CNN: McCabe’s Abrupt Departure May Be Tied To Internal Investigation Findings

McCabeThe early departure of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has led to a spasm of speculation and criticism ranging from Comey’s warning of the destruction of  FBI knuckling under President Donald Trump to overwrought analogies to the rise of Hitler by one CNN commentator.  However, there are indications that McCabe may have been shown the door by FBI Director Chris Wray and even told that he faced demotion in light of an internal investigation.  Notably, on the eve of this disclosure a story was leaked that detailed the conversation between McCabe and Trump where Trump taunts McCabe about his wife being a political “loser.”  If true, the comments were shocking and distasteful but the emergence of these conflicting accounts show the intense struggle in Washington to control the narrative following McCabe taking leave pending his retirement. There have also been allegations of leaks by McCabe as both sides seeks to frame this controversy.

 

What is also notable is the continued leaks from Trump’s inner circle.  A new report describes Trump having a “tirade” on Air Force One because a top Justice Department official objected to the release of the four-page memo.  The content and speed of his leak is clearly meant to damage Trump and has to be coming from within his close staff — a recurring problem.  The motivation behind these leaks is an interesting question. It is not clear if it is meant to simply damage or somehow to deter the President .

CNN is reporting that Wray hinted in a message of FBI employees that McCabe was forced out and did not voluntarily take his leave. The impression left by the memo was that this followed Wray looking at a forthcoming inspector general report about the FBI’s conduct during the 2016 election.  It has also been noted that the leave was taken after Wray personally read the controversial four-page memo being released by the House committee.

The abrupt departure of McCabe obviously played into the association with these investigations but Wray amplified those connections in his message to staff.

Notably, after the Comey termination, we saw his leaking of his memos which notably changed the narrative over Comey’s past performance issues.  I have written that the memos, which would have inevitably been reviewed by the investigators, were leaked for tactical reasons by Comey.  The same purpose may be behind the sudden leaking of the alleged conversation between Trump and McCabe after Comey’s termination.

In the conversation, Trump demands to know why Comey was allowed to fly back to Washington on an FBI plane after he was fired.  Comey learned of his termination from news reports. I (and others) have criticized the Administration for not giving Comey advanced notice as a simple matter of courtesy and professionalism.  Comey was caught out of town by the news.  Trump was irate that the FBI flew him home and McCabe correctly noted that, while he was not asked, he would have given Comey permission to return on the plane.  That would, in my view, be the decent thing to do for a longtime public servant who was blindsided by this news — as opposed to abandoning him to find a way back.  Trump, according to the report, was silent after McCabe’s response and told him to ask his wife what it felt like to be a loser. McCabe reportedly responded by saying simply “OK, sir,” before Trump hung up.

If the account is true, it is highly disconcerting that a president would engage in such taunting or begrudge Comey a return flight. It is also interesting however that this story would be released by someone with news of McCabe’s alleged forced departure from the agency.

Washington is now awaiting for the release of the memo, which has been built up to a point that could backfire for the GOP.  The hype around the memo makes it sound like a combination of the Pentagon Papers and the Zimmerman telegram.  Hopefully, the White House is allowed a full vetting of the classified content.  Ultimately, the President is the final judge of such classification issues on what the public should know.  Yet, this is a rare case of a forced release without declassification by the relevant agencies.

181 thoughts on “CNN: McCabe’s Abrupt Departure May Be Tied To Internal Investigation Findings”

  1. After reading from the Trump sycophants I remember the old saying….” When the facts are against you, you argue the law. When the law is against you argue the facts “

      1. And run around waving their hands in the air crying, “There are no illegal people! There are no illegal people!”

        I guess maybe Primal Histrionics is a counter to law and facts???

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

  2. Questions for Enigma, Isaac, and everyone suffering from TDS; persons who’s emotional reaction to Trump is as if he’s the Grinch who stole Christmas (AKA, my gall lost and it’s all his fault, not hers):

    How, exactly, would you react, if President Donald Trump’s lifetime best and all time closest business, personal, and political confidant, someone who has held that position for the last half a C, gave Mueller’s wife SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS toward Mueller’s wife’s Senate campaign? Wait, this analogy is incomplete.

    Rewind back to a time prior to Rosenstein assigning Mueller his current “Independent” Counselor job to “investigate” Trump (note the term “Independent”.) At that time, Mueller has the opportunity to volunteer that Mueller’s family is in bed with Trump’s above described friend, but Mueller avoids volunteering this information. Wait, there’s more.

    Earlier, Mueller was the highest ranking FBI investigator into HRC’s email scandal. For this analogy to hold true, instead of acquitting HRC, she is charged and convicted of high crimes, and sentenced to a few years in Federal prison.

    Above is a perfect analogy of the last 2-3 years of Andrew McCabe’s treasonous FBI career. Mueller = McCabe. The sole difference is that the victims and benefactors of the criminal corruption are inverted as it relates to the two political parties.

    I wonder what kind of bloody murder would Enigma and Isaac be screaming from the mountain tops? Imagine the hoards of persons living on the public dole (and paid by Sorors) that would be burning down the nation right now.

