Patterico's Pontifications

8/28/2019

The Apparently Looming Indictment of Andrew McCabe

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:29 am



The New York Times recently reported:

Federal prosecutors in Washington appear to be in the final stages of deciding whether to seek an indictment of Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director and a frequent target of President Trump, on charges of lying to federal agents, according to interviews with people familiar with recent developments in the investigation.

In two meetings last week, Mr. McCabe’s lawyers met with the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, who is expected to be involved in the decision about whether to prosecute, and for more than an hour with the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie K. Liu, according to a person familiar with the meetings. The person would not detail the discussions, but defense lawyers typically meet with top law enforcement officials to try to persuade them not to indict their client if they failed to get line prosecutors to drop the case.

Such meetings are indeed a strong indication of a possible indictment. I am no fan of Andrew McCabe, as this excerpt from a post I wrote after he was fired should make clear:

You might remember that in October 2016, before the election, I was ranting about the fact that a Terry McAuliffe PAC had donated almost half a million to McCabe’s’s wife’s election campaign . . . and yet McCabe had not recused himself from the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Granted, it’s not crystal clear that McCabe acted as a purely partisan warrior there. If you believe the leaks that he authorized to be made to the Wall Street Journal, he pushed for an investigation of the Clinton Foundation. Then again, as the Washington Post notes today, that same story demonstrated that “some FBI officials thought [McCabe] was standing in the way of the Clinton Foundation investigation.”

The point is, if Hillary Clinton’s bag man Terry McAuliffe was delivering sacks of cash to his wife, McCabe had no business ever being anywhere in the chain of command over anything having to do with Hillary Clinton — not the email investigation, not the Clinton Foundation, not any of it. I don’t care that his wife had already lost by the time he became deputy director. The consideration had already been given, and he should have recused himself — yet he didn’t do so until November 1, 2016, which was far too late. I’m not sure whether that failure alone is grounds for termination, but it brought discredit on the FBI. And new evidence that McCabe may have been less than forthright about whether he attended his wife’s campaign events and so forth only contribute to the suspicion.

Let’s place to the side for the moment the laughable fact that McCabe recently signed up to be a CNN contributor, and talk about the ways that Donald Trump has been endangering any possible prosecution of McCabe. Donald Trump is in charge of federal law enforcement, and he has been harshly criticizing McCabe for years. Here are just a few representative tweets:

Regardless of the strength of any possible criminal case against McCabe, it remains extraordinarily unseemly for the head of federal law enforcement to be saying such things, and causes observers to wonder whether any potential indictment is a result of the strength of the case, or a political hit job carried out to please the President of the United States.

The fact that Trump does this kind of thing all the time does not make it less poisonous, but more so. One of the worst things about Trump is his penchant for undermining confidence in law enforcement — both by wildly criticizing law enforcement when it investigates his wrongdoing, and in his continual assumption that law enforcement officials exist to act as his personal political henchmen. And if you don’t like McCabe (as I don’t), and if you think McCabe ought to be prosecuted (as to which I express no opinion), you might even find yourself offended by the fact that Trump is giving McCabe a colorable defense that the apparently imminent prosecution is political and vindictive.

This lout needs to shut his mouth. Of course, he won’t, ever, which is yet another reason why his departure from office needs to be a priority for people who care about the justice system.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

92 Responses to “The Apparently Looming Indictment of Andrew McCabe”

  1. Not to mention the fact that Donald Trump professing outrage that someone else lied is like TMZ criticizing a site for clickbait.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Yes, 100% yes.
    I’d add the following points.

    1 Current process is to either Indict, or say nothing. This is a good rule when there’s some privacy around the investigation. The lack of charges and a conviction leaves the reputation of the target somewhat intact. This makes less sense when the head of federal law enforcement is making public statements on McCabe’s guilt. If they choose NOT to indict I want to know why, and there’s a legitimate interest in the public knowing why. There’s a huge difference between

    -We looked at it and didn’t think there was a crime committed because he corrected his initial misleading statement of his own initiative and we believe it was an honest mistake.

    -We think a crime was committed but chose not to prosecute because there wasn’t enough evidence of guilt because while he corrected his initial misleading statement of his own initiative, we think he knew he would be caught and was in CYA mode. But we can’t prove that.

    -We have lots of evidence of guilt but weren’t sure we’d get a conviction.”

    2 Trump is in charge of this system and has been for over 2 years. If it’s not being run in a fair and just way at this point it’s his fault.

