McCabe indictment recommended
Well, well, well:
U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu has recommended moving forward with charges against CNN contributor Andrew McCabe, Fox News has learned, as the Justice Department rejects a last-ditch appeal from the former top FBI official.
McCabe — the former deputy and acting director of the FBI — appealed the decision of the U.S. attorney for Washington all the way up to Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general, but he rejected that request, according to a person familiar with the situation…
The potential charges relate to DOJ inspector general findings against him regarding misleading statements concerning a Hillary Clinton-related investigation.
Will McCabe ever be found guilty? That depends on a lot of things, including (as Ace points out) the venue in which he is tried, if it comes to that.
I don’t know enough about the relevant law, or the totality of the evidence, to know whether the case against McCabe is strong enough for a conviction. He was almost certainly guilty of shocking wrongdoing. But that doesn’t always rise to the level of a crime that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
[ADDENDUM: Andrew C. McCarthy weighs in.]
I know that there is a very practical aspect to trying a case to a jury, but it turns my stomach to think criminals can’t be convicted in DC due to the composition of the jury pool.
Could this be the first step in opening up a big can of worms? If they start pinning down McCabe is it possible a lot of information that can be used to bring charges against some of the others in this lashed up mess might see the light of day, there has been so much written for years on both the left and the right that I am hoping someone gains some traction to send a few people to prison for their dirty tricks.
Against whom could McCabe flip? This could get interesting.
Considering some of what we’ve seen from Liu’s other cases, the evidence must be strong enough that she couldn’t see a way to wiggle out of indicting him.
This is an interesting complaint, considering that the process of purging disloyal or opposite-party officials is a long-standing custom of the President, regardless of who it is.
“Last month, McCabe sued the FBI and the Justice Department over his firing, arguing it was part of Trump’s plan to rid the bureau of leaders he perceived as disloyal to him. McCabe argued in his complaint that the two officials responsible for demoting and then firing McCabe — FBI Director Chris Wray and Sessions — created a pretext to force him out in accordance with the president’s wishes.”
As Mueller has demonstrated you don’t need a conviction to punish someone. How many of his targets have been financially ruined by the necessity to “lawyer up”? Don’t even need to address the emotional stress attendant to having the big feet of the U.S. government tromping through your life; and in Mueller’s world actually kicking down your door in the pre-dawn hours.
There is the old cliche, “what goes around comes around”; and I look forward to the squeals of anguish when it becomes manifest.
I have two hopes. First, that Comey and Brennan get their just desserts; and two that some legal justification is found (created?) to make Mueller experience at least a measure of the anguish he inflicted on others just because he could.
That’s the whole game. McCabe rats out Comey, Brennan and, yes, Barack.
Andy ain’t going to the slammer to protect those criminals.
So the charge against McCabe is?
“Horowitz found that McCabe had misled investigators, including making false statements under oath.” — Nat. Rev.
Oh, OK. Yet another process crime. That’s not unimportant. Maybe I’m jumping ahead in a complex process, but I’m really eager to see people prosecuted for misleading the FISC. Either that or disband the FISC, because right now it is a joke. A joke that allows the deep state to function like a dictatorship.
TommyJay: By the fearful light of Hong Kong, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shows up as a cousin to the Hong Kong extradition bill — shadowy, around-the-back, legal trickery enabling the state to persecute whomever it will.
“the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shows up as a cousin to the Hong Kong extradition bill — shadowy, around-the-back, legal trickery enabling the state to persecute whomever it will.”
I’m not necessarily an ardent fan of the FISC, but this characterization is flat out wrong and bogus.
TommyJay:
Andrew McCarthy writes:
Criminal? Dreadful, but not criminal? I don’t know. But I don’t see it as equivalent to a process crime like Flynn’s purported one.
I’m not necessarily an ardent fan of the FISC, but this characterization is flat out wrong and bogus.
Michael Towns: I notice you offer no support whatsoever for your claim.
I didn’t say they are exactly the same — hence “cousins” — but as far as I’m concerned the Swamp used the FISC as a sneaky way to get at people they wanted gotten just as the PRC would like to get at Hong Kongers. In theory it’s all above-board, but the practice was different here and would be for HK. It sure smells similar.
So far the only FISA abuses I know of relate to RussiaGate. But until there’s been a transparent house-cleaning, frankly I’m going to assume FISC is as corrupt as the FBI has shown itself to be.
“I notice you offer no support whatsoever for your claim.” — How could I? I don’t have access to FISC deliberations nor DOJ materials.
But regardless, the FISC was misled and duped. Those judges are handpicked by Chief Justice Roberts. They are not deep state apparatchiks.
These are process crimes. I thought you were against charging for those.
