Andrew C. McCarthy on why McCabe wasn’t charged
McCarthy sets up the question very well:
Why not indict McCabe on felony false-statements charges? That is the question being pressed by incensed Trump supporters. After all, the constitutional guarantee of equal justice under the law is supposed to mean that McCabe gets the same quality of justice afforded to the sad sacks pursued with unseemly zeal by McCabe’s FBI and Robert Mueller’s prosecutors. George Papadopoulos was convicted of making a trivial false statement about the date of a meeting. Roger Stone was convicted of obstruction long after the special counsel knew there was no Trump–Russia conspiracy, even though his meanderings did not impede the investigation in any meaningful way. And in the case of Michael Flynn’s false-statements conviction, as McCabe himself acknowledged to the House Intelligence Committee, even the agents who interviewed him did not believe he intentionally misled them.
I emphasize Flynn’s intent because purported lack of intent is McCabe’s principal defense, too. Even McCabe himself, to say nothing of his lawyers and his apologists in the anti-Trump network of bureaucrats-turned-pundits, cannot deny that he made false statements to FBI agents and the IG. Rather, they argue that the 21-year senior law-enforcement official did not mean to lie, that he was too distracted by his high-level responsibilities to focus on anything as mundane as a leak — even though he seemed pretty damned focused on the leak while he was orchestrating it.
The “he did not believe he intentionally misled them” defense is not just implausible; it proved unavailing on McCabe’s watch, at least in General Flynn’s case. Hence, McCabe has a back-up plan: To argue that it would be extraordinary — and thus unconstitutionally selective and retaliatory — for the Justice Department to prosecute a former official for false statements in a “mere” administrative inquiry (which the leak probe was), as opposed to a criminal investigation. Again, tell that to Flynn, with whom the FBI conducted a brace-style interview — at the White House, without his counsel present, and in blithe disregard of procedures for FBI interviews of the president’s staff — despite the absence of a sound investigative basis for doing so, and whom Mueller’s maulers squeezed into a guilty plea anyway.
Preach it, McCarthy, preach it.
In the article, McCarthy outlines a compelling case against McCabe, but adds this telling point about what would be likely to happen in any attempt to prosecute him [emphasis mine]:
That said, [Lisa] Page’s account does illuminate a problem for prosecutors: It’s tough to win a case when your witnesses are spinning for the defendant.
If you’re not already furious about McCabe’s non-prosecution and the fact that the Bureau and the deep state protects its own, take a look at this:
Again, the Journal story generated by McCabe’s leak was published on October 30, a Sunday. Late that afternoon, McCabe called the head of the FBI’s Manhattan office. Why? Well . . . to ream him out over media leaks, that’s why….
It is worth remembering McCabe’s October 30 scolding of subordinates when you think about how he later claimed that, on the very next day, he’d freely admitted to his superior, Comey, that he himself was the source of the leak. Quite the piece of work, this guy: To throw the scent off himself after carefully arranging the leak, McCabe dressed down the FBI’s two premier field offices, knowing they were completely innocent, and then pretended for months that he knew nothing about the leak.
This is the second-highest-ranking officer of the nation’s top law-enforcement agency we’re talking about, here.
McCarthy also lists further reasons the DOJ decision may have gone against charging McCabe. In addition to the aforementioned witness problem, you have the fact that “the Justice Department stood to take some hits if McCabe had been charged,” because of various types of omissions and/or improper behavior the department itself may have been guilty of that would be likely to come out in any McCabe trial, as well as the problem with DC venues and jurors who are anti-Trump (as we’ve seen in the Stone trial).
What a terrible situation. The net effect has been to undermine belief in the fairness of our justice system, for anyone who still held that belief until now.
The only problem with that McCarthy piece is he has to parrot Barr’s complaints about Trump’s tweets. But it did make me wonder…what if Trump didn’t tweet?
It seems very possible he would never have gotten elected in the first place, which means a lot of the despicable attitudes and behaviors now brought to light would have remained hidden and people like Andrew McCarthy would have remained blissfully ignorant of the rot inside the very institutions they admire.
But what if Trump got elected and then was subjected to this onslaught without ever tweeting back in response? Are we supposed to believe that his enemies would be NICER if Trump weren’t firing back at them? That the Russian hoax and Ukraine nonsense wouldn’t have been weaponized against him?