    3 This looks really scary with a competent president who has a similar lack of concern for following law and process. At least Trump is clumsy and lazy.

    Time123 (ea2b98)

  3. Wittes has a fair point.

    My point here is thus not to suggest that McCabe did nothing wrong.
    But criminal charges? At least based on what’s in the inspector general’s report, this is very far from a criminal case. Criminal dispositions on false statements matters in internal investigations are exceptionally rare. Absent some gross aggravating factor, I struggle to think of any other examples. Workplace false statements are normally handled through internal disciplinary means, not criminal charges. There are countless public cases of gross misconduct and lies about that misconduct that are routinely declined as criminal matters.

    If McCabe does get indicted, it’ll come across as a vindictive move by a tainted AG, cheerled by a corrupt president. When the dust settles, it’ll probably end in an acquittal, IMO.

    Indeed, the extraordinary thing about McCabe’s case compared to these ones is that the Justice Department appears to have engineered McCabe’s firing, ostensibly in response to the inspector general’s finding of a lack of candor, mere hours before his retirement eligibility. It’s true that the FBI routinely treats lack of candor as a fireable offense—but it remains unexplained why the Justice Department seemingly raced the clock in order to push McCabe out rather than proceed at the usual pace and note that he would have been subject to disciplinary proceedings if he had not retired. That alone is a vindictive level of harshness relative to the norm. Criminal prosecution is several standard deviations from the norm.

    Why, you could call this attack on McCabe a WitchHunt!

    Paul Montagu (a2342d)

  4. President Donald Trump the President who is President of the United States is not a petty and vindictive shrewish orange old woman who cannot keep his mouth shut and it’s not fair to suggest that he wants anything more than truth, justice, and the American way, and maybe some meatloaf with ketchup and two slices of chocolate cake a la mode, so there.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. A witch hunt is when you go looking for people (with no specific persons in mind). In the classic case, where nobody, or almost nobpdy, did what you are looking for.

    The following is a witch hunt:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/15/india-millions-stateless-assam-red-tape-illegal-immigrants

    Sammy Finkelman (42d229)

  6. If you believe the leaks that he authorized to be made to the Wall Street Journal, he pushed for an investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

    Thats abig if. It could be a half truth.

    McCabe claimed that Comey authorized that leak.

    Sammy Finkelman (42d229)

  7. McCabe’s case will get broomed, and it will have nothing to do with Trump’s tweets. The Stevens prosecutors walked after having done worse. Nifong served one night in jail. Prosecutors don’t go after fellow prosecutors the same way they go after you and me. It’s the corrupt way of the world.

    Munroe (33bad0)

  8. Munroe illustrates my point that given the noise around this a simple decision not to indict will not be taken at face value.

    Time123 (ea2b98)

  9. Aren’t you supposed to be arguing that these were just “process crimes,” Munroe?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  10. I concur with the host that it is extremely troubling that the President’s own words can handcuff his own DOJ officials.

    However, the one thing I zero in on is the appearance of the double standards in going hard after the likes of Flynn and Pappadawg for lying and yet, when it looks that McCabe has demonstratively lied multiple times to investigative officials per the IG, the DOJ appears to have a really hard time bringing themselves to indict one of their own.

    I’m having a hard time squaring this in a fair manner.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  11. What the DOJ has is a policy not to indict sitting Presidents and they put it in writing. I have not seen the one regarding prosecutors. Can we get Trump supporters to agree that if they do not indict McCabe it means they exonerated him?

    nk (dbc370)

  12. #11 What the DOJ has is a policy not to indict sitting Presidents and they put it in writing. I have not seen the one regarding prosecutors. Can we get Trump supporters to agree that if they do not indict McCabe it means they exonerated him?

    nk (dbc370) — 8/28/2019 @ 9:35 am

    To me there are only two options.

    1) No indictment – best case scenario is that prosecutors simply believe they wouldn’t prevail in court.
    2) No indictment – worst case scenario is that McCabe is protected because of the institutional bias of “protection one of their own”. I think this is unlikely as Barr himself was very critical of FBI’s actions under McCabe.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  13. You are absolutely right about the McCabe case.

    But, your conclusion is absolutely wrong. Without Trump, the DOJ would now be the KGB. Russiagate and all the Obama/Clinton corruption would not only never be punished, it would become the norm.

