actions taken in response, make sense only when viewed through this lens. Thursday's comments from the White House are just the latest example of this.

This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to tain the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more generally. It is part of this Administration's ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day. Their persistence in this campaign only highlights the importance of the Special Counsel's work.

I have always prided myself on serving my country with distinction and integrity, and I always encouraged those around me to do the same. Just ask them. To have my career end in this way, and to be accused of lacking candor when at worst I was distracted in the midst of chaotic events, is incredibly disappointing and unfair. But it will not erase the important work I was privileged to be a part of, the results of which will in the end be revealed for the country to see.

I have unfailing faith in the men and women of the FBI and I am confident that their efforts to seek justice will not be deterred.
 
MARIS61 said:
FIRED!

And soon to be indicted.

Told you so.
Click to expand...

SlyPokerDog said:
It is part of this Administration's ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day. Their persistence in this campaign only highlights the importance of the Special Counsel's work.
Click to expand...

Body shot!

SlyPokerDog said:
But it will not erase the important work I was privileged to be a part of, the results of which will in the end be revealed for the country to see.
Click to expand...

Head shot!
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/17/former-fbi-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe-fired.html

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe fired

The Justice Department dealt a stunning blow to former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe on Friday night, firing him just days before he would have been eligible for a lifetime pension after determining that he lied to investigators reviewing the bureau’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s email server.

"Pursuant to Department Order 1202, and based on the report of the Inspector General, the findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the Department’s senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

"I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately."

- U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions
"After an extensive and fair investigation and according to Department of Justice procedure, the Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provided its report on allegations of misconduct by Andrew McCabe to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)," Sessions said.

1521258892063.jpg

Former FBI official Andrew McCabe. (Associated Press)

"The FBI’s OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe. Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor − including under oath − on multiple occasions.

"The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and accountability. As the OPR proposal stated, 'all FBI employees know that lacking candor under oath results in dismissal and that our integrity is our brand.'"
 
Sessions’ decision to fire McCabe came as Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded a bureau oversight investigation, with a report expected to be critical of McCabe’s handling of the Clinton email probe, his handling of the bureau during the early months of the Russia investigation, and his ties to the Democratic Party.

Horowitz determined that McCabe hadn't been forthcoming in regard to the handling of the FBI’s probe into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state in the Obama administration.

The inspector general’s finding sparked an FBI disciplinary process that recommended McCabe’s firing.

Sources told Fox News that the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility made the recommendation to fire McCabe. Sessions had the option to either accept the recommendation, or step in to stop the firing process.

Horowitz’s investigation, which landed McCabe in hot water, faults the former deputy director for the way he answered questions about his approval for interactions between an FBI official and a reporter about the bureau’s investigation into the nonprofit Clinton Foundation.

McCabe was “removed” from his post as deputy to FBI Director Christopher Wray in January, setting in motion a plan to leave the bureau after months of conflict-of-interest complaints from Republicans — including President Trump.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday that the decision was entirely up to Sessions, but that McCabe was a "bad actor."

"That's a determination we
up to Attorney General Sessions, but we do think that it is well documented that he has had some very troubling behavior and has been a bad actor," Sanders said.

“FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!” Trump tweeted in December, before McCabe’s removal.

McCabe became acting director of the FBI after Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017. McCabe led the bureau, independently, until Aug. 2, 2017 — during the early months of the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates.

Republicans have also long criticized McCabe for his ties to the Democratic Party — his wife received donations during a failed 2015 Virginia Senate run from a group tied to a Clinton ally, former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe — all while the Clinton email probe was underway.

“How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?” the president tweeted in December.

The president was “not a part of the decisionmaking process,” when McCabe was removed from the bureau in January, press secretary Sanders said.

McCabe returned to the white-hot spotlight when Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee released its memo on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses in connection with the Russia probe, saying that McCabe signed a FISA warrant targeting former Trump campaign volunteer adviser Carter Page.

“McCabe testified before the committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the [FISA court] without the Steele dossier information,” the memo read. The Steele dossier was unverified, and financed as opposition research by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.

And recently uncovered text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page revealed a new timeline in the Clinton email probe, apparently showing McCabe’s knowledge of the investigation.