Mike
Sure I may be wrong, yet it seems to me as though the Constitutional constraints on Justice are the sine qua non of McCarthy’s account. And what remedy? None available today. Move Government in general out of DC into normal American places and charges against the likes of McCabe might be brought to stick. Let Government operations remain in DC and asymmetric rules will prevail. Suxks, but thems the breaks.
Nothing will happen to any of these people. Except for cushy media jobs of course.
I came across this account of how McCabe is punished more severely if he is **not** indicted and convicted but rather stays in his current administrative punishment status with a large chunk of his pension gone. Something not mentioned is that years later, when the political winds change, it may then be possible to restore his pension to what it was if he has not been convicted, which is a point not covered by the below quote.
McCabe broke departmental guidelines more than clearly violating the perjury statute.
“As a former whistleblower myself, I can attest to the fact that not being truthful to an IG is a “misstatement of fact,” not criminal perjury. If I gave the IG a purposeful misstatement, I could not have been in jeopardy of perjury. Federal IGs are not federal law enforcement (LE) when acting in an IG role even if they’re credentialed LE. IGs don’t do criminal investigations; they investigate agency regulation violations. If they suspect criminal violations, those are referred to jurisdictional LE. McCabe violated agency policy, including misstatements of fact, and was severely sanctioned with termination for cause, loss of all pay and benefits, and loss of pension. Not a wrist slap by any means. Even the folks that I got fired kept their retirements.
Lastly, if McCabe was indicted and convicted, as a first offender, he’d likely get probation and have retained his pension. The agency sanction is worse; which is likely why Sessions went that route.”
This is from redstate, “What’s really going on with McCabe?”
I see people commenting here and elsewhere about ‘oh just wait for the IG’ or ‘just wait for Barr’ or the current one ‘just wait for Durham’ and I just shake my head.
Nothing criminal will happen to any of these people and I can’t figure out why anyone actually thinks it will.
I’ve always been a little cynical but the last few years have made me extremely cynical of even the guys supposedly on our side like Barr. He may be better than most but that’s it.
The statement
McCabe broke departmental guidelines more than clearly violating the perjury statute.
is also part of the redstate quote (the open quote marks were accidently put in the wrong place.)
Some blue collar dudes I chat with are surprisingly well up to date on all this stuff. They see the two-tiered system, they see the double-standard and the hypocrisy, and it makes them angry. Very angry about where the country is at.
The deep state may win for the day, but they are fomenting incredible forces of anger and social unrest if this stuff keeps on happening (which it will, absent a total cleansing of the Augean stables.)
I no longer trust Mr McCarthy … or any other apologist. A full and honest airing is needed. If these people are innocent or if their errors are minor: fine.
But let the truth come out. Not ignored. Not obscured. No endless faux “investigations”.
The real scandal here is how the DOJ handled the report of its own Inspector General. Apparently–in the finest traditions of bureaucracy– if you want to bury an unpleasant situation in our Department of Justice, you just kick it around for a while and then you say, well you couldn’t win in court anyway. Horowitz’s job is to review internal actions and make recommendations as to dispositions. In this case, he referred for prosecution, and the DOJ hemmed and hawed to the point of abandoning the IG’s recommendation.
If the plan is that there are bigger things in the works for McCabe, then fine.
If he gets to walk, having been fired, that will be discouraging, but not surprising.
Read “Burn Down the DOJ and Start Over”
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2020/02/17/burn-down-the-doj-and-start-over-n2561386?179
and then “Abolish CIA & FISA”
https://americanmind.org/essays/abolish-the-cia/
and then get back to us about any lingering belief in the rule of law as currently practiced.
It’s either the above or a not too distant civil war because a two tiered ‘justice’ system is unsustainable. It makes violent resolution of irreconcilable differences inescapable and inevitable.
As intelligent and experienced as McCarthy is, I hate they way he demeans the men who were persecuted by the FBI/Federal government in this whole sordid affair. Using the term “sad sacks” to describe them is so unnecessary. These were innocent people going about their lives before they were sucked into this maelstrom by corrupt agents of the FBI and other government agencies. I’ve heard McCarthy use pejoratives to describe them in other instances, as well. Podcasts, for example. Makes me so angry that even a supposed “straight shooter” like McCarthy has that whiff of insufferability that only government workers (present or former) seem to possess.
