FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe fired

[Cow Poke]

Jim, here's how this goes....

You are on your constant obsession with Trump, we try to point that out, and before long you turn this into a "everybody's attacking me".

Disagreement with you is not contempt. It goes downhill from there.

You are free to voice your thoughts, and we are free to tell you where we think you're wrong. No contempt - honest disagreement.

[CivilDiscourse]

For the benefit of oxmixmudd. Though I fear I am wasting my time.

Source: https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17188262/inspector-general-report-horowitz-mccabe-comey

Though the IG report is being dropped in the context of a feud between President Donald Trump and his own FBI and Justice Department, it long predates that feud. Horowitz was appointed DOJ’s inspector general back in 2012, under President Barack Obama. He has a good reputation, and IGs traditionally operate with a good amount of independence from their department leaders, serving as watchdogs of sorts.

He opened this review about a week before Trump was sworn in, and many of the complaints he announced he’d look into were loudly voiced by Democrats at the time. (The report has no connection to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Further installments of the report will likely examine Comey’s own conduct in 2016.)

So the IG report isn’t just a plot by Trump to delegitimize the FBI — though the president will likely try to use it for that end. Its release comes after Trump has fired Comey, publicly campaigned for McCabe’s firing, publicly berated Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and tried to co-opt the Justice Department more broadly.

© Copyright Original Source

Excerpts from the IG Report:
Definition of Lack of Candor:

A. Lack of Candor
The Offense Codes Applicable to the FBI’s Internal Disciplinary Process punish FBI employees for “lack of candor.” Offense Code 2.5 (Lack of Candor – No Oath) prohibits “[k]nowingly providing false information when making a verbal or written statement, not under oath, to a supervisor, another Bureau employee in an authoritative position, or another governmental agency, when the employee is questioned about his conduct or the conduct of another person.” Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath) prohibits “[k]nowingly providing false information in a verbal or written statement made under oath.” Under both offense codes, lack of candor is defined to include “false statements, misrepresentations, the failure to be fully forthright, or the concealment or omission of a material fact/information.”

Timeline:

6. McCabe Authorizes Special Counsel and AD/OPA To Talk to Barrett Regarding CF Investigation and To Disclose August 12 McCabe-PADAG Call

a. McCabe’s Authorization

By October 25, 2016, McCabe had been notified that Barrett was working on a follow-up story to the October 23 article that would cover McCabe’s oversight of the CF Investigation and potential connections with McAuliffe campaign contributions to McCabe’s wife. McCabe thereafter authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to talk to Barrett about this follow-up story. Special Counsel told us that the authorization from McCabe was done orally and it was “pretty general.” Special Counsel further stated that she understood from AD/OPA that the first call with Barrett would be “receive mode” to understand what Barrett’s story would cover and then they would develop a response.

...
7. The October 30 WSJ Article
...

8. McCabe Admonishes Two FBI Executives for Leaks in the October 30 WSJ Article Regarding the CF Investigation
Two FBI Executives, NY-ADIC and the then-Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Division (“W-ADIC”), told us that they each received calls from McCabe admonishing them for leaks contained in the October 30 WSJ article about the CF Investigation. At no time did McCabe disclose to either of them that McCabe had authorized Special Counsel to disclose information about the CF Investigation to the WSJ reporter.

According to NY-ADIC’s contemporaneous October 30 calendar notes and testimony to the OIG, McCabe called NY-ADIC on Sunday, October 30, at 5:11 p.m., to express concerns over leaks from the FBI’s New York Field Office in the October 30 WSJ article. NY-ADIC told the OIG that McCabe was “ticked about leaks” in the article on the CF Investigation, but NY-ADIC “pushed back” a little to note that New York agents were not privy to some of the information in the article. Also according to NY-ADIC’s calendar notes, as well as his testimony to the OIG, NY-ADIC spoke to EAD and other FBI managers after his call with McCabe to voice concerns “about getting yelled at about this stuff” when he was supposed to be dealing with EAD on Clinton Foundation issues because of his understanding that McCabe had recused himself from the matter.

W-ADIC told the OIG that he received a call from McCabe regarding the October 30 WSJ article and that McCabe admonished him regarding leaks in the article. According to W-ADIC, McCabe told him to “get his house in order.” McCabe told us that he did not recall calling either NY-ADIC or W-ADIC to reprimand them for leaks in the October 30 WSJ article.