    Michael Johnson (1d1860)

  14. McCabe… resist he much!

    The reasons for CNN hiring this clown become more clear. I can’t wait to hear and watch Brian Stelter’s whimpers if/when McCabe is arrested.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  15. Just an observation … I don’t follow the tweets of PDT – but I will note that all of the examples noted in this post are well over a year old.

    This is a remarkable amount of control for the bad orange man !!

    bendover2 (076acf)

  16. 11… “exonerate” isn’t in their bag o’ tricks…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  17. McAuliffe has been around a long time. I seriously doubt he would do something as overtly and clumsily corrupt as donate to McCabe’s wife’s campaign in the hope of influencing the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation and emails. He’s too smart for that. And he could reasonably argue that his PAC simply preferred Mrs. McCabe to her opponent. Absent a quid pro quo, there’s no proof that he didn’t. McCabe might not have even known about the contribution; it’s not like he was actively involved in his wife’s campaign, going over donor’s lists and what not. She was doing her thing; he was doing his.

    As for lying to federal investigators, that’s a real problem for McCabe. As a former federal investigator himself, he knows the perils of doing that. If he made false or misleading statements, or misremembered something, then corrected himself after going over his testimony, no harm, no foul.

    And indictment is one thing. A prosecution is another, as it involves discovery. And there’s no telling what will found during discovery. Could be accusatory, could be exculpatory, but it will all come out at trial, if it goes that far. A conviction, however, is another thing entirely, but from the looks of things that doesn’t look very likely.

    This whole thing reeks of petty vindictiveness, selective prosecution and political persecution. If you’re so concerned about the justice system under Trump, and the rule of law, Patterico, consider this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/take-the-land-president-trump-wants-a-border-wall-he-wants-it-black-and-he-wants-it-by-election-day/2019/08/27/37b80018-c821-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html

    It’s not just that Trump sees the AG as his personal defense attorney and the DOJ as his political hit squad, it’s that he sees the Army Corps of Engineers as his own construction company. Worse, he’s selecting which private sector companies to award contracts to, without regard to cost or quality.

    Build the wall! 30-feet high, painted black (to absorb heat), with sharpened spikes on top–this to increase fear of injury from falling or being impaled should any criminal invader try to climb it. Suspend private property rights along the border, enforce eminent domain without due process. Sir, wouldn’t that be illegal? I’ll pardon you. Do as I order you to. Build the damn wall! I need 450 miles before the election, so I have a rallying cry for my base.

    Trump is becoming increasingly demented and desperate. The rule of law means absolutely nothing to him. I don’t know what to tell you, but when you start seizing peoples’ land, paying them a pittance, to build a vanity project while their property values decline, you’ve gone way off the deep end.

    If he wants to lose every state along the southern border, including Texas, that’s the way to go about it. 70% of the Texas-Mexico border is privately owned land. If he wants to lose every state in the Midwest, obstinately upping the trade wars is the way to do it. Farmers are going bankrupt, losing market shares, crops are going fallow. It he wants to lose every industrial state, tariffs are the way to do it. Businesses are going bankrupt, due to increased costs on imported component parts, and losing export markets as well. Disrupting global supply chains is not the way to win a trade war. If he wants to lose every vote in suburbia and the middle class, rising consumer prices are the way to do it. And if wants to lose the Republican party to lose the youth vote forever, plunging the economy into a recession, if not a depression, will ruin the lives of millennials.

    Yeah, that’s the way you do it
    You play CEO, Reality TV
    That ain’t working
    That’s the way you do it
    Get your money for nothing
    And your cults for free

    Money for nothing
    And your cults for free
    Money for nothing

    I want my, I want my
    Reality TV

    It’s easy to make fun of D’ohnuld Drumpf. But let’s get real serious here. This country was founded on private property, individual rights, due process, and the rule of law. We are a country of laws, not men, certainly not deluded men. We fought a Revolution to rid ourselves of Mad Kind George. Will we have to fight another to rid ourselves of Mad King Trump?

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  18. Whembly, My assumption from what I’ve read is that it’s not clear cut. I also heard on a podcast that he went back to correct the record of his own volition, but that details around that are unclear. Must be a pretty week case if the DAG, selected by Trump and Barr, is having a hard time making a decision.

    Time123 (ea2b98)

  19. Lisa Page and Peter Strzok had a hand in undermining confidence in law enforcement too.

    AZ Bob (885937)

  20. 17. Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 8/28/2019 @ 9:59 am

    McAuliffe has been around a long time. I seriously doubt he would do something as overtly and clumsily corrupt as donate to McCabe’s wife’s campaign in the hope of influencing the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation and emails. He’s too smart for that.

