Thursday, April 19, 2018

Inspector General "did" refer McCabe to Federal prosecutors for criminal charges

The Justice Department’s inspector general has referred to federal prosecutors his findings that Andrew G. McCabe, the former F.B.I. deputy director, had repeatedly misled investigators, a person familiar with the matter said on Thursday. 
As I explained to people (some of whom disagreed with me) the Inspector General did not have authority to bring charges against former FBI second in charge Andrew McCabe. What an I.G. can do (and what Horowitz did do) is refer the case to prosecutors to decide whether or not to bring charges.

So the fact that Horowitz only referenced FBI violations in the report, did not mean that he did believed that McCabe should not be charged with a federal crime.  By all accounts, the Horowitz referral is proof that the I.G. did believe that McCabe possibly broke the law.

This would also explain why McCabe has been busy raising money (half million as of now) for his criminal defense. 

We still do not know if the Justice Department will bring charges. Obviously there is always the claim that McCabe (being fired days before his pension kicked in) has been punished enough, and therefor criminal charges would be piling on. There is also the belief that the DOJ would not want to bring down charges on "one of their own". 

But with the atmosphere as it is, and with former FBI director Mueller writing out false statement indictments like hall passes, the political optics could be brutal if McCabe is let off the hook. 

77 comments:

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I haven't looked into the details, but indicting the former FBI deputy director matters. What bugs me is that the FBI/DOJ are not a tool of the President. We are witnessing the most bizarre political circus ever. The President is so impulsive that he will act out before he gets any advice from his lawyers. Even if you don't believe the Fake News his behavior is apparent because of his deep anger on the frustration of the investigations into Daniel's and Comen.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

false statement indictments like what???? You're stuck in a conundrum. If his report shows that there was no evidence of collusion will you accept as truth?

Commonsense said...

The report was not about collusion at all.

The IG investigation was begun at the request of James Comey himself.

Anonymous said...

bugs me is that the FBI/DOJ are not a tool of the President. " lady lynn

Except when Obimbo the magic negro did it.

You file suit on CHT yet, coward?

Loretta said...

"What bugs me is that the FBI/DOJ are not a tool of the President."

What does that have to do with the IG???

Anonymous said...

Broke and broken Alky wealth Envy.

Never have alky. So, the answer is No.

I answered yours, time to get your balls from your ex-wife and answer.

Little CASissy did you file that lawsuit yet?

Loretta said...

"We still do not know if the Justice Department will bring charges."

What we DO know...

This is more than a simple "HR" matter, as "someone" argued.

Anonymous said...

Roger Amadick, Roger Stone and Randall Jarrar , trifecta of assholes.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The usual suspects have nothing but insults. CH strongly stated that insults
are discouraged.

Loretta said...

"The usual suspects have nothing but insults. CH strongly stated that insults
are discouraged."

Answer my question.

"What bugs me is that the FBI/DOJ are not a tool of the President."

What does that have to do with the IG???

Anonymous said...

Roger AmickApril 19, 2018 at 5:47 PM
Kput'z would fuck her."

Alky so easy to slap you down

Anonymous said...

So Alkybaked when did you meet with your lawyer to sue CHT?

Coward.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

ewly released copies of memos written by James Comey, the former FBI Director describes what he says were Donald Trump's strenuous and repeated objections to claims that prostitutes visited his Moscow hotel room in 2013 as well as the president's "serious reservations" about his embattled National Security Adviser.

"There were no prostitutes; there were never prostitutes," Comey recalled Trump saying in one of the memos.

ABC News obtained copies of the memos, which are partially redacted, on Thursday after the Justice Department turned over 15 pages of declassified material to Congress. Top House Republicans had requested the documents and threatened to subpoena for them. DOJ plans to transmit unredacted copies of the memos on Friday.

The memos, which emerged as a flash point in the ongoing Trump-Russia probe, detail Comey’s recollections of exchanges with the president about Russian campaign interference and the broader Russia investigation. They include notes of conversations about the Trump Tower briefing on the Russia allegations, on a private White House dinner, and on controversial meetings during which Comey says Trump asked for his loyalty and for him to end the Flynn investigation. Trump has denied making those requests.

Who do you choose to believe?


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/memos-comey-describes-trumps-reactions-dossier-concerns-flynn/story?id=54600297

Anonymous said...

AlkyCoward. Just like when you threatened to Sue me. You did nothing.

Anonymous said...

Newly released teen diary from drama queen Jane Comey.

Anonymous said...

Trump-Russia probe," opium addicted gutter genes

Lol. Hang on , what is the status of impeachment, the use of the 25th and whatever else you think is going to get out of office?