    1. I am not sure Enigma would be screaming anything unless he could somehow work The Civil War, slavery, Jim Crow, Rosewood, and mass incarceration into the conversation. You must remember, Enigma does not live in 2018 like the rest of us. Enigma is stuck somewhere back in time, back when Negroes had to ride in the back of the bus, or pick cotton, or ride a separate elevator.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  3. When I was becoming politically aware in the 60’s, the left loved free speech and Russia[incongruous…I know] and hated the FBI. They’ve done a 180 on these 3 topics.

    The Republicans are stupid for not hammering the point every time they discuss this FBI malfeasance that the rank and file FBI are honest and hard working. I know a lotta current and former FBI agents. They said the Bureau became much more political when DOJ attorneys started becoming Director, Asst. Director, and other higher administrative positions.

  4. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2018-state-of-the-union-address/state-donald-trump-he-thinks-it-couldn-t-be-better-n842501

    LOL. Trump is considering asking Sessions to consider prosecuting Mueller and his team. In the future, Trump’s behavior of the last 18 months will be taught in every law school in the country as an example of consciousness of guilt, among all the other things.

    He certainly is transparent about how terrified he is by this investigation, I’ll give him that.

  5. Reblogged this on The Inquiring Mind and commented:
    The ripples in the Washington pond continue to increase the numbers of people caught up in this stew of lies and half truths

  6. John F. Kennedy was taking a leak off the back of his porch in Chappiquid dick and was yakking with a news reporter. Marilyn Monroe poked her head out the door and the reporter recognized her. JFK admitted to the reporter that he had grabbed her “p—-” and that things went on from there. This is all no different from Trump. When this blog talks about “leaks” to the news media the word leak can be confused. Whether a President grabs something before or after he is in office might matter. It is one thing to do so in the Oval Office and another do do so at Mar A Lago. JFK never had sex wtih Marilyn in the Oval Office. As far as “leaks” go, well, that is different.

    1. To even mention war-hero and patriot JFK in the same breath as the stupid Fat Dotard loser is sacreligious.

        1. And, there it is- volleying back the criticism aimed at the right, without alteration. Republican voter demographics show they claim to be religious and research shows they make decisions based on emotion rather than reason.
          Expecting originality from the Kremlin is hopeless. They still poison their enemies as if they were living in a time, centuries past.

          1. You say that, when you refuse to answer simple questions put to you??? Answer the simple question I put to you on the other thread, and explain, in your own words, why you think Ryan is destroying Social Security!

            Oh, and if you think Democrats arrive at their “opinions” thru a process of reason and argumentation, then answer the following:

            1) Explain how claiming “there are no illegal people” comports with either facts, the law, reason, or actual practice;

            2) Explain why it is the Democratic Left which rises up in violent protests over conservative speakers coming to their campuses;

            3) Explain how it is that large numbers of low skilled illegal immigrants make life better for Americans, especially, low skilled blacks;

            4) Explain how Institutionalized Racism causes black women in 2018 to pop out a 77% illegitimate birth rate. and

            5) Explain why neither I, nor any other conservative here is going to hold their breath waiting for your responses.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. “Answer the simple question I put to you on the other thread, and explain, in your own words, why you think Ryan is destroying Social Security!”

              LOL. “Answer…!” Because Squeeky Fromm demands it.

              1. No. Because Linda said it, but never bothered to explain why she said it. Or what her basis was. I think everybody here is entitled to her participating in the comment section in a reasonable, adult fashion.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. “I think everybody here is entitled to her participating in the comment section in a reasonable, adult fashion.”

                  LOL, Squeeky.

                  No one, here, “is entitled to” anything.

                  1. Here, let me translate that for you!

                    Translation of anonymous’s comment: Are you f*cking kidding me??? There is no way that goofy b*tch can answer one question directly, much less 6 of them! Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick, why would anybody ask a young Liberal to explain anything??? Crap, don’t you Conservatives watch the news??? They wet their pants and run like Hell for safe spaces every time they hear the name of Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or Milo! Criminy, Squeeky, do you realize the psychic trauma you are inflicting on Poor Old Dumb Linda??? Uh, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ALERT!!! Doh!

                    You’re welcome!

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

      1. I was not comparing two Presidents. I was comparing two periods of time regarding the media. In JFK days it was “the press”. But every human has to take numerous leaks during the day. Most males have sex with females and some do not only stick with the spouse after marriage. Some women grope around. JFK might have been a patriot and a hero. But he had some sex with Marilyn in the White House itself. She could say that she was doing him a war favor. Trump does not have a Marilyn or a hooker in the White House and no one says he is cheating now that he is President. If you want to put JFK on a pedestal then put him up there with Andrew Jackson. He got us into Vietnam. Hurry on down. Be the first kid on your block to have your dad come home in a box.

  7. Our system is being tested for its ability to deal with extremes of political alienation and polarization. I’m going to wait until all the evidence is in on the FBI scandal.