McCarthy has frequently demonstrated his willful blindness to the extent and depth of the treachery of so many of those whom he has known professionally. I suspect he’s another Alan Dershowitz.
McCarthy is verbose, repetitive and spent the first 18 months of Mueller telling us what a wonderful straight shooter the guy is and that the DOJ would NEVER do anything untoward, so there must be a real collusion in there.
He’s an apologist hack neverTrumper at best.
A big part of me is mad at McCarthy – for his message, from Trump’s/ Barr’s … deep state DoJ – no indictment.
Barr made that call? It’s not clear who. He should order an indictment.
Yeah, maybe with an indictment, all the slimeballs “spin”, in court, to protect McCabe the slimeball. So the DoJ lose the trial. The trial itself is a little bit of justice, and more evidence of deep state crimes would likely come out.
On the other hand, more normal folk are more angry — so maybe they’ll be MORE likely to vote Trump, support Trump, and tell their non-college friends who they’ll support.
I’m certainly thinking a 2022 budget could be submitted by a Rep dominated Congress with big big cuts in the DoJ budget. So all the top guys are fired. And maybe ending the gov’t “unions”, which were allowed by a JFK exec order, I think.
I’m disgusted, and will remain so until there are indictments of Dems for their crimes.
Starting with Hillary’s illegal server, and then the FBI coverup, and the anti-Trump stuff is to cover up their Hillary server coverup.
Rule of law – such Dem hypocrites.
Nuke D.C. from orbit.
Twice.
It’s the only way to be sure.
I too am tired, angry, and deeply frustrated with people like McCarthy. They are apologizing for actions that can not be explained away by legal niceties. McCabe knew he was lying and conspiring to unseat a duly elected president. In my neck of the prairie we call that treason. The only remedy for treason is either hanging or the firing squad.
When there are two systems of justice tensions will build until the tipping point is reached. This will not end well.
McCarthy has most definitely evolved.
So has Dershowitz.
People’s opinions change. Eyes are opened.
Both of the above are (along with others) indispensable in keeping us informed of the treachery that has been unleashed against the country, its Constitution, its laws and its mores, all of which have been systematically trampled and mutilated by the Obama administration together with the Democratic Party in its current malevolent, destructive and fundamentally insane incarnation.
As such, they have become indispensable to the country’s defense.
(FWIW, regarding McCarthy’s “sad sack” comment, I believe it has been misunderstood. He’s acknowledging that there are two tiers of justice: one for the connected anti-Trump hotshots in high places (and their foot soldiers, carriers of water and hewers of wood), and one for their targets, their unfortunate, set up, framed victims (i.e., Flynn, Page, Manafort, Stone, Papadopolous, etc.—and ultimately Trump himself—all victimized, without due process, without recourse; and judged by a hysterical “mob” fed on lies, innuendo, slander and the theatrical promotion of hate for Trump and those who dare support him). If McCarthy had called those targets “deplorables” it would—or should—have been understood as irony. Instead, he’s calling those victims “sad sacks” precisely because they’ve been victimized—I don’t think it’s too OTT to say “brutalized”—by a STASI-like DOJ/Obama/Clinton/Media machine. He’s NOT AT ALL making a value judgement regarding their personalities, backgrounds, judgement, abilities, wealth or class. They have been done wrong. And he, along with Dershowitz, is doing his darnedest to expose the evildoers and their crimes. Once again, FWIW…)
Evoled into what? The riright side or the left side?
The protecting-the-Constitution side.
The equality-before-the-law side.
The presumed-innocent side.
The decency side.
The sane side.
Yes, I realize that the war’s heating up and that the physical violence by the haters against Trump, and his supporters, is getting worse (as, realizing profoundly the deep, dark hole in which they’ve dug themselves, they’re getting more and more desperate—and since it’s impossible to keep that carefully cultivated hate bottled up, or get it back in the tube if you prefer, the violence will also heat up against fellow Democrats whom the haters don’t like or support.
But one has to keep sane. Vigilant, committed but measured. Prepared, always ready but never hysterical. Which is probably the most difficult, the most horrendous aspect of this enormity—this orgy of hate and lies—that the Democratic Party has foisted upon this nation.
