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!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,078
Likes
10,895
Points
113
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/...lection/issuecollection/todays-new-york-times

WASHINGTON — A Justice Department review is expected to criticize the former F.B.I. deputy director, Andrew G. McCabe, for authorizing the disclosure of information about a continuing investigation to journalists, according to four people familiar with the inquiry.

Such a damning report would give President Trump new ammunition to criticize Mr. McCabe, who is at the center of Mr. Trump’s theory that “deep state” actors inside the F.B.I. have been working to sabotage his presidency. But Mr. McCabe’s disclosures to the news media do not fit neatly into that assumption: They contributed to a negative article about Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration’s Justice Department — not Mr. Trump.

The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz,has zeroed in on disclosures to The Wall Street Journal as part of a wide-ranging investigation into, among other things, how the F.B.I. approached the 2016 inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information. Mr. Horowitz has said he expects to release a report this month or next.

Mr. McCabe, under pressure from the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, stepped down as the deputy director in late January amid concerns over the coming report.

The findings have potentially serious ramifications for the F.B.I., which is in the middle of a special counsel investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Though the report is not expected to focus on that, some of the same agents — including Mr. McCabe — handled both the Russia case and the Clinton inquiry. A report that questions the judgment of those agents would give fodder for Mr. Trump and his supporters to step up their attacks on the F.B.I.

A spokesman for Mr. Horowitz declined to comment. Mr. McCabe also declined to comment. He and his allies have steadfastly maintained that he did nothing improper and cooperated fully with the inspector general.

In October 2016, The Wall StreetJournal revealed a dispute between F.B.I. and Justice Department officials over how to proceed in an investigation into the financial dealings of the Clinton family’s foundation. The article revealed a closed-door meeting during which senior Justice Department officials were dismissive of the evidence and declined to authorize subpoenas or grand jury activity. Some F.B.I. agents, the article said, believed that Mr. McCabe had put the brakes on the investigation.
 
The investigation isn't over.

a closed-door meeting during which senior Justice Department officials were dismissive of the evidence and declined to authorize subpoenas or grand jury activity. Some F.B.I. agents, the article said, believed that Mr. McCabe had put the brakes on the investigation.
 
The investigation isn't over.

a closed-door meeting during which senior Justice Department officials were dismissive of the evidence and declined to authorize subpoenas or grand jury activity. Some F.B.I. agents, the article said, believed that Mr. McCabe had put the brakes on the investigation.

That’s great. If there was something done illegally I hope they are held accountable.
 
That’s great. If there was something done illegally I hope they are held accountable.
So who gets to turn out the lights when D.C. is empty?

Maybe wire the Capitol with wifi switches and set an Echo Dot timer?
 
So who gets to turn out the lights when D.C. is empty?

Maybe wire the Capitol with wifi switches and set an Echo Dot timer?

I was at LaGuardia the other day and there was a robot running around outside the terminal. Not sure why.

barfo
 
Bomb sniffing?

It wasn't sniffing anything as far as I could see. Plus, it was outside baggage claim, which would be an odd place/time to look for bombs.

barfo
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/us/politics/justice-dept-andrew-mccabe.html?rref=collection/issuecollection/todays-new-york-times

WASHINGTON — A Justice Department review is expected to criticize the former F.B.I. deputy director, Andrew G. McCabe, for authorizing the disclosure of information about a continuing investigation to journalists, according to four people familiar with the inquiry.

Such a damning report would give President Trump new ammunition to criticize Mr. McCabe, who is at the center of Mr. Trump’s theory that “deep state” actors inside the F.B.I. have been working to sabotage his presidency. But Mr. McCabe’s disclosures to the news media do not fit neatly into that assumption: They contributed to a negative article about Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration’s Justice Department — not Mr. Trump.

The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz,has zeroed in on disclosures to The Wall Street Journal as part of a wide-ranging investigation into, among other things, how the F.B.I. approached the 2016 inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information. Mr. Horowitz has said he expects to release a report this month or next.

Mr. McCabe, under pressure from the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, stepped down as the deputy director in late January amid concerns over the coming report.