    Much has changed since the Inauguration, and it’s easy to forget the paranoia felt in the FBI’s Counter-Intel Division at that time — the possibility that the new President and/or his National Security Advisor had been caught in the grips of a Kremlin-directed Kompromat op. Under this dire scenario, one which is not anticipated in our “normal” legal system, I can understand how patriotism + paranoia possibly combined to make the FBI leaders feel that a deep investigation into the Trump posse would be advisable — using the Special Counsel law, and appointing someone who could not be bullied by the WH.

    However, a year has passed, and though we haven’t heard a peep out of Mueller except for “process” indictments (Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Papadoupolus) that don’t implicate any wrongdoing on candidate Trump’s part, it now seems that Donald Trump was never even close to being under the thumb of Moscow. After the cruise missile barrage on Syria, Putin admitted publicly that he was disappointed in the new U.S. President. If Mueller is to emerge with any credibility, he needs to make his findings public about the various ops the Kremlin ran to interfere with the election, while discrediting the “collusion” narrative.

    There may have been some serious abuses of FISA foreign surveillance powers at the FBI, and these may go as far as ops aimed at defeating Trump at the polls, or laying an impeachment trap afterwards. Those would be very serious crimes, demanding serious investigation and prosecutions.

    But, overall, the system is performing OK to protect and defend our core institutions. Could it perform better?
    Obviously, it would have been much better if Mrs. Clinton had conceded her loss without reference to Russian meddling. I’m reminded of how Richard Nixon believed (as many historians now agree) that the Illinois Dems cheated to steal the 1960 election for Kennedy — but Nixon conceded cleanly in order to preclude setting off a Constitutional crisis. The Dems have so partisanized the Russian election-interference attempts that it’s questionable whether they will pull back and wage a bipartisan response to the Russian Federation. It’s very doubtful that anyone in Congress wants to carve out a position of international leadership on election-interference, which would logically begin with the U.S. drafting a Standard of Foreign Election Non-Interference which it commits itself to.

    And, we still aren’t applying the lessons learned from the 2016 election to strengthen our system’s ability to rapidly deal with alleged crimes pinned by the opposition on a Presidential candidate, and to see them resolved rapidly before the vote. The real lesson from 2016 is that our system has to emerge from elections with a strong sense of their legitimacy, and a willingness of the losing Party to transition rapidly to bipartisan governing mode. Our system is not doing well at learning and evolving our institutions — many worry that the same contested elections pattern will continue, and outside foreign interference will work to destabilize our democracy. The media receives a very poor rating — nobody with a media voice can put aside the daily conflict theatrics to ask: “What should we be doing now to prepare our political system for 2018 and 2020?”

    1. So, the reason Trump won’t implement the Congressional sanctions against Russia? Just looking for a continued laugh to follow-up on the comedy routine pbinca introduced, “Dems made the Russian election interference, partisan”.

      1. Our European allies are alarmed at our actions towards Russia and want us to lessen the tension, not increase it. That’s a possible reason.

    2. Good post, pbinca. I, too, am concerned by the refusal of the losing party (on either side) to transition to bipartisan mode. I blame Obama for this. When he won in 2008, he acted like he just won a sporting event, and couldn’t resist spiking the ball. His first bipartisan meeting he shut McCain down by saying “I won”. McCain politely responded, “yes, you did”. Then more of Obama’s in your face comments “elections have consequences”; ” you want your policies? Win some elections”. Never the slightest inkling of any desire to have bipartisan governance.

      President Trump does desire bipartisan governance. After all, he has no particular loyalty to either party. But the poison pill Obama left behind has made that seemingly impossible.

      1. One point that I think is essential, is that politics is like warfare. If one side invents a deadly weapon, then the other side has to counter it, either by making the same weapon, or by finding some way to defend against the weapon. Imagine machine guns, and only one side has them. Like the British said about some natives, “Whatever happens we have got – – – the Maxim Gun, and they have not.”

        The Democrats never play the bi-partisan game. They are after power, and they have no desire to play nice, or fair. They play to win, while Republicans pontificate about the Constitution, principles, getting along, and looking out for the best interests of the country. They will always loose that game, the same way the Fuzzy-Wuzzies lost.

        It’s a massacre most of the time. Do you really think the Democrats give a sh*t about the country as a whole while they try to stuff the ballot box with illegal immigrants? Do you think the Democrats give a sh*t about black people, while they keep them barefoot, pregnant, and broke with the welfare hook?

        Democrats care about power, and like bad wrestlers, they are whomping Republicans over the head with folding metal chairs, while the Republicans run crying and whining to the referee, who is being paid off by the bad wrestlers to look the other way. Unless a Republican whacks a Democrat. That they will notice.

        Sooo, to me, screw all this bipartisan crap, It is a Republican Pipe Dream. If they want to fix the country, Trump is telling them how to do it. Go nuclear, pass the bills that need to be passed, and let the country decide in 2018 and 2020 and beyond, who they like better.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

    3. “But, overall, the system is performing OK to protect and defend our core institutions”? You have the Republicans doing everything possible to undermine the integrity of career FBI agents and the Mueller investigation long before it is even concluded, including secret “memos” harped on by Trump Broadcasting, aka Fox News, that there is “no evidence” of collusion, despite indictments and clear ties between the incompetent fat orange slob and Russians. You have a member of Congress secretly investigating the investigators, and you think the Democrats are the ones partisanizing? What are you smoking?