Polls today show hillary could not win an office for dog catcher.

Commonsense said...

I really thought they would stop at dismissal with McCabe.

He's in real trouble and about the only person he can give up is Comey.

Anonymous said...

Trump-Russia probe," opium addicted gutter genes

Lol. Hang on , what is the status of impeachment, the use of the 25th and whatever else you think is going to get out of office?

Polls today show hillary could not win an office for dog catcher.

Anonymous said...

He's in real trouble and about the only person he can give up is Comey."

Yep, Did you see Comey, tie McCabe to the rail and run an Amtrak over him?

Commonsense said...

Comey has already knows his chief threat is McCabe, of course he going to throw him under the bus.

Anonymous said...


Blogger Roger Amick said...
false statement indictments like what????




ask the inspector general, genius. he's the one who stated mccabe's testimony "lacked candor" (LIED), and he's the one recommending mccabe be prosecuted for those crimes.

you are so fucking blinded by your seething, burning rage at trump, you can't even keep up with or focus on the facts of the story.



Loretta said...

"you are so fucking blinded by your seething, burning rage at trump, you can't even keep up with or focus on the facts of the story."

Actually, he's just a common liar.

Loretta said...

Let's recap the last 24 hours, shall we?

1. McCabe is referred for prosecution;

2. Comey’s memos come out;

3. Rudy joins President Trump’s legal team, talk of ending the Russia investigation in 2 weeks;

4. Congress referred half of the Obama Administration for Criminal prosecution;

5. Rosenstein apparently told President Trump he’s not under investigation in any way or form;

6. We find out Pompeo met with Kim Jung Un last week and basically North Korean peace and denuclearization possibly imminent and

7. John Bolton, has met with Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov over US-Russian relations.

Trump train.

wphamilton said...

This is more than a simple "HR" matter, as "someone" argued.

You've actually got it backwards. "Someone", if you mean me, wrote that the IG investigated BOTH for misconduct violating internal standards AND for criminal charges, and all of you, especially Coldheart, were in heated denial of that.

The IG referral is something less than "We think he's guilty and you should prosecute" and something more than "here's our files, take a look". They have reason to believe that a crime was committed, so they hand over to Justice. Of course, if you believe that a crime is always proven *before* there can be any investigation, and I've recently been made aware that some people actually do believe that, it's going to be too subtle a distinction.

Personally I now have no reason to believe any of McCabe's versions of events, including the infamous "Are you yelling me That I Need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?" (The Clinton Foundation Case). Maybe the AG did pressure him to shut it down, maybe not - since McCabe is a liar we don't know and that, more than any charges that the DOJ might or might not file is the real damage that comes out of this. Lacking integrity to that degree, we can't trust what he says even about a (possibly) vastly larger problem, the conduct of his boss AG Lynch.

So I hope that the DOJ deals with him severely. Both of these men, Comey and McCabe, to the extent that you can believe them at the very least subordinated their integrity to political pressure. McCabe lied about it, as possibly did Comey. Two top officials breaching the public trust, that is the beginning of a pattern which needs to be unraveled and just maybe the way to do that IS with the DOJ throwing the book at him.

Loretta said...

WP, ahem...

"wphamiltonApril 13, 2018 at 5:25 PM
Looks like they nailed him. What's the FBI discipline for his violating 2.5 and 2.6? CH, you know?"

"wphamiltonApril 14, 2018 at 2:16 AM
Blogger Commonsense said...
Dismissal which has already occured."

Correct. I was needling CH because of his big laugh over the idea that this report would be tantamount to FBI HR Department discipline.

But now that you answered for him, he will be spared the indignity of trying to find some face-saving response LOL."

C.H. Truth said...

You've actually got it backwards. "Someone", if you mean me, wrote that the IG investigated BOTH for misconduct violating internal standards AND for criminal charges, and all of you, especially Coldheart, were in heated denial of that.

Not sure who was in denial of that. This played out exactly how I might have expected. The report itself was what drove the firing of McCabe from an internal FBI standpoint, and also makes the basis for possible criminal prosecution.

I do know that there were some people who made the claim that because the IG report made references to FBI regulations rather than criminal violations that Horowitz was saying there was no crimes committed (only regulations broken).

I certainly would have been in heated denial of that.

wphamilton said...

I do know that there were some people who made the claim that because the IG report made references to FBI regulations rather than criminal violations that Horowitz was saying there was no crimes committed (only regulations broken).

McCabe's lawyers are STILL going to be saying that, among other things.

I'm not re-hashing some old argument, just setting the record straight.

Loretta said...