The text messages suggest that as of Sept. 28, 2016, Strzok, Page and McCabe were aware of new Clinton emails found on the laptop of disgraced former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, spouse of Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

“Got called up to Andy’s earlier … hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s atty to sdny, includes a ton of material from spouse. Sending team up tomorrow to review…this will never end …” Strzok wrote in a text message to Page.

But it wasn’t until Oct. 27, 2016 that Comey was briefed on the newly discovered emails — meaning McCabe kept the director in the dark for a month.

Horowitz is specifically investigating McCabe and whether he wanted to avoid taking action on the laptop findings until after the presidential election, in which Clinton lost to Trump.

According to testimony obtained by Fox News from an Office of Special Counsel interview with former Comey Chief of Staff James Rybicki, McCabe’s office did not notify him until the night of Oct. 26, 2016.

The OSC also interviewed FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson, who testified that Comey was first briefed on the material found on Weiner’s laptop on Oct. 27, 2016.

Anderson noted that the director’s office decided to “urgently” address the situation.

“Given the significance of the matter, um, uh, that we had to proceed quickly,” Anderson told investigators. “It was just too, too explosive for us to sit on.”

So it wasn’t until Oct. 28, 2016, that Comey sent a letter to Congress announcing the “recent developments” of the discovery of the Clinton and Abedin communications found on the laptop —which he had just been briefed on a day before. That letter reopened the Clinton email probe just a week before the election. The inspector general is investigating McCabe’s involvement in this timeline.

Several Republicans also have pointed with alarm to the Strzok-Page texts and their references to McCabe in relation to an “insurance policy” to prevent Trump from being elected president, and a “secret society” within the bureau.

Brooke Singman is a Politics Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @brookefoxnews.​
 
March 2nd

EXCLUSIVE – A Republican senator is pressing for answers on why the FBI waited weeks to act after the 2016 discovery of thousands of emails on ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner's laptop that potentially were relevant to the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., fired off a letter Thursday to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein asking about the timeline, citing texts between two key FBI investigators.

The messages, first reported by The Wall Street Journal in late January, indicate that top bureau officials were aware of the discovery of thousands of emails from Weiner well before the FBI sought a search warrant in late October, and effectively revived the Clinton probe right before the election.

"The cryptic and disjointed nature of the text messages, in addition to heavy redactions applied to other FBI documents, make it difficult to understand fully the sequence of events,” Johnson wrote to Rosenstein, giving him a deadline of March 15 to provide information to the committee.

The text messages were between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who once served on Robert Mueller's Russia probe, and since have come under fire for their anti-Trump messages.


The texts in the Johnson letter suggest that as of Sept. 28, 2016, they and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe were aware of new emails found on Weiner’s laptop during the criminal investigation into his relationship with a minor.

“Got called up to Andy’s earlier … hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s atty to sdny, includes a ton of material from spouse. Sending team up tomorrow to review … this will never end…” Strzok wrote in a text message to Page.

The “spouse” Strzok was referring to was Huma Abedin — a longtime top aide and confidante of Clinton’s.

“Turned over to them why?” Page replied.

“Apparently one of his recent texting partners may not have been 18 … don’t have the details yet,” Strzok wrote. Page responded noting that news reports said the young woman “was 15.”

But it wasn’t until Oct. 27, 2016 that former FBI Director James Comey was briefed on the newly discovered emails.

The Washington Post first reported in January that the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, is specifically investigating McCabe, and whether he wanted to avoid taking action on the laptop findings until after the presidential election.

McCabe left the FBI in January after months of conflict-of-interest complaints from Republicans who long have questioned McCabe’s ties to the Democratic Party. His wife ran as a Democrat for a Virginia Senate seat in 2015, and got financial help from a group tied to Clinton family ally former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe — all while McCabe investigated Clinton’s emails.

But the text messages — and new testimony from top FBI officials — provide further details about when and how those emails were discovered, and who at the FBI knew.

According to new testimony from an Office of Special Counsel interview with former Comey Chief of Staff James Rybicki, McCabe’s office did not notify him until the night of Oct. 26, 2016 of the need to brief Comey on “something related to mid-year exam,” the FBI’s case name for the Clinton email investigation.