      You want the “losing party” to rapidly transition to bipartisanship? Well, the Democratic candidate won the popular vote, so the Republicans are the “losing party” in my book. but they act like they have a mandate. The real lesson from 2016 is that this country is unfortunately populated by a substantial number of racist losers who couldn’t stand a black president, and who were easily be misled into believing that a fat racist misogynist xenophobe should be president because he spouted rhetoric that appealed to their prejudices.

      1. LOL! You want the “losing party” to rapidly transition to bipartisanship? Hell no! And add whiplash to the TBI they sustained from the election results? Just sit back and relax. Grab your sippy cup while the adults continue cleaning up your mess. I recommend you avoid watching the SOTU as it might trigger an aneurysm.

        Oh, and your welcome! 🙂

        1. I wouldn’t watch the ego parade with the Fat Dotard as the Grand Marshall at gunpoint. Seriously.

          1. See, we can be bipartisan. Better to start with getting your mental health squared away though. Good luck with that.

            1. Just like Chump, you attack anyone who criticizes. That’s what fatso’s attack on the FBI is all about. If there really, truly were no facts establishing any criminal conduct, then fatso and the Republicans should just allow the Special Counsel to do his work, which would exonerate him. Instead, you have Nunes with his shadow investigation of the investigators and Fox News harping in an effort to undermine the FBI and the Special Counsel. You have to ask yourself why. I think we all know why. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Trump’s dirty, and even you know it.

              1. You say Trump is dirty? For what? For wanting to expose the politicization and weaponization of the DOJ and intelligence operations against him and his campaign? Doesn’t that make Obama dirty? There’s so much more here than just the appearance of impropriety at the FBI – it’s actual corruption and wrong doing during the election and coming from within the Obama admin that it’s just absurd to say Trump is the dirty one in all of this.

      2. Some of the population jumped from the frying pan into the fire out of desperation and stupidity. Hillary’s unwillingness to say there wouldn’t be cuts to Medicare and Social Security made them easily seduced by Trump. Hillary’s campaign run by the Center for American Progress (funded by Gates, Waltons and corporations) and Podesto, who previously had asked donors to support candidates working to privatize public schools, didn’t help the Democratic cause. Nor did, having Bloomberg speak at the convention, while denying Nina Turner (a Black state representative from Ohio) her scheduled time. Others voting Repub., are the entitled, dominated by selfish greed. And then, there are the ones identified by Natacha.

      3. Natacha says, “Well, the Democratic candidate won the popular vote, so the Republicans are the “losing party” in my book. but they act like they have a mandate.”

        Actually, Natacha, they do have a mandate in the sense Trump won the Electoral College pretty handily while Hillary managed to get more votes only in two states, California and New York – two states that Hillary wasted far too much time campaigning in to the exclusion of other important states, while Trump wasted no time campaigning in California and little time in New York for that very reason.

        You simply refuse to accept the results of the election and you refuse to accept how our system of government determines elections. Didn’t Hillary say not accepting election results is a “threat to Democracy”? So according to Hillary, that would make YOU a ‘threat to Democracy’ not Donald Trump.

      4. Some of those in the top leadership of the FBI have already done their part in undermining the the reputation of the FBI.
        The reshuffling of the top leadership of the FBI, and continuing investigation into the activities of some former (and demoted) top officials in no way impedes the Mueller investigation.
        Mueller’s team is fully staffed with experienced and aggresive investigators and prosecutors.
        He has the cooperation of the DOJ, subpeona power, a grand jury system he can use ( and is using, if his original grand jury is still active), the ability to order no-knock predawn raids against those under investigation, etc.
        There’s no reason why both the Mueller investigation, and the investigation into the activities of some current and former FBI officials, can’t both proceed at the same time.
        The suggestion that investigating the FBI is somehow off-limits seemed to be based on an unquestioning faith that the most powerful federal law enforcement agency isn’t capable of misconduct.
        J. Edgar Hoover would have loved those kinds of defenders.

    4. From Newsweek:

      Politics

      Nunes ‘Cherry-picked’ Details for the Secret Memo Without Reading the Source Material

      Newsweek Ryan Sit,Newsweek 4 hours ago .


      The Republican lawmaker who spearheaded the campaign to release a classified memo critical of the Justice Department and the FBI “cherry-picked” the document’s contents without reading all the source material, a top Democrat charges.

      In a Monday night interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) hasn’t read all the details behind the controversial secret memo.

      “[T]he chairman never bothered to go read these underlying materials,” Schiff said. “After months and months of making this argument that the FBI and DOJ are involved in some sort of conspiracy, he didn’t even bother to read the materials himself.

      The memo was drafted by Republican staffers and reportedly undermines the FBI and Justice Department’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

      Schiff said the document is full of Republican talking points, with details culled from documents that the Justice Department had agreed to release to him and Nunes, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee. The committee is conducting its own investigation into Russia’s election interference, although Nunes had recused himself from that probe last August.