If McGabe really has information on the Clintons he’ll be suicided by a rifle bullet to the back of the brain while tied to a chair in a burning car dropping off a bridge, or something similarly creative, before he can testify.
These are process crimes. I thought you were against charging for those.
Indubitably, she’s against special prosecutors having the franchise to secure indictments from process crimes which derive from their own investigation and wherein there is no underlying crime. I’ll wager she’s also opposed to charging people with process ‘crimes’ which have no analogue in state codes. In New York, to charge someone with perjury or an allied offense, you need to give testimony under oath or you need to affix your signature to a notarized document or you need to affix your signature to a document to which a jurat is customarily attached (and this last is always a misdemeanor). You can’t charge someone based on a police officer’s notes of a conversation (which is what Mueller’s crew was doing).
1. The contention is that McCabe made false statements under oath.
2. There was an underlying offense, though it might be limited to the code of conduct applicable to civil servants rather than the penal code.
Liberals cannot stop lying.
If McGabe really has information on the Clintons he’ll be suicided by a rifle bullet to the back of the brain while tied to a chair in a burning car dropping off a bridge, or something similarly creative, before he can testify.
This is nuts.
Art Deco:
Yes, it’s nuts…but is it more nuts than our present reality?
Jury’s out on that one.
This entire fiasco is sickening; the illegal spying by domestic intelligence agencies against a candidate for president (as well as against “enemies” of the Obama administration) and the attempted coup d’etat against a legally and fairly elected president.
And to date, what do we see; some stupid process crime indictment.
This is analogous to watching a video of thugs – whose faces are clearly seen on video – robbing and shooting dead some old lady and then after a lengthy investigation having the thugs indicted for jaywalking.
The crimes committed by this cabal of FBI/CIA/DOJ/NSA “elites” deserve the death penalty; no lethal injection, no electric chair.
They deserve the same fate – hanged by the neck until dead – that Abe Lincoln’s assassins received.
McCabe, as one of the ring leaders, will not spill the beans as to who ordered, who knew, who participated in this sordid affair. My guess is that Obama advisors / appointees knew and approved of this entire affair.
It’s too bad water boarding is off the table (though by some miracle of miracle, US elite military personnel who are subjected to this as part of their training somehow survive it just fine).
It would greatly expedite learning all the pertinent details.
Re: The Foriegn Intelligence Surveillance Court (FICA)
Does this court not have the authority to fine and and/or jail persons for contempt for lying to the court? It seems that there should be some mechanism for the court to maintain and defend it’s own integrity and credibility. Otherwise, it is merely a rubber stamp.
As Mueller has demonstrated you don’t need a conviction to punish someone. How many of his targets have been financially ruined by the necessity to “lawyer up”?
Remember McCabe, through his wife, got paid $700k for mysterious reasons. Blasey Ford got a million $ via a “GoFundMe” account. The left cares for its own.
FISA abuse does not mean the process is corrupt. Only that it can be used for corrupt reasons. My daughter, a lawyer and FBI agent, used to draw up FISA warrants but not in DC where she was never assigned.
Thanks for the additional money quote Neo. I didn’t read the piece, because at this level I find it wearisome. I do think process crimes are important if they are genuine, and McCabe’s are pretty bad.
I didn’t bring up Flynn, but his ordeal is a good counterpoint. Sadly, he did admit to lying, but the other 90% of this case was garbage. Comey admitted on camera to using trickery and manipulation and using the chaos of the early White House of our first(?) political outsider president to trap Flynn. (Why would Comey do that? Was his impulse to brag so great?)
Susan McDougal spent a couple years or more in jail while keeping her mouth shut about what she knew about the Clintons. And then collected her Clinton pardon. So don’t hold your breathe on McCabe.
______
The flaws and structure of the FISC has been debated for a long time, and many people, excluding leftists, think it is wholly inadequate for its tasks.
For example, in its own internal audits it has often made public that there were more than 100 “instances” of US citizens accidentally swept up in its surveillance in a year. But someone investigated the audit and found that the “instances” itemized were actually categories itemized, and that one category may have 100 or more citizens swept up into it.
Worse, under NSA leadership (like Gen. Hayden?) the writers of these audits were encouraged to obfuscate their reports knowing that the FISC judges either have no desire or capability to learn anything to the contrary.
If the FISC were properly structured it would have had the authority to appoint an FBI investigator, of their choice, to strap any of these potential DOJ/FBI miscreants into a lie detector chair and interrogate them under oath, and would have done so more than a year ago.
That Chief Justice Roberts appointed the FISC judges lessens my confidence even further. What if a Chief Justice Sotomayor of the future gets to appoint these judges?
Roy Nathanson, Exactly stated.
