After The Inspector General Report, Questions Grow Over The Lack Of A Criminal Referral For McCabe

McCabeJustice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has released his watchdog report on the conduct of former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and it is scathing.  As I discussed in an earlier column, McCabe took the unprecedented step of a top former FBI officer of asking for donations on GoFundMe and racked in more than half a million dollars.  He notably raised the money and then closed the site not long before the release of the report showing that he repeatedly made false statements to investigators as well as Comey.  It was like creating a victim fund before police concludes whether you were attacked or the attacker.  Horowitz did not convey any doubt as to McCabe being the culprit.  He and his career staff found that McCabe not only lied but did so to advance his personal — the public’s — interest. If that is the case, it only magnifies the concerns over the treatment of McCabe as opposed to the Trump officials (like Michael Flynn) who he once investigated.  The fact that he had the audacity to raise a half million dollars before the facts were made public only heightens these concerns.

At issue is the leak to The Wall Street Journal about an FBI probe of the Clinton Foundation.

Notably, the report itself belies the allegation of McCabe that he was victim of a witch hunt loyalists.  Not only was Horowitz an Obama appointee but his staff were all career officials. More importantly, the report confirms that opened this review a week before Trump was sworn in. It preceded and had no connection to Mueller.

The report takes apart McCabe’s spin with clinical precision.  It found that McCabe, 50, lied or misled investigators on not one but four occasions.  It also found that these lies were clearly meant to help McCabe alone.  McCabe said that he had full authority to make the disclosures.  The IG found no evidence to support those claims. It also found that there was no evidence that then FBI Director James Comey was informed by McCabe. The IG states:

“[W]e 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.”

So let’s sum up.  The IG found that McCabe lied on four occasions.  It found that he did so for personal benefit.  He further showed no contrition and allegedly falsely implicated his superior in the improper leaking of information to the media.

As noted earlier, Flynn was indicted for criminal false statements on less.  He now faces a prison stint after pleading guilty to a single false statement about a meeting with Russian diplomats during the Trump presidential transition period. While Flynn did not deny the meeting, which was entirely legal, he denied discussing sanctions with the Russians. Mueller charged him with lying or misleading federal investigators under 18 U.S.C. 1001. He did so even though investigators working under former FBI Director James Comey reportedly had concluded that Flynn did not intend to lie and should not be charged criminally for the omission.

McCabe has used the Flynn defense that he was “confused and distracted” but unlike Flynn it appears (thus far) to have worked.

The issue is not as much the crying need to indict McCabe as it is the lack of consistency of how this law is being applied.

392 thoughts on “After The Inspector General Report, Questions Grow Over The Lack Of A Criminal Referral For McCabe”

  1. McCabe clearly has questionable judgment and made some astoundingly bad decisions along the way. Taking Go Fund Me donations? When he owns two homes, drives a $70k Porsche and has a reportedly very healthy personal net worth?

    Mistake number one…when VA Gov. Terry McAuliffe comes along out of the blue to personally recruit your non-political wife to run for state office *while you are a senior official on the fast-track at the FBI* and connected to ongoing Clinton-related investigations…and that doesn’t raise all kinds of red flags for you to immediately steer clear of that kind of entanglement, then there is something seriously wrong with your judgment.

    Is there anyone in DC that doesn’t know McAuliffe is a Clinton fixer? Is there anyone in DC that doesn’t know McAuliffe is as slimy and corrupt as they come? If McCabe truly understood his role at the FBI and if he valued his reputation and FBI career, then it should have been an easy choice: you immediately distance yourself and your spouse from becoming involved with someone like McAuliffe — no matter how flattering it was for him to personally recruit your wife to run for office and then steer something like $700k to her losing campaign. It’s alarming that this man had the kind power and authority that he did at the FBI.

  2. the first thing ALL law schools should teach is the idea of the rule of law is a lie
    the bigger you are the more you can get away with
    the law only applies to those who cannot fight back
    the law can lie , cheat , steal from and kill innocents and nothing will be done

  3. The report just came out so it’s a bit early to rule out an indictment. In fact, it’s been reported (leaks I assume) that indictments will closely follow the issuance of the IG report (full report or sections?). Since the IG does not have prosecutorial powers it sounds like that will fall on Huber who according to Sessions has been coordinating with the IG since the Fall and has possibly empaneled one or more grand juries. Huber has been in the background but may soon be in the spotlight.

  4. That the GoFundMe page netted him several thousand dollars is indicative of the culture of rank-and-file partisan Democrats: degenerate.