      Democratic Representative Adam Schiff says GOP Representative Devin Nunes never read the underlying material that formed the basis for a controversial memo the House Intelligence Committee voted to declassify on Monday. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

      The revelation that Nunes and staffers assembled the secret memo without full knowledge of the source material drew sharp criticism from former government officials.

      Former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa, now the director of admissions and a senior lecturer at the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale, lambasted Nunes for not doing his due diligence.

      “Scooby Doo Nunes has not read the underlying classified information that forms the basis of the memo under his name that his committee has voted to make public,” she tweeted. “Yep, you can read that again!”

      Walter Shaub, the former director of the Office of Government Ethics, was incredulous.

      “Unbelievable! So Nunes hasn’t even read the cherry-picked material his memo is based on,” he tweeted. “But we’re supposed to take his word that it’s accurate.”

      Nunes and other Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have pressed to publicly release the memo for the past week. On Monday, the committee passed a vote along party lines to declassify the document, despite the Justice Department calling such a release “extraordinarily reckless.” Democrats authored a rebuttal memo, though the committee voted—again along party lines—not to release that document.

      Trump has five days to review the Republican memo and decide whether to make it public.

      “It’s a really disgraceful act, in my view, to make partisan and political the declassification process, and I think it’s what you see when you have a flawed president infecting the whole of government,” Schiff said. “It’s apolitical. This is a continuation of the effort to protect the president’s hide.”

      So–it’s the Democrats who are partisanizing things? Secret memo with Republican talking points, but Democratic rebuttal not allowed? Nunes hasn’t even read the underlying material? This is all OK?

      1. “a top Democrat charges”.
        Nunes and Schiff have been at odds for a long time.
        That fight will probably escalate with the proposed release of the memo.
        Make that “it’s already escalating”.
        As that feud gets an even higher public profile, we may even see someone other than Schiff who’s constantly in front of the cameras.

  8. “Russia-related twitter account citations per day in U.S. news stories” – shown in a chart at Recode (Nov. 3, 2017) It provides the answer,”yes” to an earlier question. The Russian official troll farm has racist, alt-right trolls working. Another example cited by Recode, showed trolls encouraging readers to buy Ivanka Trump’s line of jewelry. And, in another example, they were creating a conflict related to Kaepernick kneeling.

    In the Recode article, Sen. Mark Warner, who is on the Senate Russian investigation committee, criticizes the hidden and outsized influence of Russian messages, which “are echoed and intensified across several platforms”.

    We now know why Assange targeted Warner in his approach to Hannity. The follow-up question is why did Assange think Hannity/Fox would be receptive.

  9. Nunes is Trump’s consigliere. If he were the least bit ethical, he’d have instructed committee members to vote to release the Ds memo as well. But it’s not about ethics; it’s a PR smear, that’s all. I look forward to the democrats having their memo vetted and released, where Nunes’ minions approve it or not.

    1. If he were the least bit ethical, he’d have instructed committee members to vote to release the Ds memo as well.

      Another case study opportunity for Professor Comey.

      I look forward to the democrats having their memo vetted and released, where Nunes’ minions approve it or not.

      Wow! Have you been in a coma? Since when have the Democrats and their allies in the ICFBI and media waited around for a vote to release “memos”?

    2. Unless. . . all memos are not the same. Perhaps the Nunes Memo is fact based, whereas the Democratic Memo is politics based. That is something that requires a values judgement, a concept that Democrats do not actually believe in. Remember the whole, “There are no illegal people” meme???

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Fact-based, values-based – HAHAHAHA. I think you mean cherry-picked with a scalpel. Nunes refused to have it vetted. He refused to allow his Senate counterpart republican Richard Burr to read it. The Rs refuse to release any underlying supportive info, including asking Trump to declassify the FISA warrant. And they voted to refuse to have the Ds memo released [until Rs have squeezed every drop out of their PR effort to poison the investigation].

        1. What you are saying is indeed a possibility. It could just be all politics. But, I think not. I have watched how the Democrats play the game, and for them it is all politics, all the time. Why else would you get Pelosi calling Trump’s DACA deal racist???

          Now as a faithful Democrat, I am sure you will support Frau Nancy, and deny that. But the thing is, just making an argument isn’t the same as making a convincing argument. And frankly, I think Democrats have overplayed the Race Card to where it is becoming laughable to most people.

          But, the Republicans are not all politics all the time. It is why they get their a$$e$ kicked on a regular basis by the Democrats. It’s good wrestlers (Rs) vs bad wrestlers (Ds), and in the “real” world, wrestlers who get whomped over the head with metal chairs get concussions, skull fractures, and die. The use of those metal chairs changes the game.

          Sooo, even if what you say about Nunes is true, and it is all politics, then I say Hooray! It is about time the Republicans started using metal chairs and clobbering Democrats, I even hope the Republicans start playing their own Race Cards and try to turn Blacks against illegal immigrants.

