Aide defends Trump's attacks on McCabe: Public deserves to know what happened in Clinton probe

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill




BY JULIA MANCHESTER - 12/24/17 10:13 AM EST

White House aide Marc Short on Sunday defended President Trump's attacks on Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, saying the American people deserve to understand his handling of the probe into Hillary Clinton's emails.

Short was responding to questions about a tweet from the president earlier Sunday in which Trump railed against McCabe's handling of the Clinton probe.

Link to tweet

"I think the president believes the American people have a right to know as to what happened with that investigation," Short told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday."

"Terry McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, is perhaps the Clintons' closest political friend. He gave a $700,000 contribution to McCabe's wife when she was running for office. At the same time, they were launching an investigation into Hillary Clinton. The American people have a right to know that," he continued, referring to "M" in the president's tweet.



Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/366361-white-house-aid-defends-trumps-attack-on-mccabe-public-deserves-to

---

For the Millionth Time, President Trump, Clintons 33,000 Emails Were NOT 'Illegally Deleted'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210019926

[BumRushDaShow]

1. When I saw the name "Marc Short" first thing I thought of was

this guy -





(obviously "Marc" =/ "Martin" )

[PatSeg]

2. Me too!

[videohead5]

3. Yeah the FBI

Really helped Hillary by sending that letter 11 days before the election.Trump should be kissing Comey's ass.

[IMnotU]

4. Could someone please tell me what Hillary is suppose to have done?

Why was the investigation necessary? What were the 33,000 eMail about that required them to be deleted? Are they about wiretapping Trump's office? Killing Vince Foster? Hiding the WMD found in Iraq? Please, please tell me, my head is about to explode.

[DonViejo]

5. here you go...

For the Millionth Time, President Trump, Clintons 33,000 Emails Were NOT 'Illegally Deleted'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210019926

[IMnotU]

8. Thanks, but it was not a real question

I was giving this whole controversy the seriousness it deserves - none. I was mocking it since that is what we all should do regarding this. By giving a serious answer we make it into a serious accusation and question. By replying she was talking about where to hid the WMD found in Iraq, or how she shot Vince Foster, or how she and five other dudes (including G. Gordon Liddy) broke into Trump's office to wiretapped it we give the accusation all the weight it deserves. Of course, Trump and his supporters will then be calling for three new investigations.

[exboyfil]

6. There were emails that were destroyed that were

under subpoena. It is a heavy lift to tie the decision of the IT worker who did that to a request by Clinton, but that is the kind of stuff that gets companies in lots of trouble. I would have no issue calling him to testify about it. It was well within Clinton's rights to have them destroyed (which she requested), but not after the subpoena was issued. She should not be held culpable if the decision to destroy them was independently by the IT worker or his management, but they should be in legal jeopardy.

Also the stripped documents that ended up in the unclassified State department system that later turned out to be classified. The individuals that made the decision to strip them should also be called to testify. That was when any potential crime was committed. They should be charged first before Clinton if a crime was actually committed. The fact they later ended up in Clinton's personal system is actually irrelevant.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-final-2016-presidential-debate/fact-check-trumps-claim-clinton-destroyed-emails-after-getting-a-subpoena-from-congress/?utm_term=.fc511b5f5d18

[haele]

13. For Official Use Only was the "classification" stripped for the most part.

And the few documents that actually had a classification above what her private server was set up to handle came from other sources, or were classified after the fact, not her responsibility.
They were able to recover all her emails, even the 33,000 personal ones deleted. Overblown, incomplete article written to sew distrust and doubt. Not really shocking evidence of anything scandalous.

Haele

[cloudbase]

7. Along that line of thought,

the public deserves to know quite a bit about some of the things that Trump has been less than
transparent with. I appreciate consistency.

[L. Coyote]

9. Trumps bot army is trying to bury these threads:

These are the threads the Trump bots are trying to push down page, and they are accomplishing it.
The main Twitter feed is dominated by Trumpian Fascist Media on this topic thanks to the bots.

Link to tweet

1/ In the story above, @mkraju of @CNN reports that McCabe told Congress that @Comey told him about his conversations with Trump shortly after they happened. That’s important because those conversations appear to be the centerpiece of Mueller’s obstruction investigation.

2/ Obstruction also appears to be Trump’s greatest legal liability at this time, given what we know publicly, although whether a sitting President can be indicted is a hotly debated legal question that no one can definitively answer.

3/ But let’s say that there was a trial concerning obstruction. Would Comey’s statements to McCabe come into evidence? Probably, even though someone’s statements out of court (such as Comey’s statements to McCabe) usually aren’t admissible as evidence.

4/ Although the general rule is that “hearsay” (statements made out of court) can’t be testified to in court, there are many exceptions. One of those is for “prior consistent statements.”

5/ So if Comey testifies as to what Trump told him (which is proper because Trump’s words can be used against him) and the defense team attack’s Comey’s credibility, Comey’s prior statements to McCabe can be used to show that he didn’t make up his testimony about what Trump said.

6/ If Trump’s team didn’t attack Comey’s credibility at all, instead mounting a different kind of defense, McCabe couldn’t testify about what Comey told him.

7/ As a practical matter, McCabe’s potential testimony would be very important in an obstruction trial of Trump. (Or anyone else, as long as they were a co-conspirator of Trump or there was another reason why Trump’s words could be used.)

8/ It would be hard to defend an obstruction case while accepting all of Comey’s testimony and making no attack on him. Although a jury would likely find Comey to be more credible than Trump, good cross-examination could create doubt, while letting him go unchallenged would hurt.

9/ That said, given that Comey briefed McCabe and other FBI leaders soon thereafter, their testimony backing up Comey’s account could be devastating. The fact that Comey briefed his staff shortly afterward would put Trump’s team in a tough spot at a trial.

10/ That could be one reason why Comey briefed them. He is savvy and spent a career in law enforcement, so when he saw conversations that were problematic, he wrote memos and told others to create a record that could be used later. That’s what FBI agents are trained to do. /end

Link to tweet

Jim Jordan says "everything that I've heard (from McCabe) reinforces what I believed before" about whether Clinton was treated favorably by FBI. Other Rs agree. But they declined to provide details of confidential interview

Comey told Senate Intel he briefed senior leadership about all his conversations with Trump soon after; McCabe confirmed he was one of those people

McCabe leaves the House grilling after 9 hours - this after an eight hour session with House Intel this week. Both sides see ammunition from his testimony

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/943995725825937408.html

[turbinetree]

10. SO "Short" who bribed your team------------------you got one fucking clue

I have one--------------RUSSIAN MAFIA, and did the "team" get the money through the Cyprus Bank that was laudering Russian money being run by a fucking Commerce Secretary by the name of Wilbur Ross............

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10141946672



FUCK YOU -----------------short and the horse you rode in on, your fucking "guy" lost the popular vote........

[marble falls]

11. We all know what happened in the "Clinton" probes - all of 'em: not a fucking thing.

[bitterross]

12. I guess Trump forgot his $25k to Pam Bondi in FL. Which looks a lot more like quid pro quo.

There is absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing, Trump can tweet about and not be hypocritical. His tweets are generally what is called "projection." Everything he accuses someone else of doing always seems to be what he has done.

Remember, he made some contributions to state AGs like Pam Bondi and all of a sudden the fraud case against Trump U. in FL went away. I can't remember for sure but I think maybe he did the same with Abbot in TX.

If anyone is guilty of bribe to make legals issues go away I think it is Trump.