Here are Possible Charges Andrew McCabe May Face After Criminal Referral from DOJ Inspector General

[turbinetree]

Last edited Thu Apr 19, 2018, 08:45 PM - Edit history (1)

The Inspector General (IG) of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has sent a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C. regarding former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, according to multiple reports.

Details are still sketchy at this point, as the DOJ, McCabe’s representation, and the U.S. Attorney’s office all declined requests for comment from multiple outlets. The DOJ also declined to comment to Law&Crime.

Despite the lack of information at this time, one look at the recent IG report on McCabe gives some insight as to what kind of charges he could potentially face. McCabe was accused of having a “lack of candor” in several instances regarding his involvement in authorizing a leak of information about an investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

Lack of candor may seem harmless, but in reality it means:

Knowingly providing false information when making a verbal or written statement, not under oath, to a supervisor, another Bureau employee in an authoritative position, or another governmental agency, when the employee is questioned about his conduct or the conduct of another person.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/here-are-possible-charges-andrew-mccabe-may-face-after-criminal-referral-from-doj-inspector-general/

[former9thward]

1. He lied at least 4 times.

Three under oath. This is what Mueller got guilty pleas by two others in the investigation. McCabe should be charged as the others were.

[mr_lebowski]

2. Can you also clue us in to what exactly the lies were, what the questions were,

and to prove that he purposefully lied as well?

Also, how 'serious' were these lies, and what was the defendants presumable intent in making these false statements?

Do you know what explanation and/or extenuating circumstance(s) he may be able to claim?

Can you also show how and why said excuses or circumstance are invalid/not relevant?

Presuming (which seems logical to do) that the 'lies' were the things he claims he felt he was simply 'unclear' about and sought to correct in the days after the initial testimony (per his public claim), do we know why it took like a year before he was actually fired? If those ARE the 'lies', shouldn't they basically have stuck out like a sore thumb the second he went to 'correct the record'? Why wasn't he fired immediately? Why did take until Dump got all pissed off at him ... before anything started to happen with the IG?

[JI7]

3. +

[former9thward]

8. When you show me the full interviews I can answer the questions.

Until then I tend to believe career professions in the DOJ.

[mr_lebowski]

13. Oh, okay. It sounded like you had an exact count and such, and knew they were 'lies' so I thought

perhaps you had some insights the rest of us were unaware of ...

And I would submit to you that, for example, there's a pretty significant difference between saying 'under oath' ...

"I *never* talked to any Russians"
and
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski"

Questions of 'propriety' of the question to begin with, 'technicalities' like whether or not a BJ is 'sexual relations' under the law (it's not), severity of the 'crime' that being 'lied about', etc.

I'm fairly inclined to believe that McCabe's 'lack of candor' is probably, when the facts come out, going to turn out to be more akin to Clinton than Flynn ... and probably involved even less subterfuge/intent to deceive (with even less motivation to do so).

But I suppose Time Will Tell ... eh?

Until then, maybe don't come off with definitive statements implying you have all the facts ... when you don't? Just sayin'

[Hortensis]

16. 14 days before the election, Giuliani gleefully boasted

on Fox that the Repubs had a couple of big "surprises left" that he expected to be "enormously effective," related to Hillary Clinton. (For those who weren't watching, these clips were played on Maddow tonight). After Comey's severely unethical announcement 3 days later that they were reopening the email investigation, Giuliani admitted, on Fox again, that this was one of the surprises he'd told them to be ready for.

So, what about the other surprise? Was the hit-piece interview of an FBI agent that the WSJ published 8 days before election day (#2 of a one-two punch at Democrats) also one of the "couple of things" Giuliani was bragging about? This, of course, is the interview FBI Director James Comey and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe are each trying to blame the other for.

Btw, there's an IG report on Comey also -- still unreleased.

For all those who want to believe this pair of long-time conservative Republiclans are not guilty of acting to subvert our election, why are they both acting guilty -- to the point of opening McCabe so far up to criminal charges as he tries to evade responsibility? Gee, was there something so wrong with authorizing an FBI hit-job interview on Hillary -- to be published a week before the election -- that repeatedly lying to the IG's watchdog investigators seemed safer than telling the truth?

BTW, the FBI's found nothing wrong with the Clinton Foundation. As always, the allegation is the crime.

[mr_lebowski]

17. I'm so sick of hearing the lie (Comey) 'reopened the investigation' ... that's not what happened.

At the time the investigation was 'closed', it was 'closed' under the condition that if any additional emails that had been 'missing' were subsequently 'found', that they would 'looked at', and that Congress would be 'informed'.