(While in the background lurks—more like “rages”—the pandemic…. Could it be that the end-of-timers are getting a wee excited?…. Huxley, we’re getting truly cinematic here!)
Speaking of decency…
…this just came in over the wires: it’s on Bill Clinton’s fascinating—and of course ultra-cute, super-precocious, bright as-buttons—grandchildren:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-tarmac-meeting-new-book
After the Waco massacre, how many fibbies resigned? How many of the current roster of active fibbies joined after the massacre?
Who was prosecuted? Suffered any kind of discipline? Was it just in terms of eighty dead innocent citizens who, the fibbies knew, had done nothing wrong?
Every fibbie now active or who didn’t resign immediately…has no problem with the massacre.
Among other things, they knew the Right Sort of People could be counted on to dehumanize the victims. About a month ago, a very nice lady at our church said, stoutly, “But they were a cult!”, which, to her view, justifies the whole thing.
Point is, this is the DoJ. Nothing they do, no matter how obviously unjust, should cause any surprise.
The movie “Richard Jewell”–everybody should see it if only to make a statement–came down hard on the local fibbies. As it should. But they left out Louis Freeh’s direct interference.
dead innocent citizens who, the fibbies knew, had done nothing wrong?
Koresh and his camarilla had done plenty wrong. The question at hand was whether or not it was the sort of wrong that was supposed to interest federal law enforcement and to what degree they could have avoided bloodshed by using different tactics and strategy. The odious Janet Reno prevented a proper post-mortem with the connivance of the President.
Shortly before that fiasco, the FBI sent a small army to arrest an obnoxious eccentric named Randy Weaver for failure to appear for a court date. The court date in question concerned a weapons charge (selling a sawed-off shotgun to an agent provacateur). The FBI agent who killed Weaver’s wife and 11 year old son received no punishment.
Writing on the Waco disaster 26 years ago, Leon Wieseltier offered this judgment about the Koresh cult, “They’re losers, but they’re not the sort of losers the media take an interest in”. Hence, expendables.
Atty with 30+ years in the courtroom here.
“It might be tough to win” is not a reason to refuse to charge. The letter to McCabe’s attys reflect’s Comey’s earlier decision not to charge Clinton: The “totality of the circumstances” means I might not win. That is rank cowardice, confirming what I’ve feared would be the outcome: Either no indictments or only a Scapegoat or two. (Cough*Paige*cough*Storzyk*cough) No McCabe indictment = no Comey, no Clapper, no Brennen, etc etc ad nauseum.
art deco. Far as I can tell, there were two issues: Firearms violations. During the hearings, it turned out the Texas Rangers had investigated and found nothing wrong.
Statutory rape. If true, the guy should have been arrested when he visited town, as the local sheriff insisted.
The bogus drug issue was based on a permanent hot spot which the feds took to be some kind of drug cooker. (Could have been an institutional coffee pot) They were so sure it was that they didn’t bring the prescribed fire extinguisher. Thing is, if the feds have to borrow military equipment, they have to pay mileage and repair. Unless it’s a drug thing, when the military eat the cost.
And a real case, no question of true or not, was FLDS. Texas authorities took the place down without murdering a single child. Funny the Texans are the wimps and the feds the studly heroes.
As with Randy Weaver, it was worse than it looked. The notice to appear went out backdated a month. So, before it hit the post office, he was a month delinquent, which is why marshalls were sicced on him.
At the hearings, the boys all said they’d try not to do that again. The reason for entrapment was to get a lever on him to be an informant on another guy in a survivalist/neo nazi group. Turns out the guy he was to spy on was an informant for another agency. The boys all agreed that better interagency commo would be a good idea and they’d get around to it.
There were two murderers. Horiuchi, the fibbie sniper, killed Mrs. Weaver. Sammy, the kid, was killed in a surprise encounter with the surveilling marshalls. They met while Sammy and a Weaver friend were out hunting. The marshalls killed Sammy’s dog–cop perk and it’s not even taxable–and there was a firefight. Sammy and a marshall were killed. I don’t know what the marshalls thought, but getting one of their guys killed to help in a fraudulent arrest was not popular, I suppose. Now, if none of their guys had been killed, the fraudulent arrest would have looked just super, I guess.
But at least nobody got shot by some clown doing a back flip.