"Correct. I was needling CH because of his big laugh over the idea that this report would be tantamount to FBI HR Department discipline."

wphamilton said...

Indeed, and he's still working out a way to spin that. It turned out to be *exactly* what I said it would be, an investigation of conduct violations (2.5 and 2.6), with a possible referral. I even posted the salient code from the FBI Inspector General site to that effect, and was STILL getting static.

IG only conducts criminal investigations was the blog party line.

Loretta said...

"IG report on Andrew McCabe"

Give it up.

C.H. Truth said...

IG only conducts criminal investigations was the blog party line.

That was never "my" party line, WP.

The very reason that so many people were upset that Sessions decided to use an IG rather than special counsel to investigate a variety of different FBI behaviors.

Was exactly because the IG has no actual power to indict or bring charges.

Anonymous said...

The Vanashing 5 liberal stooges of CHT removal of Trump.

Could not happen to a better group of stien-licking-Kankles biters.

Anonymous said...

IG only conducts criminal investigations was the blog party line " #5

Ok, no way you make that comment w/o at least two direct verbatim qoutes.

Show em'.

wphamilton said...

That was never "my" party line, WP.

After the fact we're on the same page then.

What are the odds of McCabe being charged? I hope that the DOJ deals with him seriously, but I think it is unlikely to happen.

Commonsense said...

After the special counsel charged Flynn, etc with lying to the FBI?

To not charge McCabe would look like (and in fact is) favoritism.

C.H. Truth said...

What are the odds of McCabe being charged?

Under normal circumstances, there would be little chance that former FBI brass like McCabe would be charged for something like this.

But in light of the numerous "making false statement" charges that Mueller has brought to Trump associates, it makes it difficult to just let it go without screams of hypocrisy, favoritism, and problems with the deep state.

C.H. Truth said...

IG only conducts criminal investigations was the blog party line " #5

I've written 4-5 specific posts about Horowitz. I have always understood his role. I always suggested that he would be writing a report (not filing charges).

Anonymous said...

IG only conducts criminal investigations was the blog party line." WP Comey

wphamilton said...

Hmm, lying about vast sums of money and your own foreign contacts and other actions, neck deep in an investigation of a hostile foreign power attacking the USA, vs lying about how you're backstabbing your boss by talking to the press ... I doubt that the DOJ is worried about too many people drawing an equivalency there and howling about them being treated differentl.

If there are charges, I'm cynical enough to believe that the "backstabbing his boss" part is the primary impetus.

C.H. Truth said...

WP

Flynn lied (or didn't according to the FBI) about a conversation with a foreign ambassador. Nobody knows what Papadopoulos lied about. The foreign attorney lied about something trivial and got 30 days.

McCabe lied during an investigation regarding an unauthorized leak of FBI information that he was responsible for. I am sure that is at least as serious.


But I do like the way you substitute the motive for the crime. Unauthorized leak of sensitive FBI information becomes backstabbing your boss. I suppose a bank robbery could be nothing more than working towards a retirement plan, or a murder might be removing an inconvenient problem.

wphamilton said...

Ah, staking out your ground on the McCabe leaks being potentially more serious to national security than Flynn's meetings with the Russians. I'll put a pin in that in case it ever becomes relevant.

In your proposed scale, where does the Libby fibbing of his "outing" Plame fit? Less serious than discussing policy quid pro quo with the enemy? More serious than telling the Post that there's an investigation going on? Somewhere in the middle?

Commonsense said...

I don't think the penalty for lying to a federal officer is all that dependent on what you consider the seriousness of the lie.

And McCabe didn't merely lie, he lied under oath which opens him to a more serious perjury charge.

People aren't going to get your distinction.

They are going to see a federal prosecutor go for maximum punishment on a political opponent while allowing a fellow member of the deep-state to slide on the same charge.

wphamilton said...

First, lying to a federal officer isn't illegal. UNLESS it is a matter within the particular jurisdiction, and the matter is material. (from the 18 USC code)

This from the DOJ attorneys manual can explain some of the details https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-916-false-statements-federal-investigator There is a good bit of detail there about the DOJ policy of whether or not to charge 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for a given false statement.

It wouldn't be unreasonable for the DOJ to apply in McCabe's case "It is the Department's policy not to charge a § 1001 violation in situations in which a suspect, during an investigation, merely denies guilt in response to questioning by the government." and I'm pretty confident that "people" WILL get that distinction.

C.H. Truth said...

I don't see how anyone is going to get that distinction.

Investigator: Did you talk to the Russian ambassador
Flynn: no

Investigator: Did you authorize the leak to the media
McCabe: no

The only distinction here is that what Flynn denied was not actually a nefarious act. What McCabe denied could be construed as possibly illegal and certainly against FBI policy.

wphamilton said...