    How is this not smart?

    Is McAuliffe facing an indictment?

    And I think he didn’t just donate. He probably got her to run in the first place.

    It was an investment.

    Sammy Finkelman (42d229)

  21. I don’t expect it anything of it, they indict and convict delay and McDonnell and stevens, and then the appeals court reverses, the capitol police, provide a report on the awans and it was discarded,

    narciso (d1f714)

  22. Deferential silence toward rumored indictments should be the norm. Like an ability to honestly believe that there is no such thing as an “Obama judge,” itching to issue another nationwide injunction.

    But the process is not seen as fair anymore. Executive branch “professionals” did their part in this, corroding the trust of millions. They leaked like a sieve since 2016 to damage Trump.

    FBI people seem to have leaked, colluded, and opposed him secretly and openly, while seemingly aiding every manner of obstruction for the “other side.” But we’re supposed to believe all is fair in there.

    The Feds have been attentive to parents with money to get their kids into college (good), but MIA on McCabe, while Manafort and Cohen were dealt with an expeditiousness uncommon to government matters.

    When the deck seems stacked, it will become even more normal to complain openly about perceived unfairness.

    What is not normal is to expect one side to stay deferential.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  23. Regardless of the strength of any possible criminal case against McCabe, it remains extraordinarily unseemly for the head of federal law enforcement to be saying such things, and causes observers to wonder whether any potential indictment is a result of the strength of the case, or a political hit job carried out to please the President of the United States.

    Of course, in theory that is what a grand jury is for — to ensure that there is good reason to prosecute someone.

    But we all know that that is a nice theory, but in reality you can indict a ham sandwich.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  24. Harcourt, Part of why the deck seems stacked is that Trump complains endlessly that people are out to get him and takes responsibility for nothing. A trump appointee has been running the FBI for 3 years. Trump appointees have been running the DOJ for 3 years. The McCabe investigation is being handled by the DAG, who was selected by Bar.

    At what point will you trust the results of the process?

    Narcisso, Arwan was found guilty of bank fraud and convicted. The investigation did not find spying or destruction of computers. Good to know you’re keeping up on your conspiricy theories.

    Time123 (ea2b98)

  25. “… the laughable fact that McCabe has signed up as a CNN contributor…”

    A much more ‘laughable fact’—- Sarah Huckabee Sanders, ex-“Press Secretary” for President Trump, tagged and bagged as a repeatedly blatant liar while on America’s payroll- [the lying referenced in the Mueller Report as well] — has joined “Fox News” as a “contributor.”

    https://www.nypost.com/2019/08/22/sarah-huckabee-sanders-is-joining-fox-news/

    “Tell me lies; Tell me sweet little lies…” – ‘Little Lies’ – Fleetwood Mac, 1987

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  26. Where people who dislike Trump outraged when Barack Obama injected himself into criminal cases? In particular, Trayvon Martin and Ferguson, Missouri. Obama did this before the facts were anywhere near established.

    Did the anti-Trump people criticize George H.W. Bush for declaring the Rodney King cops guilty before trial?

    For the record, I don’t want ANY President to comment on criminal investigations.

    DN (623ef5)

  27. @27: I distinctly remember Obama was criticized from “inserting” himself to Ferguson, Trayvon and even Hillary Clinton’s.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  28. DN, Yes.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  29. Can we all agree that Scott Spicer on Dancing With The Stars is the real scandal of network tv?

    As for ‘laughable’ facts, if you like your doctor……
    .

    harkin (58d012)

  30. “Munroe illustrates my point that given the noise around this a simple decision not to indict will not be taken at face value.”
    Time123 (ea2b98) — 8/28/2019 @ 9:20 am

    Easily remedied by legalese such as “No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

    Munroe (7e1ea2)

  31. can he cha cha better than tom delay,

    narciso (d1f714)

  32. The general public is fed up with McCabe and his ilk… https://t.co/u0zZ81D6Vw

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  33. 26. “Tell me lies; Tell me sweet little lies…”
    Here’s a much better “lie to me” song, in all seriousness, and a better singer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJD_hicV164

    On a lighter note: the current press sec. assures us that Trump can’t possibly lie to us because “he loves this country.” He merely “communicates in a way that some people, especially the media, aren’t necessarily comfortable with.”
    So if it sounds like a lie to us, it’s because we just don’t get it.