The flaws and structure of the FISC has been debated for a long time, and many people, excluding leftists, think it is wholly inadequate for its tasks.
For example, in its own internal audits it has often made public that there were more than 100 “instances” of US citizens accidentally swept up in its surveillance in a year. But someone investigated the audit and found that the “instances” itemized were actually categories itemized, and that one category may have 100 or more citizens swept up into it.
TommyJay: Quelle surprise. Thanks for the information.
“I notice you offer no support whatsoever for your claim.” — How could I? I don’t have access to FISC deliberations nor DOJ materials.
Michael Towns: Stick around. You’ve got a sense of humor!
Prosecutors generally don’t go forward with something unless they feel good about their chances of winning at trial. If you don’t feel you can win, you don’t have very much leverage with regard to getting them to plead out and flip on their co-criminals.
The surveillance state that was created by 9/11 is not healthy and has been abused by politicians for their own reasons unconnected to national security. What are we to do ?
If Bill Clinton had taken the reports on OBL seriously, we might not be here. As Madeline Halfbright put it, “Of course we took terrorism seriously. We had meetings about it almost every week !”
Not even the Cole was enough to interest him in security.
Art Deco:
Exactly. I have never said I am against charging for a process crime in every instance. I am against charging for a process crime when that is not only the only crime committed but is in fact the only offense the person has committed in regard to the general course of action under consideration in an investigation.
But charging for a process crime committed as part of an entire complex of outrageous acts, some of which may also be crimes and/or many of which constitute an abuse of power (and in fact, a dangerous abuse of power) is perfectly okay with me, whichever party the charged person might be a member of.
However, as I believe I indicated in this post: “I don’t know enough about the relevant law, or the totality of the evidence, to know whether the case against McCabe is strong enough for a conviction.” I also think that the quality and nature of the “lying” for which a person is charged is extremely important. Flynn, for example, supposedly lied about something that wasn’t even a wrongdoing, much less a crime. It seemed absurd to me to charge him with lying about something like that. McCabe, on the other hand—who was the HEAD of the FBI—abused his power, violated regulations and rules, and lied about material and important things in an attempt to cover up his own abuse of power and violations of basic regulations of the department. A very different state of affairs.
I don’t know how the laws about process crimes of this sort read, but the distinctions I’ve described here should also make a difference. And I would say that no matter which side the person being charged is on. Some process crimes are clearly more trivial, and some far more serious, than others.
The perjury laws are a bit like that. Not all lies under oath are perjury in the legal sense.
Process crimes committed by investigating gov’t employees, including cops, should all be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted. Prosecuted to the extent of 30-40% trials lead to non-conviction. (Not the almost 100% of today, based more on guilty pleas than on a trial).
Cops & investigators have far far more power than other citizens — greater responsibility AND accountability should follow that use of power. To minimize the abuse of power.
Failure to prosecute prior gov’t agents has created the “immunity” feeling among top gov’t crooks. That’s terrible for the USA.
Not even the Cole was enough to interest him in security.
Not so much that, as the conduct of the Consular Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Department of Agriculture in dealing with Mohammed Atta and the others. Mark Steyn had some mordantly witty columns for which the point of departure was Mohammed Atta’s interviews with USDA officials. Then there was the visa approval for one of the hijackers’ applications, time-stamped six months after 9/11.
I agree completely Neo. Was it the case that the agents who interviewed Flynn implied that the interview was off the record? I’m not sure. I do seem to recall that Flynn was told by the agents that he had no need for a lawyer. Translation: Better get two lawyers, immediately.
My original comment was an expression of impatience and frustration. The FISA/NSA stuff is the 8 million pound gorilla, and so far people don’t want to touch it. Didn’t Sen. Schumer (or similar) state that you never want to mess with top intelligence people? Trump and AG Sessions appeared to be spectators in their own administrations, and while Barr is very much better; how far is he willing to go?
Sean Connery’s character in “The Untouchables”
People always quote the “pull a gun” part of the quote. Analogously, they got Capone of a process crime of tax evasion, and maybe perjury is the only thing we will get. (I don’t think that it should necessary to go beyond the law in this case, so it’s not a perfect analogy.)
To be more accurate, I guess Rep. Nunes and Goudy have “touched” the FISA mess, but I’m worried that it has all stalled out.
Analogously, they got Capone of a process crime of tax evasion,
Tax evasion is not a process crime. In regard to the body of Capone’s crimes, it was an ancillary offense. It’s still a substantive offense.
Tax evasion is not a process crime.
Martha Stewart got convicted of lying but she was lying about some insider trading that WAS a crime. Flynn did not lie. He pled guilty to save his son from the ordeal he was going through. There is now evidence that that was the reason. His new, savvy lawyer is going to destroy the case. The FBI concealed evidence.
