Congress, Criminal law, Justice, Politics

McCabe: FBI Agents Were “Vocal” In Their Dissatisfaction Over Failure To Indict Clinton

Andrew_McCabe_official_photoHillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziThe testimony of Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe on Thursday grabbed headlines in his direct contradiction of the White House claim that former FBI Director James Comey has lost the support of career agents.  McCabe made clear that the rank and file were (and remain) entirely supportive of Comey.  However, I thought the most interesting aspect of the hearing was a brief discussion of the 2016 decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. McCabe, who is viewed by many Republicans as having problematic links to the Clinton camp (through his wife who ran for office with their financial support), said that the failure to indict Clinton produced “vocal” opposition from the agents investigating her conduct.

McCabe stated “I think morale’s always been good, but there were folks within our agency that were frustrated with the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those folks were very vocal about those concerns.”

There have been rumors for months that agents wanted the Clinton case referred to a grand jury but that high-ranking Justice Department officials blocked the case from going forward.  Indeed, much of the criticism of Comey was that he detailed violations by Clinton but did not push for those violations to be given to a grand jury.

It was interesting to see the comment made in a hearing in the wake of the Comey termination.  After all, this would seem precisely the type of commentary that drew such vehement opposition to Comey when he indicated that Clinton committed violations of federal law.  Here McCabe is saying that agents clearly viewed her as guilty and worthy of criminal charges.  I have great misgivings about such public comments from prosecutors or investigators about an individuals who was not in fact charged.  It is unfair to Clinton to opt not to prosecute but then imply that she is guilty in public comments.

Do you think that it is appropriate to say that many in your department wanted to prosecute someone after the conclusion of an investigation without a referral, let alone an indictment?

 

55 thoughts on “McCabe: FBI Agents Were “Vocal” In Their Dissatisfaction Over Failure To Indict Clinton”

  1. I think it is clearly inappropriate for the FBI or for prosecutors to express publicly that someone should have been indicted, when in fact there was no indictment. That is why Comey should have been removed. He was a grandstander and lacked the discretion that one would expect of an FBI Director. My take on his public detailing of the evidence against HRC was that he was laying out the very solid reasons for her to be prosecuted, but then did a 180 at the end, implying that despite compelling evidence, a prosecution had been blocked by DOJ for political reasons. But that was a subtlety lost on the public. Most people, including people on this blog, don’t understand the distinction between the roles of the FBI and it’s parent, the DOJ. The former merely investigates. They then hand their investigative report over to the DOJ lawyers and political appointees, who decide whether or not to indict or to convene a Grand Jury. The FBI can “recommend” until the cows come home, but it is the DOJ that makes the decision whether or not to prosecute. FBI agents obviously understand this, so they would know that Comey’s “recommendation” to not prosecute was a pre-ordained political decision by DOJ higher-ups, and that his detailing of the mountain of evidence against HRC was his way of protesting that directive. Personally, I think Comey’s mistake was speaking out. He should have simply said that the FBI had concluded its investigation and rendered its findings to the DOJ. Then the onus would have been on Loretta Lynch. By speaking out in his confusing fashion, Comey allowed himself to be the fall guy for a political decision to not prosecute that had already been made by Obama and Loretta Lynch.

  2. As a rule, I think it’s inappropriate for the FBI to ever be discussing details of an investigation with the public, except in the case of a congressional or judicial subpoena. That’s the prosecutor’s job, subject to his or her ethical obligations, and only when there’s been an indictment.

    1. Steve – you are telling me that if you were having lunch with Comey (which he suggested) and there had been a bunch of stuff in the news about you possibly breaking the law, you would not ask Comey if you were under investigation? Even if you were picking up the tab?

  3. Well, if Comey and now McCabe are to be believed that the principled men and women of the FBI hold to the highest ethical standards and are dedicated to the rule of law, we ought to expect and hope they speak out whenever justice is relegated below politics.

  4. To answer JT’s question, if asked under oath as was this situation, YES, it is proper to say agents thought Clinton was guilty and should have been prosecuted. It speaks to the question of why agents were angry w/ Comey.

    Comey is simply a long line of victims of Clinton lawbreaking. Hillary would have fired him on 1/20/17.