    Radegunda (e6c209)

  34. 27:

    Where people who dislike Trump outraged when Barack Obama injected himself into criminal cases? In particular, Trayvon Martin and Ferguson, Missouri

    Conservatives who dislike Trump were not hesitant to criticize Obama on those grounds. We just wonder why so many people are willing to give Trump a pass on things that outraged them when others did likewise.

    Radegunda (e6c209)

  35. “We just wonder why so many people are willing to give Trump a pass on things that outraged them when others did likewise.”
    Radegunda (e6c209) — 8/28/2019 @ 2:23 pm

    Fortunately, George Zimmerman’s attempt to bring down Obama’s presidency failed.

    Munroe (33bad0)

  36. 37. Non sequitur.

    DN’s insinuation that “people who dislike Trump” never criticized Obama is quite simply false.
    My question was why so many Obama critics think Trump should get a pass on anything and everything, because “he loves America” or “but Hillary” or because “you just hate Trump” or because “TDS.”

    Radegunda (e6c209)

  37. Where people who dislike Trump outraged when Barack Obama injected himself into criminal cases? In particular, Trayvon Martin and Ferguson, Missouri. Obama did this before the facts were anywhere near established.

    Google is your friend. Many Trump critics, right here on this blog, criticized Obama specifically for that.

    Now that you are saying it was wrong for Obama to do it, where are you today when Trump does it?

    Dustin (6d7686)

  38. I remember the last time Obama waded into a racially charged public controversy. It turned out that the facts were not quite the way they had been initially portrayed.

    He may end looking stupid . . . again.

    Maybe one of these days he’ll learn to keep his mouth shut and let the facts in a criminal case come out?

    https://patterico.com/2012/03/26/report-trayvon-martin-was-the-aggressor-according-to-the-evidence/

    Your host and many readers here were doing what some complain they cannot recall.

    And creepy evil Google auto-completed my search for that way too quickly.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  39. About time for Barr to don some safari wear get into his pontoon plane and head back to the Alaskan bush to check out the oil case in the land of eskimos.

    mg (8cbc69)

  40. 39:

    In my post I said “For the record, I don’t want ANY President to comment on criminal investigations. If you can’t figure that out, I meant Trump.

    DN (623ef5)

  41. > causes observers to wonder whether any potential indictment is a result of the strength of the case, or a political hit job carried out to please the President of the United States.

    it’s worse than that.

    it causes observers who are ill-disposed to the administration to believe the indictment is a political hit job carried out to please the President, while causing observers who are well-disposed to the administration to believe it is a result of the strength of the case

    and in so doing it sets up a future where those who are ill-disposed to the President today will believe that if they *don’t* conduct political hit jobs when in power, they’re allowing a one-way ratchet where the other side conducts such hit jobs and they don’t.

    we’re watching the legitimacy of the republic erode before our eyes.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  42. If McCabe lied to federal investigators he should be treated just as Martha Stewart, etc., were treated… at the least.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  43. “we’re watching the legitimacy of the republic erode before our eyes.”
    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/28/2019 @ 5:13 pm

    And, to think it all started this week!

    It’s as if the past three years, and a “hit job” orchestrated McCabe himself, never really happened.

    Munroe (33bad0)

  44. So craig is prosecuted after the statute of limitations and manafort righr before carry on.

    Narciso (52211c)

  45. In my post I said “For the record, I don’t want ANY President to comment on criminal investigations. If you can’t figure that out, I meant Trump.

    DN (623ef5) — 8/28/2019 @ 4:50 pm

    LOL ok

    Dustin (6d7686)

  46. No just leave to jason leopold, where is he btw

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1166392349091487744

    Narciso (52211c)

  47. “One of the worst things about Trump is his penchant for undermining confidence in law enforcement”

    No, that’s one of the best things about him, in all honesty. Federal law enforcement, and the Democrat-legal complex that abuses it to the hilt on a daily basis, deserves all the opprobrium it can get, especially in the wake of the Epstein fiasco. At least, that’s what an honest libertarian (one who didn’t, say, work for the government all his life) would say.

    “This lout needs to shut his mouth. Of course, he won’t, ever, which is yet another reason why his departure from office needs to be a priority for people who care about the justice system.”

    And seriously, what has the “justice system” been doing for us the people as a whole lately that we’re unable to do for ourselves in a more timely, efficient, and equitable manner?

    “My question was why so many Obama critics think Trump should get a pass on anything and everything, because “he loves America” or “but Hillary” or because “you just hate Trump” or because “TDS.””