          But, for now, no I don’t agree with your assessment at all. Even Liberal Democrats like J H Kunstler are seeing thru the whole Russiagate Insanity, and beyond that, seeing the Democratic Party Corruption of the branches of government. Here. I posted this whole article here yesterday, but read what Kunstler wrote:

          It’s under Stormy Weather –

          http://kunstler.com/

          Here’s an excerpt:

          For those of us who are not admirers of President Trump, it’s even more painful to see the Democratic opposition descend into the stupendous dishonesty of the Russian Collusion story. When the intelligentsia of the nation loses its ability to think — when it becomes a dis-intelligentsia — then there are no stewards of reality left. Trump is crazy enough, but the “resistance” is dragging the country into dangerous madness.

          It’s hard not to be impressed by the evidence in the public record that the FBI misbehaved pretty badly around the various election year events of 2016. And who, besides Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, and Dean Baquet of The New York Times, can pretend to be impressed by the so far complete lack of evidence of Russian “meddling” to defeat Hillary Clinton? I must repeat: so far. This story has been playing for a year and a half now, and as the days go by, it seems more and more unlikely that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is sitting on any conclusive evidence. During this time, everything and anything has already leaked out of the FBI and its parent agency the Department of Justice, including embarrassing hard evidence of the FBI’s own procedural debauchery, and it’s hard to believe that Mr. Mueller’s office is anymore air-tight than the rest of the joint.

          If an attorney from Mars came to Earth and followed the evidence already made public, he would probably suspect that the FBI and DOJ colluded with the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic Party to derail the Trump campaign train, and then engineer an “insurance policy” train wreck of his position in office. Also, in the process, to nullify any potential legal action against Clinton, including the matter of her email server, her actions with the DNC to subvert the Sanders primary campaign, the Steele dossier being used to activate a FISA warrant for surveillance of the Trump campaign, the arrant, long-running grift machine of the Clinton Foundation (in particular, the $150 million from Russian sources following the 2013 Uranium One deal, when she was Secretary of State), and the shady activities of Barack Obama’s inner circle around the post-election transition. There is obviously more there there than in the Resistance’s Russia folder.

          Sooo, spin on! But maybe the spin cycle is coming to an end.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

    3. Democracy- rather it’s allowed or not-

      “still she persisted” ( Elizabeth Warren). The U.S. Congress needs more Warren’s, like Mark and Elizabeth.
      The ticket for 2020. Warren and Warren?

      1. Linda’s views on the oligarchary are evolving.
        Mark Warner is the richest person in the Senate, and likely in that top .1% Linda says we need to bring down.
        Elizabeth Warner is probably in the top 1%, and almost certainly one of the very wealthiest Native American in the U.S.

        1. False equivalencies- The Koctopus drafts laws via the corporate ALEC. It works against the middle class, attacking unions, government jobs, pensions, etc. via State Budget Solutions and State Policy Network. They buy politicians via Americans for Prosperity.

          They Koch’s aren’t elected. They anointed themselves.

          1. Rich Senators craft laws, too.
            Your previous rants against ” the oligarchy” focused almost totally on the wealthiest .1%; that’s where you drew the line.
            Buy if elected “oligarchs” are acceptable to you, I’ll make a note of your preference for the type of oligarch you approve of.

            1. If either of the Warrens were oligarchs, they wouldn’t be impeded by majority rule. The Koch’s and Gates, while railroading, ignore democracy. When majority opinion doesn’t match up with their financial ventures, they target their money at the political process.

              1. If the Kochs aren’t impeded by majority rule, as you claim, thenthey must be buying off the Democrats when they have the White House and Congress.
                It won’t do any good to elect Democrats, because you claim the Kochs get their way regardless of who is in power.
                Now, beside Mark Warner, who are your other favorite oligarchs.
                Soros? You know that, like the Kochs, Soros wasn’t elected either.
                That seemed to be one of your major complaints against the Kochs.

  10. OK, sooo here’s the plane truth! It probably wasn’t so much that Comey was needed back in Washington, but that the plane and the pilot needed to be back in Washington. Since the plane was coming back, it would have just been spiteful to fly it back without Comey. This presumes that it was the same plane that took him out there in the first place.

    Now, if the plane was based in Los Angeles, then it would have been wasteful to fly him back on it. The “decent” thing to do, (and the fun thing!) would have been to pay for him a commercial flight back to D.C.

    Here is a good article about all the government plane stuff.

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10143/comeys-final-flight-and-the-dojs-controversial-gulfstream-private-jets

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Thanks for thinking ‘out of the box’ with your comments – also for the link to the “plane stuff” article. Providing eye-opening insites, however the conclusion was rather pessimistic. I’m holding on to a tad of hope that government waste will improve …
      John

      1. Mar a Lago… security cost per day for DeVos…security cost for the Trump kids…the new professional stylist hired by the WH…