The FBI pledged that to Congress (Repukes, but still, they were in charge). Which means it was NEVER 'closed'. In fact it ain't even 'closed' NOW ffs.

He was honor-bound to tell them (which he did via letter) that possibly 'additional emails had been found' on Weiners computer and that they were going to be looked at, per the previous agreement.

It wasn't just honor driving him, either, he apparently had reason to believe that if he FAILED to tell Congress, they were going to find out because Trump and Rudi's FBI buddies were GOING to tell Congress about them, and then an even WORSE shit-storm would've ensued because then it'd have looked like the FBI was in the bag for Hillary, thus calling into question their earlier decision to exonerate her on that in the first place.

The 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation that Comey was PURPOSEFULLY set in by Trump's people literally was a no-win situation. It was a fucking set-up, and there was no way out for Comey. If you want to blame someone(s), blame Rudi, and the GOP congress-critters who ran to the media when they got the letter, and the stupid fukcing media who blew this small-time story into something 1000X bigger than it should've ever been ... calling it a 'Reopening' like you just did ... FOR RATINGS.

It was NOT a 'reopening'. I wish people would stop with that BS. Reality is: it was never actually 'closed', because there was an 'agreed upon, at the time of the ceasing further active investigation' ... a 'contingency' wrt looking to at any further evidence, if found. That means ... NOT CLOSED. Therefore, it cannot be 'REOPENED'.

[Hortensis]

18. "Honor-bound"? You have to be kidding. No matter how

ignorant lay people may have been about FBI and DOJ procedures and standards, Comey's actions shocked and dismayed his colleagues around the nation by what they all knew to be gross breaches of longstanding ethics and practices. Comey did what they just don't do.

You know, Mr Lebowski, we've all seen Comey both in testimony to congress and in interviews explain that he couldn't answer their questions about open investigations, that it was inappropriate. Many times, actually.

Think about it.

[mr_lebowski]

19. I'm saying ... a purposefully 'grey area' was agreed upon with Congress wrt to the status of the ...

investigation. Purposeful on the part of the GOP, I mean.

It was actually neither 'open', nor 'closed' exactly. The real problem was THAT. The FBI likely shouldn't have stipulated to that particular 'condition', but they apparently did. Thus, he really did not have the 'I can't tell you about an open investigation' angle to work, because 'formally', it was 'closed', but ... there was a contingency to provide further info if it became available.

Ya know, it's real easy to look back at 'the outcome' that we've since seen transpire ... Hillary losing by <80K votes ... and the fucking abject horror of Cheetoh Mussolini, and think "Man, that was SO F'D UP of Comey!" ... but what he did, was just to follow through with a previously agreed-upon arrangement with Congress.

Also ... the dude had no way of knowing that the media would blow the whole thing so WILDLY out of proportion (not to mention what I'm sure the Russian Trolls did on social media at the time). Hindsight, as they say ... is 20/20.

And the reality is, had Hillary WON, as expected? NOBODY WOULD BE SAYING SHIT ABOUT IT. It'd be so long-ago forgotten about it's not even funny.

That's kinda how you know ... this was not that egregious of a thing to do. A truly wicked thing ... good people wouldn't forgive so easily ... had she won. But they would've WRT THIS ... if she had, and he'd still be FBI Director. People would say he made a difficult, but honorable decision. Hill I bet would even have said it.

I think that's what ultimately made him decide as he did at the time. If you think Rudi's NY FBI buds (the ones who had the laptop) wouldn't have run to Congress, had he said nothing ... as you expected him to do ... then I think you haven't thought it through. They very well could've made the situation WORSE for Hillary. And ultimately for Comey, as he'd have had to answer to Congress for not reporting the email 'find'.

The real fuckheads here are the NY FBI, the GOPpers in Congress, and the friggin' media ... plus ... stupid, lazy citizens who didn't go vote. Comey's cock-up is low on my personal list, as I believe he was in a no-win situation, created by others on purpose.

[Hortensis]

21. Comey could and should have just said no, a stand

completely justified by HONORING long-established FBI/DOJ practices, rules and ethical standards. Congress couldn't have done a thing to him, but even if they tried an honorable man would have said an emphatic no.

Why are some refusing to face the reality that Comey's months-long pattern of misuse of power, intentionally or unintentionally if you like, had an inimical effect on our election and that we must make sure it never happens again in our lifetimes?