    Because Trump was RIGHT when he harshly criticized powerful federal law enforcement institutions for treating him like a traitor on the flimsiest of evidence and Obama was wrong when he used the power of his office to pile on an absolute nobody who even a cursory examination of the initial evidence would have indicated was far less of a murderer than the BET industrial complex made him out (and still make him out!) to be.

    In short, Trump actually picks on people his own size…and influence. And those who ultimately chose put their faith in fallible human governing institutions like ‘law enforcement’ or ‘The Fed’ or ‘the invisible hand of the market’ or ‘the culture of dispassionate jurisprudence’ just because they themselves were part of them…are not actually all that impressive in real life.

    Civically Minded Spook (38cd4d)

  48. “No just leave to jason leopold, where is he btw”

    Still chained to a radiator somewhere in the Bronx…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  49. I’m not averse to having FBI and DOJ get a taste of their own “process crimes” medicine.
    In fact, I think it is imperative and there should be more of it

    steveg (354706)

  50. 49: In other words: better to trust Trump than “fallible human governing institutions.”
    Got it.

    Radegunda (e6c209)

  51. treating him like a traitor on the flimsiest of evidence

    But when Trump accuses various people of treason because they have displeased him, that’s different …

    Radegunda (e6c209)

  52. You know, it just struck me. Could it be a shot across the bow to the professionals at the FBI? “Do not investigate the death of Jeffrey Epstein too closely.”

    nk (dbc370)

  53. There’s supposed to be a report on the actions of one James Comey issued in the next day or two.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  54. they’ll be putting that on ice, Col.

    mg (8cbc69)

  55. I am more and more coming to the opinion that Barr like so many others, is just a flirt, advertising what (Justice) he has no intention of delivering. Deep State USA.

    mg (8cbc69)

  56. Joe Digenova has never been correct.

    mg (8cbc69)

  57. Aren’t you supposed to be arguing that these were just “process crimes,” Munroe?

    LOL

    Patterico (115b1f)

  58. Just an observation … I don’t follow the tweets of PDT – but I will note that all of the examples noted in this post are well over a year old.

    This is a remarkable amount of control for the bad orange man !!

    Your observation is based on the assumption that if three random examples of Trump slamming McCabe happen to be over a year old, that means Trump has controlled himself in the past year regarding McCabe.

    Bad assumption. Very bad assumption.

    Hint: when your assumption leads to a conclusion that Donald Trump has shown a “remarkable amount of control” it’s time to re-check your assumptions.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  59. That struck me, too, that no Trumpkins were arguing “process crime”, way back when they were rubbing their little orange hands with glee over McCabe losing his pension by a matter of a few days. That was very “nasty old woman” and I mean Donna Jane Trump.

    nk (dbc370)

  60. Great comment and research at 39, Dustin. DN’s insinuation was exploded in seconds.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  61. Yes because he was doimg this under color of law, mamafort was a private citizen as is craig, but no sends a swat team to skadden,

    Narciso (1ebf89)

  62. With Ferguson, Missouri, Obama’s Department of Justice let the believers in the myth down so easily, that most people don’t realize that he debunked it all. (albeit wothout getting to bottom of who was resposible for the false stories)

    Obama;s position was to mostly go along with things from a public relations standpoint, but not to corrupt the actuual course of justice.

    Sammy Finkelman (42d229)

  63. 49. Civically Minded Spook (38cd4d) — 8/28/2019 @ 7:15 pm

    Obama was wrong when he used the power of his office to pile on an absolute nobody who even a cursory examination of the initial evidence would have indicated was far less of a murderer than the BET industrial complex made him out (and still make him out!) to be.

    But DOJ didn’t indict George Zimmerman in he end, did it?

    Obama played to the crowd, or a certain crowd, (which he may have believed was less challengeable than it really was) He didn’t use his positon of leadership to put an end to the hoax, and it is a real, real, fault.

    But he didn’t do certain other things that some other person might have done.

    You can argue that maybe that doesn’t redound so much to his credit. Perhaps he was concerned with his reputation, not only then, but in the year 2050.

    Sammy Finkelman (42d229)

  64. I havent any expectation of justice, the lesson is do not dare upaet the natural balance of things

    Narciso (1ebf89)

  65. It was Republican Governor now a Republican U.S. Senator, a Republican State Attorney General, and a Republican special prosecutor, who prosecuted George Zimmerman, by complaint and not indictment, having taken the case away from the local State Attorney who had declined to prosecute. If Zimmerman was railroaded by anyone, it was Florida Republicans, not Obama.

    nk (dbc370)

  66. Patterico (115b1f) — 8/29/2019 @ 6:56 am

    LOL. Prosecutors, being in control of the process, and purveyors of the process, require some extraordinary pleading to claim “process crime” status without it looking like a complete joke.