  11. The FBI, unfortunately, through the shenanigans and improper behavior of those vested with the trust of the American people, has become forever tainted. Marred. Tarnished. Want to discuss the concept of, decent? Whether or not it would be the “decent” thing to do to allow a terminated employee to still enjoy the perks and benefits of a job which he no longer holds? That’s what you, JT, seem to believe is the critical part of this never ending saga with the FBI? No. That is not, in fact, what is important in this story. We have employees, under the cloak and protection of the FBI, abusing their positions, acting contrary to their directives and undermining the trust of the American people. Acting in their own, individual, self-interests. Acting contrary to the rules and regulations which they pledged to uphold. Acting to maneuver and guide investigations to conform with their own, personal and political agendas. Yes. And, all that you can focus upon is whether or not the “decent” thing would be to allow one of these criminals—yes, CRIMINALS–the ability to enjoy a free plane ride back after a much deserved termination? These individuals, to whom you believe that decency should be afforded, have done untold, irreparable harm to our collective faith, belief and trust in the FBI. How do you measure or quantify that? Damage that will impact us, as a country, for years and years to come. How decent is it that we, as a country, have morphed into some banana republic, which no longer can trust the investigations performed by the FBI, as evidenced by the compromised and deceitful leaders of said agency? And, you are worried about plane rides and the perception that these men weren’t accorded some undeserved decency? They aren’t royalty, JT. They are public servants, and, public servants who were either fired or left under a cloud. The only “decent” thing would be to put them in orange jumpsuits and place them behind bars, where the American people could actually comprehend that betraying the trust of the American people, has consequences.

    1. T BOB,..
      – Post-Hoover and post-Watergate, a number of reforms were put in place to curb the potential for abuses in the FBI.
      ( Hoover actually died shortly before the Watergate break-in, but a lot of his “activities” as FBI Director were investigated).
      We might see another set of reforms follow another major Congressional investigation of the FBI.
      It looks like the reputation of that agency is at a low point not seen since the 1970s.

  12. C’mon Jonathan, be the patriot we all know you want to be. In 1973 the Republicans were as tough on Nixon as the Democrats were. That’s what a patriot does. In point of fact, Chris Wray fired McCabe Monday morning after reading The Memo on Sunday afternoon. Coincidence?

  13. Any staffer in DC is replaceable in a minute – they all know this. So they all walk on eggshells, fearing the slightest misstep. Trump doesn’t play that way – he’s right out in the open, and in your face. So everyone is thoroughly insulted at the drop of a hat, because they’ve been pretending to be innocent for so long, they actually believe they are.

  14. There should not be an effort by ‘both sides’ to frame the debate. The Trump administration is under criminal investigation. Trump likely ordered the investigation of the FBI. That is not an acceptable form of ‘framing the debate.’ That is undermining the credibility of the FBI by the man who is under its criminal investigation.

    That is the essence of corruption.

    Posted this before, but it is still apt:

    President Trump fed the highly classified intelligence to Nunes. Who or what else would? Nunes has no training or background in interpreting intelligence. This memo is going to be a hit piece of cherry picked trumped up BS. Trump is taking dictatorial powers and the Republican party is enabling him. These are dark days indeed.

    Otherwise who provided the highly classified info to Nunes? Which entity was ordered to investigate the FBI? What type of classified intel is it? Why was it given to Nunes who has zero background in intelligence processing?

    This is Trump fighting back against corruption charges that he knows will take him down. Him and all the bit players aiding and abetting his efforts.

    I honestly hope I’m wrong. But I’m not. We just have to flesh out the source, the method, the players and acts….in other words, everything. Until then, get ready for a shitshow designed to conveniently damage all of Trump’s enemies: the FBI, Clinton, Obama, Rice, Holder, maybe more, who knows…but you damn well know some of those people will be vilified in the memo and crucified by the real traitors.

      1. gina, I believe you to be absolutely correct, but this point you make, though simple to understand, is not easily understood by those with an agenda or those listening 24/7 to those with an agenda.

    1. “Nunes has no training or background in interpreting intelligence”.
      Actually, Nunes is one of only 8 members of the House with the security clearance to view the underlying intelligence the memo was based on.
      The ball is in Trump’s court now to decide by the end of the week wether to approve release of the memo.

    2. It appears that Inspector General Horowitz was the catalyst for much of what has come out and his complete report is coming out soon. Nunes and the Intelligence Committee are much more versed in classified information than Trump. In fact it was suggested early on that Trump was almost totally uninterested in it, saying he didn’t need daily briefings. Trump seems so devoid of any intellectual curiousity that the idea that he is a mastermind behind everything is laughable. On one day his critics say he is a doofus and the next day he Is Hitler personified. Yet in real time it seems like he is a shallow unsure man who makes up his mind based on the last person he talks to.

      1. It would seem you and the CIA Director don’t see eye to eye. I know, what doesn’t the Director know that you do?

        “I have seen 25-year intelligence professional receive briefings. I would tell you that President Trump is the kind of recipient of our information at the same level that they are,” Pompeo said during an interview with the American Enterprise Institute.
        http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/370268-cia-director-trump-grasps-intelligence-info-at-same-level-as-25-year

      2. Gabby,..
        That’s my take as well from the news I’ve seen; that IG Horowitz’s report sped up McCabe’s departure, and had an impact beyond that.
        I hope the IG makes public a comprehensive report in the near future.

    3. DR:

      “President Trump fed the highly classified intelligence to Nunes. Who or what else would? Nunes has no training or background in interpreting intelligence.”