    McCabe is a bureaucratic operator with a law degree. It would not surprise me in the least that he’d contrived ways to stay in the gray area between what’s generally considered unethical and what’s flatly illegal. What’s important is that his ilk are flushed out of federal police and prosecution services.

    Btw, why do we have lawyers in charge of the FBI? And why do we marry our investigative and patrol services to our prosecution service, which are almost invariably separate at the state and local level? One aspect of reform is going to be parceling out components of the Department of Justice to other departments and subdividing the FBI into several successor agencies. Another aspect should be scarifying the federal criminal code. Federal pre-emption of state and local police is de trop. Of course, our worthless Congress will do nothing.

    1. I do not care about the McCabe “gofundme” site.

      If there are people who wish to pay for the legal defense costs of obvious criminals – that is their business.

      The standard of conduct for top tier FBI officials should be the HIGHEST not the lowest.

      There should be no Grey area for them.

      1. Sooner or later you will have the opportunity to contribute to Trump’s gofundmyimpeachment site. My advice, start saving today.

        Have a great week.

        1. 20% is going to lawyers for Trump already, so keep giving Trump money folks.

        2. If you manage to come up with an actual impeachable offense – absolutely – go fo it.

          In the meantime while investigating the crap out of Trump, and finding nothing but process crimes – insufficiently kowtowing to Mueller, what has been exposed is real and far larger criminality in The Obama administration.

          It should be crystal clear to everyone that McCabe’s conduct is more criminal than nearly anything Mueller has found.

          We do not have a final report on the Clinton email investigation YET, but things are looking really really bad.

          Lynch, Comey, McCabe are in a circular firing squad. It is pretty evident to all but the blind that the FBI/DOJ deliberately tanked the Clinton foundation investigation.

          Further we have both Comey and McCabe openly admitting that they made decisions regarding the Clinton email investigation on the basis of political calculus and personal reputation enhancement.
          The goal was to get Clinton elected while at the same time peacocking their own pseudo integrity.

          Comey’s book is going over like a lead balloon. The only question is why this self serving self righteous pseudo sanctomonious idiot was ever hired by the FBI.

          1. dhlii, let me get this straight. James Comey issues an FBI warning on Hillary 11 days before the election causing her poll numbers to plummet. And you’re saying he did that to throw suspicion off himself so we wouldn’t notice that he was really in cahoots with Hillary..??

            1. You seem to think there are only two teams in all of this – the Red Team and the Blue Team.

              While the vast majority of those in government are democrats and favorable to Clinton, and almost certainly voted for her,

              They are on their OWN Team. Sometimes that is the “government team” sometimes that is the James Comey Team.

              From the begining to the end of this McCabe and Comey were gaming things.

              They had ZERO interest in actually prosecuting Clinton as she richly deserved.
              but they were not interested in making themselves into her toadies either.

              They so the entire investigation as an oportunity to enhance their own importance and to make themselve indispensible – if for no other reason than because they knew where all the bodies were burried.

              Lynch was likely working to protect and elect Clinton.

              Comey and McCabe were looking after Comey and McCabe.

              Both expected Clinton to win.
              Both wanted Clinton to win.
              But neither wanted Clinton to win easily.
              Both wanted Clinton to come into the presidency weak and owing them.

              While neither I nor the polls – accoring to the polls BOTH Clinton and Trump dropped 2pts after the Comey letter.
              I would also note that the Access Hollywood tape did far more damage to Trump – Trump dropped 4 pts, and clinton rose 2pts.

              1. Even the most loyal Democrats were stunned by Comey’s letter. The FBI had never issued a warning on a presidential candidate. One can’t possibly calculate how many Democrats stayed home on Election Day as a result of that letter. And we ‘know’ that turnout was an issue for Democrats in that election. Trump’s Electoral College victory came down to just 80,000 in only 3 states. Corey’s letter could have easily turned off that many Democrats.

                1. I don’t remember any other Presidential candidate with hundreds of millions of dollars in a slush fund with an IRS designation as a charitable foundation where most of the money was generated due to the named individual while acting as a high government official.

                    1. Your position is”

                      There is no Clinton Foundation
                      The Foundation doesn’t have hundreds of millions of dollars
                      much obtained while Hillary was secretary of state
                      much occurred in a time frame involving Uranium One

                      The above represents your position. That is OK with me because I already recognize that your knowledge of the world around you is limited. I won’t even discuss the sums paid to Bill that correlate with Hillary’s position of power, nor will I discuss Haiti and the Clintons at this time.