Are we already there, where the Flynn/McCabe comparison is relevant?

OK then, it is somewhat more than what you described, CH.

Flynn's false statements "had material impact on the FBI's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination". He made a number of affirmative statements which were false, not merely a denial of guilt.

And if Flynn's negotiations with the Russian were related to collusion with Russian electoral interference - which was precisely the investigation that he was being questioned about - then it is bound up in far worse than simply a nefarious act.

What was being investigated when McCabe was questioned? How a newspaper got wind of an investigation. Which most people wanted to know about, and probably felt that they had a right to know about. Other than the idea that it helped or hurt your favorite politician, there's not a whole lot about that to even care about.

This is precisely the kind of distinction that normal people do grasp.

Anonymous said...




Flynn's false statements "had material impact on the FBI's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination".


they did, eh?

according to whom? this sounds like a recent revelation to me, wp. and if you're asking me to take mueller's or the FBI's word for it i'm calling bullshit. flynn was tasked with working the transition from an NSA perspective and some of his communications were going to involve the russians. SOP.

if what you claim is true flynn wouldn't have been slapped with the thinnest of process crimes. he may even have a case to sue mueller a la the anthrax suspect.



wphamilton said...


they did, eh?

according to whom? this sounds like a recent revelation to me, wp.


It's a direct quote from the indictment.

If anyone would know that something had a material impact on the investigation, it would be the investigators.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

Both were being interviewed as a part of an investigation.
Either you can lie to investigators or you cannot.
It's really that simple.

and let's be clear. Nothing so far that Flynn has done (or even accused of doing) is even necessarily criminal.

Leaking sensitive FBI information can certainly be criminal. The fact that "you believe" that it was justified, doesn't matter.

And by the way, McCabe's leak to the FBI was disparaging to Loretta Lynch and considered self serving. I doubt that the general public really cared that much as to whom it was that was attempting to take it easy on Clinton. I doubt most people really cared if it was the FBI or the DOJ that was holding back on things. They just understood that it was happening, and I know that I certainly assumed it was both the DOJ and the FBI.

wphamilton said...

I give you the objective, factual information from the USC, and from the DOJ attorney's manual, and how the different features of the Flynn and McCabe fibs relate to that. Belief or opinion has little to do with that.

Where "opinion" fits in is your faith that the American public will somehow see lying about a potential betrayal of our government is trivial, while lying about informing a newspaper of an investigation is horrendous. I don't see that happening. And no one is going to care about his disparagement of Loretta Lynch, not with the disparagement we see coming out of the White House. Except for the DOJ, they're going to care. Maybe enough to charge him.

Anonymous said...

It's a direct quote from the indictment.

If anyone would know that something had a material impact on the investigation, it would be the investigators.


embellishment appears to be their strong suit.

i'm one taxpayer who will enjoy helping to pick up the tab when flynn sues the DOJ/FBI for million$.



C.H. Truth said...

Belief or opinion has little to do with that.

I agree...

which is why I am curious you then suggest that the American public would likely agree with "your opinion" as to which lie was more important. Because what is important is based entirely on belief or opinion. It's not an objective fact.


To me, the idea that individuals in the FBI and DOJ were using their own personal political beliefs to guide how they pursued their investigations into political candidates is not a trivial throw away investigation. It goes to the core of having a fundamentally objective, fair, and honest federal law enforcement, that can be equally trusted by everyone.

That is of paramount importance. Any investigation into something this important deserves to be taken 100% serious. Any law enforcement agent who lies or misleads other DOJ or FBI investigators who are attempting to get to the bottom of this could be held "at least" as accountable as a politician who is being questioned about what we know now to be a politically motivated witch hunt.

The fact that you discount bad dishonest law enforcement as trivial is unusual. The fact that you believe this is popular opinion... is sort of scary.

Anonymous said...

The fact that you discount bad dishonest law enforcement as trivial is unusual. The fact that you believe this is popular opinion... is sort of scary.


unusual? yes.

scary? yes.

surprising? no. not at all. not even a little bit.

you were correct on an earlier post - wp suffers from the same level of TDS as roger. wp is just much more eloquent in his display of the affliction.

wphamilton said...

Are you two serious, or am I wasting time with a poorly conceived troll?

You say McCabe leaked dirt about the DOJ, that you say everyone must be so worried about, yet you contend that people would want him prosecuted for leaking it. More than for potential treason at the highest level.

What's REALLY scary is that someone would actually make that argument, and someone else would agree with him.

