OIG report 2018

[zork 629]

Here is the first of a series of reports, reportedly, coming from the OIG:

https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/politics/20180413a-doj-oig-mccabe-report.pdf

This one largely discusses "Allegations Relating to Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe".

 Should his lying under oath be treated differently than the others who are now famously being charged with lying under oath to the FBI?  Or others who clearly lied to the FBI but have not been charged?  Is losing his right to retire due to being fired before he was eligible to do so, again reportedly, be enough punishment?

What is your opinion on it?

[Anastasis 23393]

Wasn't sure if I wanted this in this OIG thread or the Comey thread.  whynotboth.gif. 

 

McCabe has denied doing anything wrong. "This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to taint the FBI, law enforcement and intelligence professionals more generally," McCabe said in a statement after his firing.

In a letter submitted by McCabe’s counsel after reviewing a draft of the report, McCabe argues that “the OIG should credit Mr. McCabe’s account over Director Comey’s” and complains that the report “paints Director Comey as a white knight carefully guarding FBI information, while overlooking that Mr. McCabe’s account is more credible for at least three key reasons ...”

McCabe's counsel, Michael Bromwich, in a statement to Fox News, slammed the OIG report. "The core weakness of the OIG report is the lack of any understandable motive for his alleged wrongdoing. It is undisputed that Mr. McCabe was one of three senior FBI officials authorized to share information with the media, including on sensitive investigative matters," he said.

"He chose to exercise that authority in October 2016, during one of the most turbulent periods in the history of the bureau, with the knowledge of Director Comey and other senior members of FBI management. His purpose was to protect the institutional reputation of the FBI against false claims, including that a sensitive investigation was being shut down for political reasons."

Video

McCabe's wife breaks silence on husband's firing from FBI

McCabe and Bromwich seemingly sought to diminish the credibility of Comey, blasting his "recollection" as "not at all clear."

"Mr. McCabe’s recollection of discussions he had with Director Comey about this issue is extremely clear; Director Comey’s recollection is, by his own acknowledgment, not at all clear. And yet two of the lack of candor allegations are based on Director Comey’s admittedly vague and uncertain recollection of those discussions. "

[Brisketexan 104561]

7 minutes ago, zork said:

Here is the first of a series of reports, reportedly, coming from the OIG:

https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/politics/20180413a-doj-oig-mccabe-report.pdf

This one largely discusses "Allegations Relating to Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe".

 Should his lying under oath be treated differently than the others who are now famously being charged with lying under oath to the FBI?  Or others who clearly lied to the FBI but have not been charged?  Is losing his right to retire due to being fired before he was eligible to do so, again reportedly, be enough punishment?

What is your opinion on it?

The case is rather strong that he violated FBI policy and lied.  Any one occasion of which is a terminable offense.  Lying under oath is a criminal offense, subject to prosecution.

I'm not sure what the full repercussions should be, but I'm certainly okay with his being terminated.  That said, the timing of his termination was asinine, and done for political purposes -- totally fucking stupid, being that there was ample independent reason to terminate him well before then.

But a person in a position of public trust lied, has suffered consequences for it, and should perhaps suffer even more consequences for it.  I'm good with that.  I'm good with that across the board.

[zork 629]

Quote

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has released his watchdog report on the conduct of former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and it is scathing.  As I discussed in an earlier column, McCabe took the unprecedented step of a top former FBI officer of asking for donations on GoFundMe and racked in more than half a million dollars.  He notably raised the money and then closed the site not long before the release of the report showing that he repeatedly made false statements to investigators as well as Comey.  It was like creating a victim fund before police concludes whether you were attacked or the attacker.  Horowitz did not convey any doubt as to McCabe being the culprit.  He and his career staff found that McCabe not only lied but did so to advance his personal — the public’s — interest. If that is the case, it only magnifies the concerns over the treatment of McCabe as opposed to the Trump officials (like Michael Flynn) who he once investigated.  The fact that he had the audacity to raise a half million dollars before the facts were made public only heightens these concerns.

 

At issue is the leak to The Wall Street Journal about an FBI probe of the Clinton Foundation.

Notably, the report itself belies the allegation of McCabe that he was victim of a witch hunt loyalists.  Not only was Horowitz an Obama appointee but his staff were all career officials. More importantly, the report confirms that opened this review a week before Trump was sworn in. It preceded and had no connection to Mueller.

The report takes apart McCabe’s spin with clinical precision.  It found that McCabe, 50, lied or misled investigators on not one but four occasions.  It also found that these lies were clearly meant to help McCabe alone.  McCabe said that he had full authority to make the disclosures.  The IG found no evidence to support those claims. It also found that there was no evidence that then FBI Director James Comey was informed by McCabe. The IG states:

“[W]e concluded that McCabe’s decision to confirm the existence of the CF investigation through an anonymously sourced quote, recounting the content of a phone call with a senior department official in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of department leadership, was clearly not within the public interest exception.”

So let’s sum up.  The IG found that McCabe lied on four occasions.  It found that he did so for personal benefit.  He further showed no contrition and allegedly falsely implicated his superior in the improper leaking of information to the media.

As noted earlier, Flynn was indicted for criminal false statements on less.  He now faces a prison stint after pleading guilty to a single false statement about a meeting with Russian diplomats during the Trump presidential transition period. While Flynn did not deny the meeting, which was entirely legal, he denied discussing sanctions with the Russians. Mueller charged him with lying or misleading federal investigators under 18 U.S.C. 1001. He did so even though investigators working under former FBI Director James Comey reportedly had concluded that Flynn did not intend to lie and should not be charged criminally for the omission.

McCabe has used the Flynn defense that he was “confused and distracted” but unlike Flynn it appears (thus far) to have worked.

The issue is not as much the crying need to indict McCabe as it is the lack of consistency of how this law is being applied.

https://jonathanturley.org/2018/04/16/after-the-inspector-general-report-questions-grow-over-the-lack-of-a-criminal-referral-for-mccabe/

 

[zork 629]

 

[Anastasis 23393]

interesting to see mccabe and comey going toe to toe over this.