      *********************

      Nunes is the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and has been so for two years. It is the primary committee in the U.S. House of Representatives charged with the oversight of the United States Intelligence Community. That means he gets to see all the intelligence presented by the agency who obtains it and interprets it. He can get it through the agency or collaborate with the WH or just talk to some CIA spook at the local Starbucks.

      You need to stick to Barbies and My Little Ponies!

  15. “McCabe correctly noted that, while he was not asked, he would have given Comey permission to return on the plane. That would, in my view, be the decent thing to do for a longtime public servant who was blindsided by this news — as opposed to abandoning him to find a way back.”

    I think Jonathan Turley reveals his inner self with this comment. It seems “decent” according to Turley. Did McCabe pay for the trip? No. Comey? No. The taxpayer did. Is that generally what occurs after one is fired from their job whether a government job or a private one? No.

    Turley should start recognizing the difference between personal money that can be spent at will and spending the public’s money which is based on the law.

    1. I think the DOJ / FBI has a discretionary budget subject use. Why should this be a problem? The guy got canned and needed a flight home. What’s the big deal? It’s not like you had to flap your arms and fly him on your back.

      1. The discretionary budget is our taxpayer dollars. The money was not placed there to be “decent” as JT remarked. A lot of people get canned and have needs. Maybe there is something in the FBI rules and regulations that would justify the FBI flying Comey home. I don’t know, but the rational Turley gave was it is a “decent” thing to do. It might be “decent”, but that is not how we expect taxpayer dollars to be spent.

        There is a story about Davy Crockett that demonstrates the point I am trying to make. One version of the story is at https://fee.org/resources/not-your-to-give-2/ You should give it a read.

      2. There’s a lot of arm and jaw flapping, here, Darrin — and Allan is one of the biggest offenders.

        We have plenty of things about which to be concerned and/or outraged — and Comey’s trip back to D.C. isn’t one of them, as you’ve correctly noted. There were probably others who had to return home. And the plane may have been headed back to D.C., anyway. (Trump is known to be petty and vindictive, so it stands to reason that he was probably angry that Comey wasn’t left behind in LA.)

        The same arm and jaw flappers didn’t and won’t bat an eye at this:

        https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/30/after-a-reported-64000-mar-a-lago-spa-visit-melania-trump-will-be-at-the-state-of-the-union-address/

        1. Trump was willing to personally pay for Comey’s flight, but only on the condition that it was a Westbound flight.

    2. Comey was a GS-9000 so he could have dipped into his pocket to afford plane fare home. The rest of us do.

      1. That is right so even his mother could have paid. Paying a former employee for something because it is one’s opinion that it is a “decent” thing to do tells me JT should never be treasurer for any organization.

        1. The tax payer funded plane flight is an excellent example of why we’re $20+ trillion in debt. Far too many things are done by our government because someone was convinced it was the decent thing to do.

          1. For the penny wise and pound foolish:

            https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary/iraq-war-costs-u-s-more-than-2-trillion-study-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314

            Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study

            by Daniel Trotta

            NEW YORK (Reuters) – The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

            The 2011 study said the combined cost of the wars was at least $3.7 trillion, based on actual expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and future commitments, such as the medical and disability claims of U.S. war veterans.

            That estimate climbed to nearly $4 trillion in the update.

            Excluded were indirect deaths caused by the mass exodus of doctors and a devastated infrastructure, for example, while the costs left out trillions of dollars in interest the United States could pay over the next 40 years.

            The interest on expenses for the Iraq war could amount to about $4 trillion during that period, the report said.

            The report also examined the burden on U.S. veterans and their families, showing a deep social cost as well as an increase in spending on veterans. The 2011 study found U.S. medical and disability claims for veterans after a decade of war totaled $33 billion. Two years later, that number had risen to $134.7 billion.

            FEW GAINS

            The report concluded the United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region, set back women’s rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system, the report said. Meanwhile, the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud, it said.

            Former President George W. Bush’s administration cited its belief that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s government held weapons of mass destruction to justify the decision to go to war. U.S. and allied forces later found that such stockpiles did not exist. -Daniel Trotta, Reuters

        2. If he was traveling on government business, he was arguably entitled to reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred in returning to his home base even after the firing. Having him return on a plane already going to the same place would make more sense than incurring other costs.

          1. Richard, that is a reasonable argument. They could have paid for a coach seat if that was the case. However, that was not the problem I had with JT’s comment. JT said it was OK because it was the “decent” thing to do. That demonstrates a problem with JT’s thinking process for being “decent” is not the criteria for spending taxpayer’s dollars.

            1. But I think it is a legitimate consideration when talking about actions which don’t actually involve increased costs. If the plane was going anyway, and could take him at no cost, then I think decency as an employer does come into play, and that it would speak ill of the adminstration to refuse.

              1. If it costs the taxpayer no additional money then the argument based on decency disappears. I commented on JT’s rational not all the other arguments that can be made.

      2. Just another outraged ” Democrat” who is resentful when a Republican gets anything. What’s next? Will you be criticizing our billionaire president for having his extended immediate family get security payed for by the taxpayer?

  16. Not a time for comment or premature conjecture but for contemplation as this plays out.

Comments are closed.