    We’re supposed to be aghast that McCabe might have been hoist with his own petard.

    Munroe (33bad0)

  67. Riiiight. The president of the United States has nothing to do with law enforcement. Good argument!

    Leviticus (d25df9)

  68. The joke is a complete lack of consistency to anything resembling a principle.

    Time123 (de0f5d)

  69. You miss the point nk, if you are a deaignated target it doesnt matter what you do,

    Narciso (1ebf89)

  70. 67. nk (dbc370) — 8/29/2019 @ 8:02 am

    67.It was Republican Governor now a Republican U.S. Senator, a Republican State Attorney General, and a Republican special prosecutor, who prosecuted George Zimmerman, by complaint and not indictment, having taken the case away from the local State Attorney who had declined to prosecute. If Zimmerman was railroaded by anyone, it was Florida Republicans, not Obama.

    That was under pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice, but Obama’s hands were clean. As far as he was concerned.

    Sammy Finkelman (42d229)

  71. You still believe in the easter bunny sammeh who sent the community resource seevice to organize the protests against the police chief in sanford.

    Narciso (1ebf89)

  72. “Riiiight. The president of the United States has nothing to do with law enforcement. Good argument!”
    Leviticus (d25df9) — 8/29/2019 @ 8:08 am

    Someone should tell Trump that now, today, after 2+ years, he has something to do with law enforcement — and everyone’s on board.

    Munroe (33bad0)

  73. He’s been in charge for over 2 years.
    Multiple appointments resignations and firings.

    Other than finding people more personally loyal what has he done?

    -Any laws passed?
    -Any policy changes?
    -Any changes in direction around how FISA is administered?

    None of that, just endless whining by him and his sycophants about how unfair the world is. To bad he’s such a weakling when it comes to this area.

    Time123 (b4d075)

  74. some useful info:

    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/

    narciso (d1f714)

  75. 75, Time123 (b4d075) — 8/29/2019 @ 8:50 am

    75.He’s been in charge for over 2 years-

    ^^^^^

    Any laws passed?

    Aside from:

    1) Some laws repealing some Obama Adminstration regulations (they are technically, or constitutonally, fresh laws, but Congress has rules in place giving such ills procedural advantages including no filibuster in the Senate.)

    And

    2) The 2017 tax bill (which also had procedural advantages in the Senate – it was passed under budget reconcilation procedures, and that was why they could zero out the Obamacare tax/penalty but not change much of anything else in Obamacare)

    And

    3) Budget, spending and debt bills (which often needed to be negotiated with the Democratic leadership)

    Only…

    4) Bills, like “The First Step Act” reducing jail time and criminal penalties for some people, that has bipartisan support, that nobody chose to make a political or potential election issue of.

    Except for the First Step Act, these were all things that merely had to be signed by a president – they weren’t his initiatives, so many Republicans and some independents could have done that. Trump would have probably signed any counter-regulation bill Congress sent him. The tax bill had a lot of input from Trump, in the sense that he made clear his dislikes of some potential provisions, but the idea of passing such a bill originated in Congress..

    Sammy Finkelman (42d229)

  76. Sammy, i meant around reforms at the DOJ.

    Time123 (daab2f)

  77. Time123 (daab2f) — 8/29/2019 @ 11:55 am

    Trump made fending off a two year soft coup his top priority. What a narcissist.

    Munroe (33bad0)

  78. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/brian_steltermalepatternbaldness.jpg

    “Riiiight. The president of the United States has nothing to do with law enforcement. Good argument!”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  79. -Any policy changes?

    All executive actions.

    The most notable, or the ones that come to mind are:

    1) Tearing up the Iran agreement, or the U.S. part in it.

    2) His tariff war with The Communist government of China

    3) Abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement,

    4) Renegotiating NAFTA, and giving it a different name.

    5) Excluding some people from the United States (he wanted to do more of that)

    6) Limiting grounds for asylum so that people fleeing from death threats would not qualify – this is all in the courts

    7) Fiddling with detention rules for people who cross the border and ask for asylum

    8) Threatening to deport alot of people who ahev bene in the United States along time – but indicating awillingness to negotiate with Congress if Congress will restrict future legal immigration.