[exboyfil]

30. They should have rolled up their sleeves

and spent a weekend determining if any of the emails were actually not already disclosed. They should have done that as soon as they were first discovered. Then the report to Congress could be yes there are emails, but we already have copies of them.

[Hortensis]

31. Yes. Also, the campaign ran for 2 years. Comey himself

said their investigation had found nothing BEFORE the summer of 2016 and that he did not expect to find anything of interest in the deleted private emails. So how about if they had scheduled their investigation earlier so that it did not provide malicious media excuses to milk a fake non-scandal for monetary, rating, and political advantage, etc., all through the summer leading up to the election?

How about the similar timing questions and failure to close before the election of the right-wing-generated Clinton Foundation investigation? It found nothing, of course. So why didn't they close it well before election day, frustrating its use for for political sabotage?

WHY did Comey allow the Republicans to use the FBI as a propaganda tool, to be wielded dishonestly every day in the media? The only things the FBI didn't manage to the Republicans' benefit were the actual conclusions of nothing found, and Comey even disclosed and refused to disclose those extremely inappropriately. There have now been 3 "investigations" into the Clinton Foundation, going on for years, nothing found, nothing closed, just eternal fuel for right-wing smears.

[Blue_true]

4. Trump will kiss you on the mouth for your making that rather spurious claim. nt

[former9thward]

9. He is not my sexual preference.

But thanks for the kind thoughts.

[Atticus]

5. As Democrats, I thought we rejected the idea that simply repeating something several

times made it a "fact". Can you detail what McCabe was asked, what his TOTAL response was and why that amounts to a lie?

If you can't, why post such Trump-serving gossip?

[former9thward]

10. So now a report by the IG is "gossip"?

[grantcart]

14. It's not an indictment

My understanding was that he misled (for which he claims he had a compelling reason for) and then went back and clarified the record.

I eagerly await your details on the 4 lies he told.

[Atticus]

23. Thank you. nt

[former9thward]

24. His lies are from page 22 to 32 in the report.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/McCabeReportRedactedNBCNews.pdf

[Atticus]

22. So now you're not going to answer my questions? nt

[former9thward]

26. Read the report pages 22-32.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/McCabeReportRedactedNBCNews.pdf

[Atticus]

32. I owe you an apology and offer it now. Your post was justified. nt

[former9thward]

33. You don't owe me anything.

We are all trying to figure all this mess out and it is very complicated with a lot of moving parts.

[blueinredohio]

7. I call bullshit

[former9thward]

11. Insightful...

[Iliyah]

6. Oh please, make it stop.

Majority of the t-rump's administration have lied under oath including t-rump himself. Sessions is one of the main ones. If McCabe goes under criminal investigation so should majority t-rump's administration, GOP's house and senate and t-rump himself. Fair is fair.

[former9thward]

12. Just curious. When has Trump been under oath in this investigation?

[mr_lebowski]

15. Ilayah did not say 'in this investigation' ... but he's been caught telling multiple lies under oath

For example, about his level of wealth/what he owns in a lawsuit that HE BROUGHT against someone who claimed he wasn't as rich as he claims. Would you like me to find the links, or do you recall that story?

Do you think for ONE SECOND he hasn't done the same in other lawsuits in which he testified 'under oath' ... that we just don't know about? Given he lies like breathing, it seems a pretty safe bet he has, IMHO.

McCabe's 'lies' also have nothing to do with 'this investigation', assuming you mean TrumpRussia, do they now? They have to do with the Clinton Emails, IIRC. Right?

[former9thward]

25. If he lied under oath why wasn't he prosecuted?

I will agree Trump has told his share of lies and then some but I am unaware of it being done under oath.

[mr_lebowski]

27. Maybe because it was a civil case and he lost and paid a bunch of money?

Not exactly sure ... do you not recall the story?

Maybe 'under sworn deposition' is a more accurate term in that case ... I don't the exact legalese or whether it's formally 'criminal' to make crap up in a civil case.

[former9thward]

28. Lying under oath in any case can be criminally prosecuted.

Whether it is depends on the judge and how material to the case the lie was. Bill Clinton had that issue when he lied in a civil case. He was not criminally prosecuted but lost his attorney license as well as other penalties. I don't remember the case you are talking about but then I don't follow Trump's life as much as many seem to do.

[lindysalsagal]

20. Anyone know if the gop congress will defend McCabe?

Just wondering.

[oberliner]

29. He did get a ton of money from that Go Fund Me page

Where people for some reason opted to donate money to someone who has a lot of money.