“They found a lot of new emails right? So it’s kind of when people say we didn’t find anything, that’s not accurate,” Rybicki said in his testimony. “We did find new stuff. But nothing that would change our view of the original conclusion in July. That’s the upshot.”

Comey announced on July 5, 2016 that he would not file charges against Clinton, saying that she was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information on her private email server.

The OSC also interviewed FBI’s deputy general counsel, Trisha Anderson, who testified that Comey was briefed on the material on Weiner’s laptop on Oct. 27, 2016.

“We had no search warrant at that point in time for purposes of the Clinton email server investigation so he was briefed on what we knew at the time,” Anderson said, noting that they had a discussion “about what we should do going forward,” and mentioned “whether we should seek a search warrant, how we should proceed to seek to obtain evidence.”

Anderson noted that the director’s office decided the need to seek a search warrant “urgently.”

OSC investigators asked what the urgency was, to which Anderson replied: “That given the significance of the matter um, uh, that we had to proceed quickly. It was just too, too explosive for us to sit on.”

On Oct. 27, 2016, Page texted Strzok: “Hey, guess what. We’re going to have a mye [Clinton email probe] meeting tomorrow. Like old times…”

Strzok replied, “Holy moly. Who?”

“The whole band! We’re back on tour!” Page answered.

On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey sent a letter to Congress announcing the “recent developments” of the discovery of Clinton and Abedin communications found on Weiner’s laptop — which he had been briefed on just the day before. That email reopened the Clinton probe, just a week before the election.

Months later, in December 2016, Strzok and Page texted about the possibility that the FBI would conduct an interview with Abedin, and discussed her potential “immunity.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-to-act-on-weiner-laptop-in-clinton-case.html
 
Lanny said:
Soon everybody who does a decent job will be fired and we'll have all clowns running the country. We're getting closer.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that, per the documentation they put out, he wasn't doing a "decent job". There's still plenty of chaff in the GS realm.

I'm actually very surprised by this. This doesn't usually happen to higher-ups in the gov't. Frankly, it doesn't happen much in business either ("Golden Parachutes"). But I am happy to see people who should be fired get fired. My personal opinion is that there is a lot of garbage from the DNC/HRC/high levels of the Obama administration side with leaks, illegal activity, cover-ups, etc. The lack of transparency is pretty bad.

I think we're going to get to a nadir, but it's going to take a while, of swamp creatures being phased out, outsiders looking to make a quick buck removed quickly, and eventually it'll get to some level of equilibrium where the laws, not your political bent, determine how the country is run. I'm hoping that sooner rather than later we get away from people running the country who haven't done anything but serve in law and politics their whole lives. Farmers, doctors, engineers, teachers, householders, plumbers, etc.
 
MARIS61 said:
March 2nd

EXCLUSIVE – A Republican senator is pressing for answers on why the FBI waited weeks to act after the 2016 discovery of thousands of emails on ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner's laptop that potentially were relevant to the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., fired off a letter Thursday to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein asking about the timeline, citing texts between two key FBI investigators.

The messages, first reported by The Wall Street Journal in late January, indicate that top bureau officials were aware of the discovery of thousands of emails from Weiner well before the FBI sought a search warrant in late October, and effectively revived the Clinton probe right before the election.

"The cryptic and disjointed nature of the text messages, in addition to heavy redactions applied to other FBI documents, make it difficult to understand fully the sequence of events,” Johnson wrote to Rosenstein, giving him a deadline of March 15 to provide information to the committee.

The text messages were between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who once served on Robert Mueller's Russia probe, and since have come under fire for their anti-Trump messages.


The texts in the Johnson letter suggest that as of Sept. 28, 2016, they and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe were aware of new emails found on Weiner’s laptop during the criminal investigation into his relationship with a minor.

“Got called up to Andy’s earlier … hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s atty to sdny, includes a ton of material from spouse. Sending team up tomorrow to review … this will never end…” Strzok wrote in a text message to Page.

The “spouse” Strzok was referring to was Huma Abedin — a longtime top aide and confidante of Clinton’s.