    9) Expanding the definiton of “public charge” in immigration law

    10) Changing some environmental and maybe labor regulations. One lowered future fuel economy dstandards, but many auto companies preferred to negotiate with the state of California.

    11) Moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; recognizing the permanence of Israel’s control of the Golan Heights, (of course it’s an absurdity to want it returned to Syria now) no longer referring to the West Bank as “occupied’ (as of April 2018) and also, in its list of countries and regions in the Middle East, eliminating the term “Palestinian territories.” (there is no actual change in policy goals: that there should be two states between the Jordan River and the sea and that the boundaries and other things need to be negotiated.

    There was also some (bipartisan) legislation passed in this connection: The Taylor Force Act, named in memory of someone named Taylor Force, a U.S. military veteran murdered in Israel in 2016. It stops, or is supposed to stop, American economic aid to the Palestinian Authority until the PA changes its laws to cease paying stipends to terrroists or families of deceased terrorists.

    Israel also has passed some legislation cutting payments (I think mostly of taxes collected = on their behalf) to the Palestinian Authority, by the ammount of meney they give to people who have committed acts of terrorism, but Benjamin Netanyahu keeps on finding ways to avoid pulling the trigger because Mohamamd Abbas threatens not to take any money from Israel if that happens and Netanyahu os afraid the Palestinian government may collapse, or stop co-operating in preventing acts of terrorism – which they do while also supporting terrorists.

    The PA has cut payments to its employees and threatens to go bankrupt rather than stop paying terrorists (categorized as official resistance fighters or whatever.)

    It seems like the Palestinian Authority’s highest priority is rewarding people who have committed acts of murder or attempted murder against Israelis. Only corruption and fear can explain this thing — they’re a money laundry for someone (just who should be an intelligence priority) and take a cut and also don’t want to be killed themselves. And maybe they’re too friendly with some people.

    Sammy Finkelman (42d229)

  80. Time123 (daab2f) — 8/29/2019 @ 11:55 am

    Trump made fending off a two year soft coup his top priority. What a narcissist.

    Munroe (33bad0) — 8/29/2019 @ 12:13 pm

    Regan had Iran Contra
    Clinton had Whitewater
    Obama had Bengazi and Fast & Furious

    they all managed to get things done. Maybe if he spent less time playing golf and watching TV you wouldn’t have to make excuses for his lack of accomplishment?

    Time123 (b4d075)

  81. Sammy Finkelman, again I meant regarding reforming the DOJ. His supporters whine endlessly about the swamp and how corrupt the FBI is. Their guy should fix that if it’s such a problem.

    Time123 (b4d075)

  82. 78. Time123 (daab2f) — 8/29/2019 @ 11:55 am

    Sammy, i meant around reforms at the DOJ.

    The only thing that has happened is that some personnel have been changed and a few,, not ompletely satisfactory, reports issued with one more at least still to come.

    It’s not enough to make the FBI honest.

    If anything has changed about FISA it would be that they’ve probably gotten more careless.

    Sammy Finkelman (42d229)

  83. Sammy that’s exactly my point.

    Time123 (daab2f)

  84. 83. Time123 (b4d075) — 8/29/2019 @ 12:29 pm

    83.Sammy Finkelman, again I meant regarding reforming the DOJ. His supporters whine endlessly about the swamp and how corrupt the FBI is. Their guy should fix that if it’s such a problem.

    His supporters measure success by a lack of complaints on the part of Trump (and he’s not complaining about what’s going on now)

    And they may think its fixable simply by publicity and by changing (some of) the people in charge.

    Or they may think it’s hopeless.

    Sammy Finkelman (42d229)

  85. There should be reforms at the FBI, DOJ and probably in other departments, as well. They can also ensure any oversight safeguards are also being adhered to.

    83… it’s to their credit that some notice and actually give a flip.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  86. 82:

    Democrats are all in for their side when they control the House. They interrogate CEO’s, pass bills, and get things done.

    But the Col. Mustard types in the GOP are clueless about America’s interests. Republicans are chased from restaurants, shot at, mobbed at home, doxxed, and attacked on campus, but PAul Ryan types toss and turn at night, worrying that Trump might have offended someone, and wondering who they’ll apologize to in the morning.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  87. What does that have to do with Trumps lack of performance?

    Time123 (daab2f)

  88. Yes, because what is good for the justice system is good for the country.

    Kevin M (21ca15)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5145 secs.