Lack of Candor:

IV. OIG Analysis

A. Lack of Candor

We concluded that McCabe lacked candor on four separate occasions in connection with the disclosure to the WSJ. Three of those occasions involved his testimony under oath.

1. Lack of Candor with Then-Director Comey on or around October 31, 2016

We concluded that McCabe lacked candor during his conversation with then-Director Comey on or about October 31, 2016, when they discussed the October 30 WSJ article. As detailed above, Comey and McCabe gave starkly conflicting accounts of this conversation. Comey said that McCabe “definitely” did not tell Comey that he had authorized the disclosure about the PADAG call. To the contrary, Comey told the OIG that, on or about October 31, McCabe led him to believe “in form or fashion” that McCabe did not authorize the disclosure about the PADAG call to the WSJ. Comey described how McCabe gave Comey the impression that McCabe had not authorized the disclosure about the PADAG call, was not involved in the disclosure, and did not know how it happened. By contrast, McCabe asserted that he explicitly told Comey during that conversation that he authorized the disclosure and that Comey agreed it was a “good” idea.

While the only direct evidence regarding this McCabe-Comey conversation were the recollections of the two participants, there is considerable circumstantial evidence and we concluded that the overwhelming weight of that evidence supported Comey’s version of the conversation. Indeed, none of the circumstantial evidence provided support for McCabe’s account of the discussion; rather, we found that much of the available evidence undercut McCabe’s claim.8

Reasons:
[Paraphrased by ME]
1.Comey had refused just 3 months earlier to confirm the existence of the investigation.
2. Following the Article, Comey had expressed concern about the volume of leaks. Unlikely Comey would have then later accepted the same type of disclosure he just expressed concern about later that day.
3. Occured 10 days before the election and 2 days after the firestorm of Comey's Clinton Email letter to congress.
4. The article risked further poisoning the FBI/DOJ relationship that was already strained due to letter in #3.
5. Comey had already expressed concerns about McCabe participating in Clinton Email investigations due to Conflict of Interest with wifes campaign fund, same would apply here.
6. No other senior offical at the FBI corroborated McCabe's Testiomony.
7. Comey's testimony is consistent with Mccabes claim to INSD that he had "no idea where [the disclosure] came from, or "who the source was"
[End of paraphrase]

2. Lack of Candor in Interview under Oath with INSD Agents on May 9, 2017
We concluded that McCabe lacked candor during an INSD interview under oath on May 9, 2017, when he falsely told the agents that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ and did not know who did.

Two INSD investigators <redacted> testified to the OIG that they clearly recalled McCabe telling them under oath on May 9 that he did not know who authorized the disclosure of the PADAG call to the WSJ. The agents said that they provided McCabe with a copy of the article and had him initial it, gave him an opportunity to read it, and then discussed it with him. According to the agents, McCabe told them he recalled the article, yet claimed he had “no idea where [the account of the PADAG call] came from” or “who the source was” for it. Moreover, McCabe told the agents that he had previously told others about the August 12 call with PADAG, leaving INSD SSA1 with the impression that INSD would “not [] get anywhere by asking” McCabe how many people could have known about what appeared to be a private conversation between him and PADAG. The agents’ recollections are corroborated by contemporaneous notes of the May 9 interview taken by one of the agents and by the draft SSS that INSD prepared for McCabe’s signature within a few days of the interview (which McCabe never signed, despite INSD’s repeated efforts to get him to do so). Moreover, McCabe’s denial to the INSD agents was consistent with his responses to the OIG during his audio- recorded July 28 interview. We found that these FBI employees – who had nothing to gain and everything to lose if they did anything but tell the truth regarding the interview of the then-FBI Deputy Director – accurately and truthfully recounted the details of what occurred during McCabe’s May 9 interview.