Or is feeling like you have to defend everything related to your leader, regardless of how stupid your argument has to be?

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

I don't say McCabe leaked information. The IG (and pretty much everyone involved) says McCabe leaked information. I believe even McCabe now admits that he authorized the leaks.

Your argument appears to be that a false statement to the FBI has to be relevant to the case to warrant prosecution. Fair enough.

The issue in this case was whether or not McCabe authorized leaks that were against FBI policy (and possibly against the law).

This investigation was initially opened by INSD to determine whether the information published by the WSJ in the October 30 article was an unauthorized leak and, if so, who was the source of the leak.


According to the report McCabe stated (both in informal questioning and under oath) that he did not authorize the leaks. According to the report McCabe stated many things (under oath) that also turned out to be false. It seems pretty straight forward black and white case of misleading the FBI under oath. Certainly the lies were relevant to the investigation. In fact, they could hardly be more relevent.

You read the IG report. What is it about McCabe's actions that causes you to defend them?

wphamilton said...

CH, can you understand that this sentence,

"You say McCabe leaked dirt about the DOJ, that you say everyone must be so worried about, yet you contend that people would want him prosecuted for leaking it."

means something different than disputing who said that McCabe leaked?

If you ARE having difficulty understanding it, we can go over the sentence and explain it. If you DO understand it now, then you realize that the sentence summarizes your argument.

C.H. Truth said...

No WP...

That isn't my argument. That's not even close to my argument.


My argument is that McCabe lied under oath to federal investigators and should be treated the same way others are being treated for lying under oath to federal investigators.


I have to admit. I have seen strawman logical fallacies before... but for you to continue to demand my argument is something entirely different from what it is... is an award winner.


The fact is that you have no real defense of McCabe's actions. So you want to mitigate them by any means possible.

You could just admit that lying to federal investigators is criminal (by statute). That would seem to be the logical rational argument here. The one that the pre-TDS WP would have embraced.

wphamilton said...

It's exactly an argument that you presented here.

"Flynn lied (or didn't according to the FBI) about a conversation with a foreign ambassador. Nobody knows what Papadopoulos lied about. The foreign attorney lied about something trivial and got 30 days.
"

"The only distinction here is that what Flynn denied was not actually a nefarious act. What McCabe denied could be construed as possibly illegal and certainly against FBI policy."

All of this is in the context of whether the DOJ is likely to charge McCabe, and how people will see it. You have argued that if the DOJ takes into account what it is they were hiding (and the DOJ will), that people will see what McCabe was hiding is far worse than whatever Flynn was hiding.

That your argument, as you presented it, is nonsensical is not an issue with how I summarized it. It's a problem with your argument.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

You are confusing my rebuttal of "your" argument... with my argument.

It's your argument that McCabe shouldn't be charged because you apparently don't believe that the underlying investigation is legitimate enough to warrant a "process crime". I point out (as a rebuttal to your argument) that there are several different criminal codes that prohibit FBI agents from leaking information. While any investigation (that is possibly criminal in nature) is being brought, those people put under oath are bound (by law) to tell the truth or possibly face charges.

Need I remind you that at the time of the General Flynn interview, the FBI investigation was considered counter-intelligence (not criminal). I am not even sure that Flynn was under oath (was he)?


So again... I am not sure why you seem so adamant about defending McCabe in this situation. We was interviewed under oath by a DOJ/FBI internal agent and flat out lied multiple times.

The pretense of your argument (that the underlying investigation wasn't important enough) fails to even pass the laugh test.


And I will repeat "MY ARGUMENT" - that there is no reason to treat an FBI agent differently than you would treat anyone else. If lying to an agent during an interview is criminal, then it's criminal for everyone. Including McCabe.

Btw.. it's ironic that McCabe was the guy who has been accused of altering the 302 reports from the original interviews that allowed Mueller to charge Flynn. Perhaps that is why you want him to be given a pass. Because he is one of the good guys, willing to do whatever it takes to bring down Trump?

Anonymous said...

And I will repeat "MY ARGUMENT" - that there is no reason to treat an FBI agent differently than you would treat anyone else. If lying to an agent during an interview is criminal, then it's criminal for everyone. Including McCabe.

precisely.

in fact, law enforcement should be held to a HIGHER standard. they are when tragedy strikes. take the life of a police officer and the murderer gets the death penalty (or the toughest possible penalty). period. end of story. the implication is always that their life is worth more than a civilian. ok, fine. if in death they're held in the highest esteem, then in life they should be held to the highest standards. break the law, even a little bit, and prepare to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. no exceptions, no leeway, no nothing.

mccabe broke the law. he deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

wphamilton said...