Michael Towns on September 13, 2019 at 1:08 am said:
…
But regardless, the FISC was misled and duped.
Those judges are handpicked by Chief Justice Roberts.
They are not deep state apparatchiks.
* * *
The first statement is a likely supposition, depending on how you read the FISA applications, but they apparently did not do anything more than rubber-stamp them, i.e., no questions about any of the loosey-goosey stuff that has now been revealed.
The second statement is demonstrably true. However, Roberts’ basis of judgment on their qualifications for the post might tell us more about their character than just the bald facts.
The third statement is an unsupported assertion, and does not follow from either of the former ones.
OK, tax evasion is not a process crime, now. Maybe not then either, but people forget that for many years after the 16th amendment, IRS men were routinely sent out to encourage medium and somewhat higher income people who had never paid any income tax to come clean and begin paying their taxes. Prosecutions were rare for a time. It certainly wasn’t what Elliot Ness set out to do.
On a related topic, it has become popular to let or keep criminals out of jail because of the non-violent nature of their crimes. (Hey Joe, what about Al Capone?) But it is so very common to get convictions on much lesser crimes, even when people have been committed to a life of violence. Prosecutors get what they can get, but when they go low, they may leave their work open to the pernicious gambit of the non-violence BS.
Federal judges, by definition, cannot be deep state apparatchiks simply by virtue of them being openly nominated, openly confirmed by the Senate, and very public officials.
Does that mean that cannot be manipulated by deep state apparatchiks? Definitely not. They can be, and they were, in the matter of Russiagate. But that does not mean that they themselves are plotting to overthrow the Republic. Please. They are judges. The overwhelming vast majority of them take their jobs seriously and *try* to give good opinions, even if they stumble by being duped by bad DOJ actors.
I meant to also say: folks in the judiciary are far less likely to manipulate matters than folks in the executive or legislative. The executive, in particular, has a tendency to bend the law if not break it. That’s my point with respect to these FISC judges.
Some of the rhetoric on this post has been a bit too histrionic for my tastes.
I am too impatient. From FoxNews tonight,
Will the meat of the report be redacted? Fingers crossed.
Art Deco…what is the underlying crime?
Art Deco…what is the underlying crime?
The offenses of the crew at the apex of the FBI have been under discussion for several years, Manju. Some of these might be prosecutable crimes, others professional misconduct meriting various sorts of sanction. Do try to keep up.
Michael Towns on September 13, 2019 at 6:45 pm said:
Federal judges, by definition, cannot be deep state apparatchiks simply by virtue of them being openly nominated, openly confirmed by the Senate, and very public officials.
* * *
Sorry, you lost me on that one.
The vast majority may be what you say (I agree, in fact), but there are way too many politically activist judges whose rulings make the news often enough to prove that your three-pronged defense is irrelevant.
Unless maybe we aren’t arguing from the same defintion of “Deep State apparatchiks” — it IS a rather nebulous term.
If a requisite of being “deep state” is to be an unelected, or to operate outside of the public’s eye, then you have simply stated a tautology.
However, since the common use of the term today includes some openly nominated and confirmed and public Cabinet and agency officials, I would suggest that judges fall well within that purview.
ON the redacting of the IG’s report:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/13/inspector-general-horowitz-completes-investigation-notifies-congress-of-classification-review/
CTH linked this one & I was able to access it without hitting the paywall.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/us/politics/andrew-mccabe-grand-jury.html?auth=login-email&login=email
It’s the Lawfare POV that makes the best case for McCabe, of course.
Funny how many policy (and criminal) violations get “handled administratively” if you are a Democrat instead of a Republican.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/13/mccabes-lawfare-alliance-working-with-media-allies-to-frame-defense/
“However, since the common use of the term today includes some openly nominated and confirmed and public Cabinet and agency officials, I would suggest that judges fall well within that purview.”
That’s not the “Deep State.” That’s the Open and Obvious State.
Art Deco, I thought your opposition charging someone with procedural crimes hinged on whether or not they were being charged with an underlying one.
But I see now that it merely hinges on whether or not right-wing demagogues are discussing underlying crimes. If they are, then charge away.
Thanks for the clarification.
Art Deco, I thought your opposition charging someone with procedural crimes hinged on whether or not they were being charged with an underlying one.
I’ve already discussed the distinction between McCabe’s case and others with you, in precise and explicit terms. I gather your handlers at Correct-the-Record told you to just pretend I hadn’t.
“I gather your handlers at Correct-the-Record told you to just pretend I hadn’t.” Art Deco to Manju
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/09/12/dems-secretly-trained-thousands-of-activists-to-manipulate-media-clinton-library-docs-show/