By contrast, McCabe’s account of this May 9 interview, which he provided to the OIG during his November 29 interview, was wholly unpersuasive. McCabe claimed that the INSD agents “must have” gotten it wrong when they wrote that he told them on May 9 that he did not authorize the conversation and that he did not know who the source was. Although McCabe said he did not believe that he denied authorizing the disclosure of the PADAG call during the interview, he could not provide any alternative account about what he actually said. Rather, McCabe stated that he could not remember what he told the INSD investigators. McCabe did not question the competence or good faith of the INSD interviewers, and also admitted that he could not explain why the investigators got the impression that McCabe had told them the WSJ article was an unauthorized leak.12

However, in an apparent effort to provide an excuse for his untruthful responses to INSD, McCabe sought to portray the discussion about the October 30 article as essentially an afterthought by the agents. We found his description of the circumstances surrounding the interview to be demonstrably false. First, INSD-Section Chief flatly contradicted McCabe’s claim that, at the end of an unrelated meeting, as the agents were walking out of his office, one of them (INSD-Section Chief) pulled McCabe aside and asked him a question or two about the October 30 article. Second, INSD-SSA1’s two and half pages of notes of the meeting reflected that a significant portion of the interview related specifically to the account of the PADAG call that appeared in the October 30 article. Third, the agent that took the notes (INSD-SSA1) was not the agent (INSD-Section Chief) that McCabe claimed pulled him aside. Indeed, McCabe said that INSD-SSA1 and INSD-SSA2 (who did not attend the May 9 interview) were in the hallway outside oof his office when he contends that INSD-Section Chief asked him about the disclosure of the PADAG call in the October 30 article, circumstances that INSD-Section Chief denied. Fourth, McCabe acknowledged that his initials were on a copy of the October 30 article that the agents gave him to review, as reflected in INSD-SSA1’s notes.13
...

3. Lack of Candor in Interview under Oath with OIG Investigators on July 28, 2017
We concluded that McCabe lacked candor during his OIG audio-recorded interview under oath on July 28, 2017, when he falsely stated that: (a) he was not aware of Special Counsel being authorized to speak to reporters around October 30 and (b) he did not know, because he was out of town, “where [Special Counsel] was or what she was doing” during the relevant time period.

First, with regard to McCabe’s claim that he was not aware of Special Counsel being authorized to speak to reporters around October 30, that claim was essentially the same false denial that McCabe made to the two INSD agents on May 9, except this time the false denial was made in an audio-recorded interview. Thus, McCabe cannot deny that he made the statement, as he has attempted to do with regard to his May 9 response to INSD agents. Instead, McCabe asserted in his November 29 OIG interview that he “misspoke” during the July 28 interview because he was surprised by the topic being raised during that interview and had not thought about the October 30 article in “quite a long time.” However, McCabe was shown the article and asked questions about it less than 3 months earlier in the May 9 INSD interview. Moreover, in neither the OIG July interview nor the May 9 INSD interview did McCabe indicate that he lacked recollection or needed more time to think about the matter. As Deputy Director, McCabe well knew the significance of OIG and INSD investigations, and of the importance of being truthful when questioned under oath by agents from those Offices. Moreover, McCabe was a trained law enforcement officer with roughly 20 years of law enforcement experience. On this record, we do not credit his claim that his unequivocal denials under oath, on two occasions within 3 months of one another, were the result of being surprised by the questions.

Second, with regard to McCabe’s claim that he did not know where Special Counsel was or what she was doing during the relevant time period, FBI records show that McCabe was in frequent telephone and text communication with Special Counsel during that time period and had several communications with her regarding her calls with Barrett, including a 51 minute call after her first call with Barrett and a 23 minute call after her final call with Barrett. McCabe’s own text messages reflect that McCabe was keenly interested to learn about the results of Special Counsel’s calls with Barrett. We therefore found that McCabe’s claimed ignorance regarding Special Counsel’s activities on those days was demonstrably false.

...

4. Lack of Candor in Interview under Oath with OIG Investigators on November 29, 2017
We concluded that McCabe lacked candor during an OIG interview under oath on November 29, 2017, when he falsely told the OIG in a recorded interview that: (a) he told Comey on October 31, 2016, that he (McCabe) had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ and that Comey agreed it was a “good” idea; (b) he did not deny to the INSD agents on May 9 that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ; and (c) the May 9 INSD interview occurred at the end of an unrelated meeting when one of the INSD agents pulled him aside and asked him one or two questions about the October 30 article.

[Mountain Man]

Ok, I think I've gracefully indulged your unending appetite for personal criticism long enough, so I'm going to step out for a moment. Feel free to continue amongst yourselves for however long you feel is appropriate..

This has become a pattern for you: you bust into a thread, spread your hypocritical manure around, and then when people complain about the stink, you take your leave with a wink and a smile. It's not nearly as charming as you seem to think.

