Aside from your legal mumbo-jumbo, a very logical and well thought out response.Bob78164 wrote: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.flockofseagulls104 wrote:If you are going to claim there were procedural irregularities, please list them and justify your claims.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
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
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.