WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:35 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3334
Location: Lacey, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
He's not, and never was, a dirty cop, even if the disciplinary panel was right. And given what appear to be clear procedural irregularities, the panel's findings are, to say the least, subject to question.

Sadly, I am quite confident that the current Congress will refuse to ask those questions. So we'll have to wait until January to start getting the answers we deserve. --Bob

If you are going to claim there were procedural irregularities, please list them and justify your claims.
Sure. When John Yoo was subject to departmental discipline for writing the torture memos, he got six months to respond to the panel's findings. McCabe got four days. After Yoo submitted his lengthy brief contesting the panel's action, the Department took another six months to consider the matter before reducing the recommended discipline. Here, the Department made the decision in one day.

More generally, it is routine for the Bureau to allow similarly situated agents to retire or resign rather than firing them. But in this case, Donny's very public victory lap, expressly linked to the ongoing investigation into his conduct, makes clear that what was really going on was a warning shot to any current federal employees who might have information adverse to Donny.

It may be that the panel's decision was, in fact, supported by the facts, and I understand that eventually its report will be made public so we'll be able to better judge its merits. But from where I sit, this bears all the hallmarks of a political hit designed to intimidate potential whistleblowers. --Bob


Aside from your legal mumbo-jumbo, a very logical and well thought out response.
From the lay person's viewpoint, it leaves some questions.

One of the major facts in this case that I can understand is that McCabe admitted to leaking stuff to the WSJ, and said he got permission from Comey to do it, who swore to the Congress he never gave permission to anyone to leak anything (except he himself admitted later to leaking his memos so he could jumpstart the special prosecution). Obviously, one or both of these public servants is lying under oath. Unless, of course, I am missing something.
Someone like me, one of the unwashed, just doesn't understand why something like this should take six months, let alone two days, to adjudicate. It must have something to do with ethical lawyering that I don't understand.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3334
Location: Lacey, Washington
Quote:
Donny's very public victory lap, expressly linked to the ongoing investigation into his conduct, makes clear that what was really going on was a warning shot to any current federal employees who might have information adverse to Donny.


Please provide specific evidence to support your claims, if you are presenting this sentence as fact.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:42 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 16342
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Quote:
Donny's very public victory lap, expressly linked to the ongoing investigation into his conduct, makes clear that what was really going on was a warning shot to any current federal employees who might have information adverse to Donny.


Please provide specific evidence to support your claims, if you are presenting this sentence as fact.
Donny's tweet got extensive news coverage. I'm sure you can find it. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:51 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 16342
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
One of the major facts in this case that I can understand is that McCabe admitted to leaking stuff to the WSJ, and said he got permission from Comey to do it, who swore to the Congress he never gave permission to anyone to leak anything (except he himself admitted later to leaking his memos so he could jumpstart the special prosecution). Obviously, one or both of these public servants is lying under oath. Unless, of course, I am missing something.
You are missing something. You have your facts wrong. McCabe's account wasn't that he had Comey's permission. McCabe's account was that as Deputy Director (the same position once held by Mark Felt) he was authorized to discuss matters with the press on his own authority.

And as I recall, the mechanism for providing information to the Wall Street Journal was that McCabe authorized other agents to talk to the paper, not that he did so personally. But that latter detail is immaterial to the present point. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3334
Location: Lacey, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Quote:
Donny's very public victory lap, expressly linked to the ongoing investigation into his conduct, makes clear that what was really going on was a warning shot to any current federal employees who might have information adverse to Donny.


Please provide specific evidence to support your claims, if you are presenting this sentence as fact.
Donny's tweet got extensive news coverage. I'm sure you can find it. --Bob


I am well aware of his tweet. That is not evidence, that is your opinion. I wrote extensively about this very subject just a few days ago. Try and concentrate, bob-tel. You can get it. It's not a difficult concept.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 14446
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Try and concentrate, bob-tel. You can get it. It's not a difficult concept.


Merely one that's eluded you for the 15 years or so I've known you on this Bored, Flock.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3334
Location: Lacey, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Try and concentrate, bob-tel. You can get it. It's not a difficult concept.