[Cow Poke]

Ok, I think I've gracefully indulged your unending appetite for personal criticism long enough,

There is ZERO appetite for personal criticism, Jim.

so I'm going to step out for a moment. Feel free to continue amongst yourselves for however long you feel is appropriate..

Yeah, when we disagree with your obsession with all things Trump - you try to turn it into "they're ATTACKING me", and leave.

Since this seems to be a never ending cycle with you, wouldn't it be better to take your anti-Trump tirades elsewhere?

Jim launches anti-Trump tirades - gets opposition - complains it's a personal attack - goes away - comes back to launch anti-Trump tirade - gets opposition.... rinse, repeat...

[NorrinRadd]

Bela Okmyx was a gangster and Harry Mudd was a huckster. Have we considered the possibility that a guy who admires them enough to amalgamate their names to form his board username might just be an elaborate troll, or otherwise of less than noble intent?

[Stoic]

The fact that the New York Times noted that with McCabe being let off the hook, the DOJ and FBI avoid a trial that would expose "embarrassing" details about the agencies tells you everything you need to know.

It's also interesting to see who those "embarrassing" details were expected to come from.

Mr. McCabe’s lawyers had planned to question the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, and his former deputy, David L. Bowdich. The lawyers would have also grilled Mr. Sessions and his deputy at the time, Rod J. Rosenstein, as well as others, including the department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz.

Christopher Wray is a Republican appointed by Trump. David L. Bowdich is a Republican appointed by Christopher Wray. Jeff Sessions is a Republican appointed by Trump. Rod J. Rosenstein is a Republican appointed by Trump.

Michael E. Horowitz is not a Republican (or Democrat), was not appointed by Trump, and (coincidentally, I'm sure) is the member of the group least likely to be embarrassed by questions asked during discovery.

[Cow Poke]

...Christopher Wray is a Republican appointed by Trump....

Wray is a disgrace to the FBI.

[Stoic]

Wray is a disgrace to the FBI.

Why do you say that?

[rogue06]

"Mafia Hit" is a sarcastic characterization of Trump's style, driven but the constant denial of his corruption found on this site. But even though a sarchastic characterization, it is still far closer to a true characterization of how operates than the denials that fill these pages. E.g. the coded language used to provide 'plausible deniability' in terms of directly ordering retribution against those that are 'out of favor' or 'in his way'.

The reality is that it is a delusion to try to pretend this is not how Trump works, or the depths to which his corruption goes. Like Trump regularly practices, the game is just to deny reality long enough people quit calling attention to it.

What I long for on this website are conservative Christians that will ditch the the fantasy and denials and actually for once say something like "Well yes trump does use very deceptive tactics and what McCabe was accused of was overblown specifically to seek revenge over his unwillingness to do what Trump wanted."

Because that is the simple truth of the matter.

Instead what we get are libelous slander of McCabe (or Fauci, or Comey etc etc etc) and the excusing of the immorality of Trump. In fact, all we ever get from conservative Christians on this site is a denial of (or the seriousness of) Trump's immoral and corrupt actions. "It was not so bad", "all politicians are corrupt", "the media just doesn't like Trump" and so on and so forth.

Is it possible that somewhere on TWEB we could find a thread with Conservative Christian voices in it that are actually honest about Trump?

I tend to think not, but feel free to surprise me.

You are becoming more and more like Jorge every day. He insisted that you must be a YEC in order to be a Troo Christian. You are moving rapidly toward demanding that you must have TDS to be one.

Don't think so? Look how you proclaim it is nothing but "libelous slander" about McCabe when an independent IG investigation called for his firing because of his actions and antics. That's like how Jorge defended YECs who get in trouble. It was all lies in spite of the evidence. It was only libelous slander.

[rogue06]

[,,,]

The witch hunts began before he ever took office. Everything the man did was a sin to you. He could comb his hair and you'd flail your arms around calling him a fascist. Yet, I've seen nothing from you when Biden acts like a dictator. You took special glee in calling Trump a dictator wannabe, yet you have been eerily silent with a legitimate one like Biden.

Jim isn't the only one exposed in the hypocrisy over this. All of those who took such great joy screaming that Trump was a fascist, a dictator, "literally Hitler"... have all been quiet as church mice now that we have someone in the White House actually doing the sort of things they accused Trump of doing.