The findings have potentially serious ramifications for the F.B.I., which is in the middle of a special counsel investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Though the report is not expected to focus on that, some of the same agents — including Mr. McCabe — handled both the Russia case and the Clinton inquiry. A report that questions the judgment of those agents would give fodder for Mr. Trump and his supporters to step up their attacks on the F.B.I.

A spokesman for Mr. Horowitz declined to comment. Mr. McCabe also declined to comment. He and his allies have steadfastly maintained that he did nothing improper and cooperated fully with the inspector general.

In October 2016, The Wall StreetJournal revealed a dispute between F.B.I. and Justice Department officials over how to proceed in an investigation into the financial dealings of the Clinton family’s foundation. The article revealed a closed-door meeting during which senior Justice Department officials were dismissive of the evidence and declined to authorize subpoenas or grand jury activity. Some F.B.I. agents, the article said, believed that Mr. McCabe had put the brakes on the investigation.

Expected by who?
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-probe-as-sessions-weighs-firing-mccabe.html

The Department of Justice’s inspector general could soon release his expected explosive report detailing a more than yearlong review of the FBI and DOJ’s Hillary Clinton investigation – an effort that has already put top FBI official Andrew McCabe and his pension in jeopardy.

Over the last year, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been reviewing the FBI and DOJ’s actions related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

Horowitz has told lawmakers he is aiming to release the report in the “March, April time period.”

On Wednesday, fresh evidence emerged that Horowitz may be winding down his efforts. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is considering firing McCabe over the findings in Horowitz’s review, sources said.

According to the New York Times, Horowitz concludes in his report that McCabe was not forthcoming during the review, which included an examination of McCabe allowing FBI officials to speak with reporters about the investigation into the Clintons.

The FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility recommended that Sessions fire McCabe. If McCabe is fired this week, it could deprive the outgoing deputy director of pension benefits.


McCabe’s pension kicks in on Sunday, his 50th birthday, so the termination would have to be done by close of business on Friday to stop it.

“The Department follows a prescribed process by which an employee may be terminated,” DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement. “That process includes recommendations from career employees and no termination decision is final until the conclusion of that process.”

SESSIONS MULLING FIRING FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR ANDREW MCCABE BEFORE HE RETIRES

Horowitz’s investigation is looking at a variety of allegations, including whether it was improper for former FBI Director James Comey to make a public announcement about not recommending prosecution over the Clinton email arrangement.

Horowitz also is reviewing whether McCabe should have recused himself from the probe early because of his family’s ties to the Democratic Party. (He did not do so until a week before the election.)

McCabe’s wife ran as a Democrat for a Virginia state Senate seat in 2015, and she received donations from the super PAC of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a close Clinton ally.


In November, Horowitz said his team has interviewed dozens of people and had reviewed about 1.2 million records in the course of its investigation. But he acknowledged during a congressional hearing last year the classified information involved and necessary security clearances have slowed the process.

Horowitz said his team would look at whether “certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations.”

The review is also looking at whether the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for legislative affairs “improperly disclosed non-public information to the Clinton campaign” and should have been recused. That’s in reference to official Peter Kadzik, who had been an attorney in the past for Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Horowitz said the review is looking at whether any DOJ or FBI employees improperly disclosed non-public information.

1521122446909.jpg

Over the last year, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been reviewing the FBI and DOJ’s actions related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

The review has already made a splash.

The inspector general’s review uncovered the anti-Trump texts from FBI official Peter Strzok, who called Trump an “idiot” and texted about an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency.

Strzok had been assigned to Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe, but has since been reassigned.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-probe-as-sessions-weighs-firing-mccabe.html

The Department of Justice’s inspector general could soon release his expected explosive report detailing a more than yearlong review of the FBI and DOJ’s Hillary Clinton investigation – an effort that has already put top FBI official Andrew McCabe and his pension in jeopardy.

Over the last year, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been reviewing the FBI and DOJ’s actions related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

Horowitz has told lawmakers he is aiming to release the report in the “March, April time period.”

On Wednesday, fresh evidence emerged that Horowitz may be winding down his efforts. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is considering firing McCabe over the findings in Horowitz’s review, sources said.