And I will repeat "MY ARGUMENT" - that there is no reason to treat an FBI agent differently than you would treat anyone else. If lying to an agent during an interview is criminal, then it's criminal for everyone. Including McCabe.

If that's your Real Argument™ then you should know that your premise is incorrect.

Lying to the agent is criminal only when certain additional criteria are met. First, it is about a matter within the jurisdiction of his agency. Second, it is material the investigation, or some specific functions which I could list if you want.

Secondly, the decision to charge is dependent on several other factors. So your Real Argument­™ fails not only on your faulty assumption that simply lying is always illegal, it ALSO fails in your insistence that all lies should be treated equally.

C.H. Truth said...

First, it is about a matter within the jurisdiction of his agency. Second, it is material the investigation, or some specific functions which I could list if you want.

The IG had all authority to look into the unauthorized leak and determine whether the leak occurred (a violation of FBI regulations) and if the information leaked was likely something that violated criminal statures. McCabe was placed under oath for a matter that was fully under the jurisdiction of those investigating.

The information he was being asked about was not only "material" it was the actual subject of the investigation. Among other lies, he lied specifically about whether or not he authorized the leaks.


Please explain how your logic differs? Are you seriously arguing that the IG has no authority (it's his god damned job) or that asking McCabe about the unauthorized leaks was not material to the investigation?


And no... I understand that not all lies under oath are illegal or prosecutable. Again, you want to strawman my argument.

Certainly if McCabe lied about the color of the tie he was wearing, there would be no criminal prosecution. But his lies were absolutely relevant to the investigation. There is LITERALLY no way to argue that they are not.

Your only rebuttal seems to be how many ways to come up with a manner to "strawman" my arguments. It starts to fall under the category of wondering (again) if you are really this desperate for an argument or if you are simply trolling.

wphamilton said...

The IG had all authority to look into the unauthorized leak and determine whether the leak occurred (a violation of FBI regulations) and if the information leaked was likely something that violated criminal statures.

McCabe was placed under oath for a matter that was fully under the jurisdiction of those investigating.



The information he was being asked about was not only "material" it was the actual subject of the investigation. Among other lies, he lied specifically about whether or not he authorized the leaks.

I don't think you understand what that word means, in the context of the statute. Material means that it makes a meaningful difference to an investigation, or more precisely significant or essential to establish a fact which is germane to the investigation. That something has to do with the subject, does not necessarily make it material, so I think that you're a little confused about the terminology.

The point wasn't to argue that McCabe's lack of candor was or wasn't material. The point was to establish that your assumptions are incorrect, and to redirect the discussion on a basis which reflects legal reality rather than the less coherent rhetoric, such as your "If lying to an agent during an interview is criminal, then ". Since your "IF" assumption is INcorrect, whatever you are presenting as a consequence is invalid.

McCabe's fibbing about his leaks are material to an inquiry about FBI leaks, which if you're honest and objective are only an issue because Trump has been forcing the issue. And the only reason Trump has been obsessing over them is because he perceives it to be detrimental to his interests for the American public to be aware of FBI investigations into himself and his associates. It's the only reason *you* care about McCabe's leaks.

That's precisely why you want to ignore what he was leaking about. Interference brought into his investigation. Even though it was an investigation into Hillary, YOU see it as in Trump's interest that NO leaks about interference ever see the light of public knowledge, because YOU are afraid that it would demonstrate Trump's interference. I know it, you know it, and everyone else knows it.

The proof is that until you saw Trump in danger, you never gave a flip that some FBI agent complained that higher ups were hampering his investigation. No one cared about that, ever. With Trump involved, you think it's a national emergency. The only difference is, you want your man protected.

C.H. Truth said...

Actually WP...

I don't see it as having anything to do with Trump. Nor have I suggested it has anything to do with Trump. It had to do entirely about the Clinton investigation and the fact that unauthorized leaks were made.

The only person in this argument who believes this has anything to do with Trump is you. Of course, if you face reality these days... everything in your mind is about Trump, one way or the other.


Furthermore... I am not sure why you keep explaining what the legal terms mean in context of anything. We all understand (and don't need it explained to us) what constitutes lying about something material or relevant to an investigation vs lying about something that is irrelevant.


You would be better served explaining why and how you believe in this case that McCabe lying to the investigators about this leak would not be considered material or relevant. Because that is what is confusing. It seems obviously material and relevant. At least to anyone reasonable.

Of course, the trick is if you can actually make any sort of explanation that does not include you bringing up Trump. As in suggesting somehow that such an investigation into unauthorized leaks is not a valid investigation other than for some paranoid idea in your head that it's all because of Trump (oogidy boogidy oodigy, Trump, Trump, Trump).

wphamilton said...