  6. There is something that non-lawyers do not understand here. The elite are different. Clinton gets away with stuff that an ordinary person would be put in jail for long, long ago. It doesn’t matter that she sold (prostituted) her office. It doesn’t matter that she endangered the very security of the nation and got away scot free.
    The rule of law should not be a game played by lawyers. It should be applied equally at all levels. Yet, politicians can do illegal acts and get off with a slap on the wrist or less.The law should not be that the judge judges who is the better lawyer.
    Should she have been prosecuted? Yes. Was she. No. And now it seems she will never be held responsible. Because she is of the elite. The privileged class. American royalty.
    She’s not the first, of course. From child molesting congressmen to a Chappaquiddick.
    The rich, you see, can hire expensive lawyers so they are hard to prosecute.
    How about Comey abusing the use of immunity? It makes prosecution of Clinton difficult.
    The man on the street doesn’t give a damn how sure of a conviction a jury trial would be. They want to see the damn jury trial. Lawyers: do not give up on the truth even if you face lawyers better than you.

    1. I have to agree with this. The fact that anyone’s wealth or status can shield them from even the intimation of the consequences for their actions is simply unacceptable. Whether this has been the pattern of history or not does not make it less of a contradiction to what we claim are our guiding principles, and this is what evokes people’s ire.

  7. MC CABES WIFE should be under investigation for the $500,000 she took from terry mc caullif when she ran for a democrat political seat in Virginia. will her husband investigate her like Comey investigated Hillary Clinton ?.mc cabe`s wife was a big donor to Clinton and the democrat campaign for president and has even worked for Clinton.Trump has to find a replacement very fast.

  8. Well, it says some of the agents were frustrated out the outcome. This indicates that some others were not. And this is why we have heads of these departments- to make those decisions. Many agents were involved & there was no way all were going to be happy. I imagine Comey recommended no charges be filed because he didn’t find enough evidence of wrongdoing to be even marginally sure of a conviction. This was his job- he’s going to know much better than any private citizen what the appropriate action is, no matter how much people grumble.

    1. I think you’re missing the point which is that after Comey made the decision not to file charges (as you mention and is perfectly fine) he detailed all of the violations in public which cast shade on Clinton just before the election, btw.

    2. And Comey also had to factor in that should HRC be put on trial, it would be in D.C., which voted 99% for her in the primary. There is no way in Hades that any Clinton would be convicted of anything by the citizens of D.C. And I’m not talking about the government employees who work in D.C. and go home to Maryland or Virginia every night. The people who actually live in D.C. and serve on its juries are are quite different demographic….

  9. There were also DoJ attorneys who said they would indict her on that evidence. They were vocal.

    1. So why didn’t they? DOJ doesn’t need FBI concurrence on whether or not to indict…..its solely up to the DOJ to accept or overturn the FBI’s recommendation.

      1. TIN – there is an email from Lynch saying she will stop the investigation.

        1. Thanks Paul, I wasn’t aware of that. But then if LL wasn’t going to allow HRC to be prosecuted, why does it even matter what Comey did or did not recommend? This is all too Byzantine for me…..I’m going to go mow the lawn.

      2. There’s another theory floating around….that the decision to NOT indict Clinton, and all of the actions taken by Comey, actually allowed for the 2016 election to go forward….giving the people/voters the final choice as to whether our next president would be Clinton or Trump.

        Had Hillary been indicted, then what would have happened to the 2016 race? Would the Democrats have inserted Bernie? Or Biden? How would it have played out? So, by not idicting Hillary, Comey allowed the election process to play out and the choice was given to voters to decide the outcome. Even if Hilary had won and had fired Comey on day 1, it doesn’t mean an investigation into her actions and deeds would have ceased to exist either.

  10. Pingback: McCabe: FBI Agents Were “Vocal” In Their Dissatisfaction Over Failure To Indict Clinton | Freedom & Liberty Blog

  11. Of course, “McCabe made clear that the rank and file were (and remain) entirely supportive of Comey.” What do you expect McCabe to do or say? Tell the truth about the FBI? That is violation of FBI protocol!

    The number one rule of the FBI is ALWAYS cover for the Bureau! And NEVER make the FBI look bad in any way, even if you have to lie to do so!