According to the New York Times, Horowitz concludes in his report that McCabe was not forthcoming during the review, which included an examination of McCabe allowing FBI officials to speak with reporters about the investigation into the Clintons.

The FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility recommended that Sessions fire McCabe. If McCabe is fired this week, it could deprive the outgoing deputy director of pension benefits.


McCabe’s pension kicks in on Sunday, his 50th birthday, so the termination would have to be done by close of business on Friday to stop it.

“The Department follows a prescribed process by which an employee may be terminated,” DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement. “That process includes recommendations from career employees and no termination decision is final until the conclusion of that process.”

SESSIONS MULLING FIRING FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR ANDREW MCCABE BEFORE HE RETIRES

Horowitz’s investigation is looking at a variety of allegations, including whether it was improper for former FBI Director James Comey to make a public announcement about not recommending prosecution over the Clinton email arrangement.

Horowitz also is reviewing whether McCabe should have recused himself from the probe early because of his family’s ties to the Democratic Party. (He did not do so until a week before the election.)

McCabe’s wife ran as a Democrat for a Virginia state Senate seat in 2015, and she received donations from the super PAC of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a close Clinton ally.


In November, Horowitz said his team has interviewed dozens of people and had reviewed about 1.2 million records in the course of its investigation. But he acknowledged during a congressional hearing last year the classified information involved and necessary security clearances have slowed the process.

Horowitz said his team would look at whether “certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations.”

The review is also looking at whether the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for legislative affairs “improperly disclosed non-public information to the Clinton campaign” and should have been recused. That’s in reference to official Peter Kadzik, who had been an attorney in the past for Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Horowitz said the review is looking at whether any DOJ or FBI employees improperly disclosed non-public information.

1521122446909.jpg

Over the last year, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been reviewing the FBI and DOJ’s actions related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

The review has already made a splash.

The inspector general’s review uncovered the anti-Trump texts from FBI official Peter Strzok, who called Trump an “idiot” and texted about an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency.

Strzok had been assigned to Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe, but has since been reassigned.

Fox News? Well then, it's gotta be true.
 
I don't recognize that link. Looks like it might be more drivel.

Your appeal to authority is a logic fault. Well known.

Don't click on the link, you might learn something!
 
Your appeal to authority is a logic fault. Well known.

Don't click on the link, you might learn something!

I've run down too much drivel to waste my time on deflection and out and out made up crap. Not going to waste more time on the one in a thousand chance there might be something useful.

Give me something credible if you expect me to read it.
 
You are literally excusing your ignorance.

Literally.

Deny the links are credible so you won't have to learn something!
 
You constantly appeal to authority. Your infatuation with Nobel Prize winners is exactly an appeal to authority.

Similarly, your denial of "credibility" to Fox News or anyone else is.

I'll give you a clue.

If Nobel Prize winner Krugman says it is 200 degrees F everywhere in NYC today, his prize doesn't make him to be telling the truth.

If Fox News says it was 37 degrees F in NYC today, it's the truth. No matter what you think of Fox News.
 
You are literally excusing your ignorance.

Literally.

Deny the links are credible so you won't have to learn something!

Any hints as to who you are talking to?
 
You constantly appeal to authority. Your infatuation with Nobel Prize winners is exactly an appeal to authority.

Similarly, your denial of "credibility" to Fox News or anyone else is.

I'll give you a clue.

If Nobel Prize winner Krugman says it is 200 degrees F everywhere in NYC today, his prize doesn't make him to be telling the truth.

If Fox News says it was 37 degrees F in NYC today, it's the truth. No matter what you think of Fox News.

The Nobel prize and the Pulitzer prize are something no rational person demeans.

Your clues are simply not credible or should I say incredible.
 
You constantly appeal to authority. Your infatuation with Nobel Prize winners is exactly an appeal to authority.

Similarly, your denial of "credibility" to Fox News or anyone else is.

I'll give you a clue.

If Nobel Prize winner Krugman says it is 200 degrees F everywhere in NYC today, his prize doesn't make him to be telling the truth.

If Fox News says it was 37 degrees F in NYC today, it's the truth. No matter what you think of Fox News.

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).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top