"You would be better served explaining why and how you believe in this case that McCabe lying to the investigators about this leak would not be considered material or relevant."

I explained this already:

McCabe's fibbing about his leaks are material to an inquiry about FBI leaks, which if you're honest and objective are only an issue because Trump has been forcing the issue.

If you do understand the legal meanings of the words you're using, it would help if you used them correctly.

C.H. Truth said...

McCabe's fibbing about his leaks are material to an inquiry about FBI leaks

So to recap:

1) You admit that McCabe lied under oath to federal investigators.
2) You admit that it's material to an inquiry about FBI leaks (which this was).


But you believe that none of this matters and McCabe is neither responsible for his actions or guilty of anything because of Trump.

Gotcha! I guess I thought you were making an actual argument. My bad.

wphamilton said...

What's all this "you admit" crap? I never said otherwise - you're deep into some kind of fantasy.

(Well, I'm not sure about "under oath to federal investigators" but he was under oath to Congress so close enough.)

If you don't see "an actual argument", did you consider the possibility that you haven't grasped the argument rather than assuming that there isn't one? All you had to do was go to the start, review your claim, and read my topical statements.

CH: "The only distinction here is that what Flynn denied was not actually a nefarious act."

What I have explained is that Flynn's lies had serious implications regarding national security. McCabe's lied about his leak, a lie which by the way had NO impact on his investigation, nor on any other except, specifically, his leak. I have explained how the Justice Department does NOT use your standard, "he lied, he's charged" and documented several (but not all) of the criteria.

Many differences here:

In the one case, serious implications with national security, in the other case, trivial to any investigation.

In one case, Flynn lying about his own direct involvement to throw off investigators looking at Russian interference and collusion. In the other case, McCabe lying about his leaking of someone else's wrongdoing.

In one case, Flynn's actions were clearly opposing the public interest. In the other case, McCabe's actions were clearly in the public interest.

And finally, the ONLY difference that rationally leads to your equating the two:

In one case, the lying tended to shield Trump from public inspection. In the other case, leaks from the FBI tend to expose Trump to public inspection.

There are people, including in the Department of Justice, who will prioritize the first three differences. There are others who will believe that only the last difference is relevant. I submit that the vast majority of people reasonably acknowledge the differences, and a small, highly partisan group - your Trump apologists - will think only of the last.

wphamilton said...

And before you wander off further into your tangent, recall that it is YOUR topic:

"But with the atmosphere as it is, and with former FBI director Mueller writing out false statement indictments like hall passes, the political optics could be brutal if McCabe is let off the hook."

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

You realize that the IG was specifically investigating the unauthorized leaks.

Since the unauthorized leaks WERE THE BASIS OF The INVESTIGATION how can you continue to argue that McCabe lying about the leaks is irrelevant to that investigation? Obviously the I.G. disagrees with you, since he has referred the situation to the DOJ for possible criminal charges.



Is it even remotely possible (in your advanced stages) to answer this question WITHOUT bringing up Trump, Flynn, or somebody else within the Trump circle?

I am just trying to get a handle on your logic that a lie about someone's participation in an authorized leak has no bearing in an investigation about unauthorized leaks?

wphamilton said...

.You realize that the IG was specifically investigating the unauthorized leaks.

Nope. He was specifically investigating McCabe and his statements about the leaks. I haven't seen any indications that McCabe might be charged for leaking anything.

Why do you want to make the referral about leaks? Because Trump rails against leaks, every time something comes out that impacts him?

You weren't demanding investigations and prosecutions, back when the McCabe leak occurred. You were celebrating, that Lynch was exposed for manipulating the investigation. There is one difference, then and now: it is that leaks from the FBI have tended to be about Trump's associates and criminal suspicion. Either your entire philosophy about leaks has changed, or else they're wholly dependent on the political context. Which?

Is it even remotely possible (in your advanced stages) to answer this question WITHOUT bringing up Trump, Flynn, or somebody else within the Trump circle?

It was YOUR topic. YOUR comparison. Your quote:
"But with the atmosphere as it is, and with former FBI director Mueller writing out false statement indictments like hall passes, the political optics could be brutal if McCabe is let off the hook."

C.H. Truth said...

Nope. He was specifically investigating McCabe and his statements about the leaks.

From the IG report.

This investigation was initially opened by INSD to determine whether the
information published by the WSJ in the October 30 article was an unauthorized leak and, if so, who was the source of the leak. On August 31, 2017, the OIG opened an investigation of McCabe following INSD’s referral of its matter to the OIG after INSD became concerned that McCabe may have lacked candor when questioned by INSD agents about his role in the disclosure to the WSJ.