“Turned over to them why?” Page replied.

“Apparently one of his recent texting partners may not have been 18 … don’t have the details yet,” Strzok wrote. Page responded noting that news reports said the young woman “was 15.”

But it wasn’t until Oct. 27, 2016 that former FBI Director James Comey was briefed on the newly discovered emails.

The Washington Post first reported in January that the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, is specifically investigating McCabe, and whether he wanted to avoid taking action on the laptop findings until after the presidential election.

McCabe left the FBI in January after months of conflict-of-interest complaints from Republicans who long have questioned McCabe’s ties to the Democratic Party. His wife ran as a Democrat for a Virginia Senate seat in 2015, and got financial help from a group tied to Clinton family ally former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe — all while McCabe investigated Clinton’s emails.

But the text messages — and new testimony from top FBI officials — provide further details about when and how those emails were discovered, and who at the FBI knew.

According to new testimony from an Office of Special Counsel interview with former Comey Chief of Staff James Rybicki, McCabe’s office did not notify him until the night of Oct. 26, 2016 of the need to brief Comey on “something related to mid-year exam,” the FBI’s case name for the Clinton email investigation.

“They found a lot of new emails right? So it’s kind of when people say we didn’t find anything, that’s not accurate,” Rybicki said in his testimony. “We did find new stuff. But nothing that would change our view of the original conclusion in July. That’s the upshot.”

Comey announced on July 5, 2016 that he would not file charges against Clinton, saying that she was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information on her private email server.

The OSC also interviewed FBI’s deputy general counsel, Trisha Anderson, who testified that Comey was briefed on the material on Weiner’s laptop on Oct. 27, 2016.

“We had no search warrant at that point in time for purposes of the Clinton email server investigation so he was briefed on what we knew at the time,” Anderson said, noting that they had a discussion “about what we should do going forward,” and mentioned “whether we should seek a search warrant, how we should proceed to seek to obtain evidence.”

Anderson noted that the director’s office decided the need to seek a search warrant “urgently.”

OSC investigators asked what the urgency was, to which Anderson replied: “That given the significance of the matter um, uh, that we had to proceed quickly. It was just too, too explosive for us to sit on.”

On Oct. 27, 2016, Page texted Strzok: “Hey, guess what. We’re going to have a mye [Clinton email probe] meeting tomorrow. Like old times…”

Strzok replied, “Holy moly. Who?”

“The whole band! We’re back on tour!” Page answered.

On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey sent a letter to Congress announcing the “recent developments” of the discovery of Clinton and Abedin communications found on Weiner’s laptop — which he had been briefed on just the day before. That email reopened the Clinton probe, just a week before the election.

Months later, in December 2016, Strzok and Page texted about the possibility that the FBI would conduct an interview with Abedin, and discussed her potential “immunity.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-to-act-on-weiner-laptop-in-clinton-case.html
Click to expand...

Sadly, they weren't relevant at all.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I'm pretty sure that, per the documentation they put out, he wasn't doing a "decent job". There's still plenty of chaff in the GS realm.

I'm actually very surprised by this. This doesn't usually happen to higher-ups in the gov't. Frankly, it doesn't happen much in business either ("Golden Parachutes"). But I am happy to see people who should be fired get fired. My personal opinion is that there is a lot of garbage from the DNC/HRC/high levels of the Obama administration side with leaks, illegal activity, cover-ups, etc. The lack of transparency is pretty bad.

I think we're going to get to a nadir, but it's going to take a while, of swamp creatures being phased out, outsiders looking to make a quick buck removed quickly, and eventually it'll get to some level of equilibrium where the laws, not your political bent, determine how the country is run. I'm hoping that sooner rather than later we get away from people running the country who haven't done anything but serve in law and politics their whole lives. Farmers, doctors, engineers, teachers, householders, plumbers, etc.
Click to expand...

He was fired on orders from Trump because he pissed off the wrong guy.
 
MARIS61 said:
If I had a pet Ostrich, I'd name him Lanny. :cheers:
Click to expand...

Don't forget what I said about the especially ignorant resorting to insults. It's also the sign of someone with a limited vocabulary which gets them frustrated when they can't properly express their feelings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top