But I guess since old Joe doesn't tweet mean things they are okay with his tyrannical power grab and riding roughshod over the Constitution.

[rogue06]

The fact that the New York Times noted that with McCabe being let off the hook, the DOJ and FBI avoid a trial that would expose "embarrassing" details about the agencies tells you everything you need to know.

It was a twofer for them. They got to reverse something Trump did and therefore stick a thumb in his eye, as well as covering their own butts and prevent "embarrassing" details from becoming public.

[rogue06]

I am preaching Jesus CP. I am calling to mind His teachings and what they say.

I missed the part that says you must hate Trump in order to follow Him. That has been your message.

[rogue06]

For the benefit of oxmixmudd. Though I fear I am wasting my time.

Source: https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17188262/inspector-general-report-horowitz-mccabe-comey

Though the IG report is being dropped in the context of a feud between President Donald Trump and his own FBI and Justice Department, it long predates that feud. Horowitz was appointed DOJ’s inspector general back in 2012, under President Barack Obama. He has a good reputation, and IGs traditionally operate with a good amount of independence from their department leaders, serving as watchdogs of sorts.

He opened this review about a week before Trump was sworn in, and many of the complaints he announced he’d look into were loudly voiced by Democrats at the time. (The report has no connection to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Further installments of the report will likely examine Comey’s own conduct in 2016.)

So the IG report isn’t just a plot by Trump to delegitimize the FBI — though the president will likely try to use it for that end. Its release comes after Trump has fired Comey, publicly campaigned for McCabe’s firing, publicly berated Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and tried to co-opt the Justice Department more broadly.

© Copyright Original Source

As I posted a couple of days back:

IIRC, there had been several ethical lapses by McCabe prior to the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility recommending his termination based on the IG report. At the time I don't remember anyone defending McCabe's actions. It was all about how his firing was handled, not whether or not he deserved to be fired.

McCabe's fireable misconduct was unearthed by a Democrat-demanded inquiry that was launched during the Obama presidency, led by an Obama-appointed and Democrat-confirmed watchdog.

[CivilDiscourse]

As I posted a couple of days back:

McCabe's fireable misconduct was unearthed by a Democrat-demanded inquiry that was launched during the Obama presidency, led by an Obama-appointed and Democrat-confirmed watchdog.

Yup.

I posted that large post in order to lay out a number of facts for Ox.

1. That the IG investigation was started before Trump even took office.
2. That the IG found McCabe's lack of candor/lying was solid, and occurred on multiple occasions.

This was not a "mafia hit" or "trumped up charges."

The big issue was that Trump decided to fire him hours before his retirement. It was petty and cruel, but it was also justifiable. But it became a partisan football. This obviously resulted in partisans seeing it through a black and white lens. Since Trump fired him, people like Ox think the entirety of the situation can be summed up as "McCabe good, Trump Bad", and reality doesn't really fit that.

However, like I said, I'm pretty sure that I wasted my time and effort combing the report and putting that set of excepts together, and cleaning it up from PDF copy/paste to something readable on the forum without weird line breaks.

[Mountain Man]

It's also interesting to see who those "embarrassing" details were expected to come from.

Mr. McCabe’s lawyers had planned to question the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, and his former deputy, David L. Bowdich. The lawyers would have also grilled Mr. Sessions and his deputy at the time, Rod J. Rosenstein, as well as others, including the department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz.

Christopher Wray is a Republican appointed by Trump. David L. Bowdich is a Republican appointed by Christopher Wray. Jeff Sessions is a Republican appointed by Trump. Rod J. Rosenstein is a Republican appointed by Trump.

Michael E. Horowitz is not a Republican (or Democrat), was not appointed by Trump, and (coincidentally, I'm sure) is the member of the group least likely to be embarrassed by questions asked during discovery.

You imply that whatever information they divulged would have been embarrassing to themselves, but seriously, do you really think anybody currently in charge felt motivated to protect former officials appointed by President Trump from embarrassing themselves? Come on, man. The fact is, the only one who's head was in the noose was McCabe, and the New York Times suggests the FBI and DOJ were motivated to drop the charges not because of a sense of a justice but because of a desire to "avoid the risk that moving toward a trial could produce embarrassing information through the discovery process and depositions."