I haven't seen any indications that McCabe might be charged for leaking anything.

Did you not actually read the post or follow the link?

The Justice Department’s inspector general has referred to federal prosecutors his findings that Andrew G. McCabe, the former F.B.I. deputy director, had repeatedly misled investigators, a person familiar with the matter said on Thursday.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/us/politics/andrew-mccabe-fbi-inspector-general-criminal-referral.html

There are also articles in the Washington Post, Politico, FOX, Brietbart, etc...


BTW... it is alarming that you are incapable of making an argument about an FBI director's actions during the previous Administration time frame, regarding leaks and lies that had to do with Obama's DOJ...

Without bringing up Trump.

C.H. Truth said...

Clarification.

The lying technically took place during the INSD (FBI Inspecition division) investigation into the leaking of the information. The IG was specifically investigating McCabe for his behavior overall.

But that doesn't change the fact that the misleading statements were made under oath regarding an internal investigation of the WSJ leaks.

wphamilton said...

BTW... it is alarming that you are incapable of making an argument about an FBI director's actions during the previous Administration time frame, regarding leaks and lies that had to do with Obama's DOJ...

Without bringing up Trump.


Once again, YOU brought Trump into it, not I. You wanted to say "the political optics could be brutal" if McCabe isn't charged, because Trump associates were charged.

If it's alarming to you, it's because the comparison doesn't go the way you imagined it would.

wphamilton said...

"But that doesn't change the fact that the misleading statements were made under oath regarding an internal investigation of the WSJ leaks."

Right, "misleading", "internal investigation" regarding internal personnel matters, by the FBI's internal personnel watchdog. Who gave up the "unauthorized" disclosure of political corruption?

Special Investigation inquiring about cooperation with a foreign attack on American institutions.

I'm sure that you see some of the differences here.

C.H. Truth said...

The comparison is exactly as it is.

Flynn was questioned about a conversation between him and a Russian diplomat during the transition. His "fib" was in regards to whether or not he discussed possible sanctions with the Russian diplomat. He apparently lied because he was told that discussing sanctions could be in violation of the Logan act.

After Trump found out he had lied (to Pence and the FBI), Flynn was fired. The FBI at the time did not believe that any charges were required.


In your imagination... "Flynn's lies had serious implications regarding national security." "Flynn's actions were clearly opposing the public interest" and "tended to shield Trump from public inspection".

You use your "alarming rhetoric" to make implications that there is some big difference here.


In my viewpoint, Flynn was only charged by Mueller to put pressure on him (and to send a message to others). I don't believe that charging Flynn was or is a matter or national security. I doubt that it has anything to do with public interest. It did nothing to "shield Trump" from anything.

There is no objective manner to say that an FBI second in charge should be allowed to break FBI regulations, then lie about it to an internal inspector under oath.

If you asked Americans, which action they see as a bigger problem. Possible violations of the Logan act or the continued leaking of information to the media from members of our law enforcement and other branches of the Government... I am pretty sure the majority of Americans would find the leaks a bigger problem.


Does that mean I believe that McCabe will be charged? Probably not. The FBI/DOJ did not charge anyone in the Clinton probe for leaking. Nor did the FBI/DOJ charge Papadopoulos, Flynn or anyone else in that investigation.

Those charges were brought by Special Counsel. I think the standards are different (not that they should be).

wphamilton said...

We'll provide illegal aid in electing your President, but you'll have to soften these sanctions for starters.

You think no one cares, but I think you're projecting. Even if it's just proving that it DIDN'T happen, lying about those meetings throws a kink in the investigation. Everyone that isn't accepting Trump's denials on blind faith care about that, far more than who leaked to make Lynch look bad.

commie said...


In my "naive" viewpoint, Flynn was only charged by Mueller...there fixed for you scotty....lolol

C.H. Truth said...

You think no one cares, but I think you're projecting.

I believe you should consider this same statement as it relates to FBI deputy directors being responsible for unauthorized leaks and then lying under oath to FBI internal investigators about it.

General Flynn has been charged for his transgression of lying under oath to the FBI investigators. He broke the letter of the law and will pay whatever consequences that the judge decides.

You apparently don't see the possibility that many Americans will feel that a high level FBI agent should be held just as accountable for lying under oath... or that they might be upset if they feel there is a double standard.

Most people don't have the same perceptions about this as you have to allow you to parse the differences so harshly to see one transgression as requiring a prison sentence, while the other should be let off the hook completely.