Merely one that's eluded you for the 15 years or so I've known you on this Bored, Flock.
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Try and concentrate, bob-tel. You can get it. It's not a difficult concept.


Merely one that's eluded you for the 15 years or so I've known you on this Bored, Flock.

You are emulating BJ more and more each day.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 21130
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Try and concentrate, bob-tel. You can get it. It's not a difficult concept.


Merely one that's eluded you for the 15 years or so I've known you on this Bored, Flock.
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Try and concentrate, bob-tel. You can get it. It's not a difficult concept.


Merely one that's eluded you for the 15 years or so I've known you on this Bored, Flock.

You are emulating BJ more and more each day.

Thank you.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 3724
Location: Merion, Pa.
Bob78164 wrote:
McCabe's account wasn't that he had Comey's permission. McCabe's account was that as Deputy Director (the same position once held by Mark Felt) he was authorized to discuss matters with the press on his own authority.

And as I recall, the mechanism for providing information to the Wall Street Journal was that McCabe authorized other agents to talk to the paper, not that he did so personally. But that latter detail is immaterial to the present point. --Bob
Here is the DOJ Inspector General's report (courtesy of the New York Times):
A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations Relating to Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe

It's quite long, so they considerately provided a summary:
Quote:
As detailed below, we found that in late October 2016, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to discuss with [WSJ reporter Devlin] Barrett issues related to the FBI’s Clinton Foundation investigation (CF Investigation). In particular, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to disclose to Barrett the contents of a telephone call that had occurred on August 12, 2016, between McCabe and the then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (“PADAG”). Among the purposes of the disclosure was to rebut a narrative that had been developing following a story in the WSJ on October 23, 2016, that questioned McCabe’s impartiality in overseeing FBI investigations involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and claimed that McCabe had ordered the termination of the CF Investigation due to Department of Justice pressure. The disclosure to the WSJ effectively confirmed the existence of the CF Investigation, which then-FBI Director Comey had previously refused to do. The account of the August 12 McCabe-PADAG call, and other information regarding the handling of the CF Investigation, was included in the October 30 WSJ article.

We found that, in a conversation with then-Director Comey shortly after the WSJ article was published, McCabe lacked candor when he told Comey, or made statements that led Comey to believe, that McCabe had not authorized the disclosure and did not know who did. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.5 (Lack of Candor – No Oath).

We also found that on May 9, 2017, when questioned under oath by FBI agents from INSD, McCabe lacked candor when he told the agents that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ and did not know who did. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).

We further found that on July 28, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview, McCabe lacked candor when he stated: (a) that he was not aware of Special Counsel having been authorized to speak to reporters around October 30 and (b) that, because he was not in Washington, D.C., on October 27 and 28, 2016, he was unable to say where Special Counsel was or what she was doing at that time. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).

We additionally found that on November 29, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview during which he contradicted his prior statements by acknowledging that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ, McCabe lacked candor when he: (a) stated that he told Comey on October 31, 2016, that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ; (b) denied telling INSD agents on May 9 that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ about the PADAG call; and (c) asserted that INSD’s questioning of him on May 9 about the October 30 WSJ article occurred at the end of an unrelated meeting when one of the INSD agents pulled him aside and asked him one or two questions about the article. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).

Lastly, we determined that as Deputy Director, McCabe was authorized to disclose the existence of the CF Investigation publicly if such a disclosure fell within the “public interest” exception in applicable FBI and DOJ policies generally prohibiting such a disclosure of an ongoing investigation. However, we 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. We therefore concluded that McCabe’s disclosure of the existence of an ongoing investigation in this manner violated the FBI’s and the Department’s media policy and constituted misconduct.
The President tweeted a more succinct summary:
Donald J. Trump wrote:
DOJ just issued the McCabe report - which is a total disaster. He LIED! LIED! LIED! McCabe was totally controlled by Comey - McCabe is Comey!! No collusion, all made up by this den of thieves and lowlifes!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.