    So a Bureau rep is ALWAYS going to say that morale is strong, the FBI is doing great, the FBI is competent, the FBI is always very happy with its leadership, the FBI is eager to protect America, the FBI loved Comey, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

    But that is sheer BS. The reality is that the FBI is constantly screwing up in case after case after case. The Bureau is riddled with political hacks and the agents that are really trying to do their jobs are always obstructed from carrying out their duties by political operatives who don’t give a turd about the safety or security of Americans. There is enormous frustration among the real agents in the FBI who want to do the right thing, but are prevented from doing so.

    1. I read a book years ago about the FBI agent convicted of spying. No, not Hansen. This was the Morman guy in SF who fell for the old “honey pot” ruse; some hot babe seduced the slovenly, obese, barely competent agent and she turned out to be a Soviet spy. The book quoted FBI insiders as saying that while Hoover was masterful in promoting the image of the FBI in glamorous, Hollywood style imagery, in truth the Bureau it is really no different from any other bureaucracy: roughly 1/3 of the Agents are hot shots; 1/3 are competent but nothing special; and 1/3 are lazy or indifferent. In the case of this disgraced Agent (forgot his name) it said that he should have been removed as he was clearly sub-standard, but as a Morman, he was protected by a powerful Morman faction within the Bureau.

  12. The truth is being largely ignored. The truth was the manufactured ‘intent’ excuse and that was apparently all Comey’s doing.

    Instead of saying ‘as part of the investigation we found a certain disregard for the requirements of the position which showed an indifference to the importance of… and while that may not satisfy the intent rule common in other investigations…… does not apply in matters of national security.. he set it up as if it were a valid excuse.

    Was the ‘weiner says he didn’t read any of the classified documents’ a valid excuse? NO. He did have access and cannot prove otherwise. Same with Huma.

    They were sent at Clintons’s orders by Abedein to Wieiner on a system open to hacking by any kid with a computer. That in itself was the act and the contempt shown the rules and if that was not the intent which doesn’t matter – it was the result.

    Who else got access? How would we know given a series of systems left wide open. The acts were chronic by all parties involved.

    Thus the theory that the whole set up was an on purpose available open conduit for anyone caring to browse holds as much if not more water than any put forward so far It was not President Trumps Russian connection but the Hillary, DNC, DNCC, Abedin and others including Weinar and four or five others chain linkage to the Russians and others that should be the focus of the investigation.

    2. “They were sent at Clintons’s orders by Abedein.”
      How do you know this?

  13. Isn’t it simply about the truth and the truth being exposed? Let truth reign free. Please.

  16. Darren Smith,
    Apparently reliable persons reported that Comey was a straight shooter, that he threated to go nuclear on Bush and resign if Bush and/or Cheney did XYZ (sorry can’t remember what it was now), that he would do the right thing Re. HRC, IOW, indict her or at least let the Grand Jury decide, which he did neither. Also, his characterization that “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict HRC was ridiculous, defining any prosecutor who disagreed as “unreasonable.”

    I respectfully request you posit any hypothesis that explains Comey’s apparent bad judgement not to indict HRC and not to allow a Grand Jury to decide. I could be wrong, but have the feeling that positing a hypothesis is something Professor Turley would and/or should not do, due to his positions of authority, his top level security clearances, etc.

  17. Hearings everyday about every aspect of the election someone thinks up. When will they get to the people’s business?

      1. There are times when I think a Pence Presidency could be worse than a Trump pseudo-presidency.

    2. Sandi, spot on! Both sides are pissing away the opportunity to help their constituents. I would love to tell them all to shut their pie holes and do their jobs. They can’t help themselves with their pissing contests and political theater. Fix the schools, fix the roads, fix healthcare, get people working again, help people who need it, get together and do your jobs. I think we all want the same basic things.

    3. Sandi, I’ve been wondering that, too. They keep posturing and grandstanding like this is all some big game and they think they’re impressing their constituents, I guess. Don’t they have real, grown-up jobs to do?

    4. The Democrats are an absolute disgrace each day they come up with some ridiculous accusation. This will go on for President Trumps entire term of office. The Republicans are proving to be no better. They have complete control and can’t get out of their own way. If the Democrats were in the same position they would do whatever they wanted to do and laugh at the Republicans. The worst of all is the rogue press who plant innuendo and lies for the weak minded left to absorb. These bums have an obligation to the citizens of this nation to see that we are safe, secure and prosper. All Americans should be outraged by the way this President is being treated he won the majority of the electorates vote and deserves the respect of the office.

Comments are closed.