                2. Apparently you are clueless.

                  The Casper Weinberger indictment was announced days before the 1992 election and may well have tipped the election.

                  Subsequently the entire indictment was kicked by the courts.

                3. You can check the polling on RCP.

                  There is no shift that occurred coinciding with oru following the Comey letter.
                  There is a negative Shift against Trump after the Access Hollywood video.

                  Absolutely it some random event happened – Trump could have lost.
                  Or is some other random even did not happen Trump could have won bigger.

                  Trump’s campaign Strategy was no secret.
                  Clinton was over confident and did not beleive she was going to lose the blue collar rust belt.
                  Almost no one did – including Comey.

                  Yes, it was close, but she still lost it. And the warning signs were there.

                  Regardless, flip the election – you still have 65M people who do not want what the left is selling.

                4. It is the democratic parties responsibility to pursuade their voters.

                  I am highly disturbed that Comey contemplated the politics.

                  He pledged to uphold the constitution and the law – that is his “higher loyalty” not ponder the impact that doing his job properly might have on an election.

                  Comey’s book is overtly hypocritical.

      2. “There should be no Grey area for them.”

        This comment is moving in the right direction. An FBI agent, like a dentist, doctor, lawyer, etc. should be held to a higher standard when their special license or privilege is being used and they should suffer much more severe penalties when using those privileges in a wrongful fashion.

        1. “An FBI agent, like a dentist, doctor, lawyer, etc. should be held to a higher standard when their special license or privilege is being used and they should suffer much more severe penalties when using those privileges in a wrongful fashion.”

          Absolutely – but it is more than that.

          We are not merely talking about people practicing inside their profession and their area of expertise and therefore subject to a higher standard.

          We are talking about those with the power to enforce the law with respect to others behaving in ways they would prosecute others for.

          There are 3 independent reasons to hold these people to a higher standard:

          1). Expertise – all of these people are law enforcement. They are expected to know the law better than the rest of us.
          In the specific instances we are dealing with all these people are LAWYERS too. And they are the top Criminal lawyers in the country.

          2). Power – those with the authority to use force against others must be held to a higher standard.

          3). Hypocracy – McCabe in particular, bothers me.
          I have a hard time letting go of Clinton – because she had no problem scapegoating and jailing some peon film maker to advance her narrative. Otherwise it would be easier for me to say Small potatoes over some of her malfeasance. But when you throw others in jail for trivialities, you should be held to the same or higher a standard.

          McCabe is worse than Clinton in that regard.

          McCabe apparently harrassed another FBI Agent. She filed a complaint. He retaliated against her.
          Flynn provided her with a reference in her Complaint – noting that she had done a good job while on detached duty with DIA. McCabe went after Flynn and cost him has job under Obama, and he set him up for this “lying to the FBI” trap under Trump.

          In my book McCabe does hard time.

          Comey is sanctimounious and annoying, and a long list of other perjoratives – some criminal.
          But he does nto seem to be vindictive.

        2. Presidents should be held to higher standards. But the current occupant of that office insults people with pre-dawn tweets almost every day. Since when is ‘that’ acceptable??

          Aside from the rude example it sets, one has to ask why a man of 71 is awake at those hours with nothing else to do. If he can’t sleep Trump might think of passing the time with situation reports. But he apparently figures that “Fox & Friends” will tell him what he needs to know.

          1. Presidents should be held to high standards.

            Some of Trump’s conduct is poor.
            You do not have to vote for him – I didn;t.
            You can ask your congressmen to impeach him – but I would suggest more than insulting peopel as a basis.

            Regardless we are talking about FBI agents who investigate and prosecute people.

            Rude and criminal are far far far apart, but I gather you do not grasp that.

            Further Trump is treated extremely rudely by the left and the press.
            So Trump is rude back – in spades.
            Not losing sleep over the spittle contest between Trump and the media and the left.

            You all deserve each other.

            The value of ones effort is not the sweat produced or the time put in.
            It is the results.

            The economy is improving in ways we have not seen in 20 years.
            If Trump can manage that will sleeping all day – I am fine with that.

          2. “Since when is ‘that’ acceptable??”

            Acceptable for what? Voting in a presidential election is performed by individuals who have a chance to know all of this about the person before they vote. They voted for Trump. Game over. Trump is President and Hillary along with a lot of Democrats refuse to accept a legally elected President. When is that acceptable?

            Trump is a workaholic. I have no objection to a President that works hard even if his hours are uncomfortable for you.

            He has done great things while you are sleeping or just loafing off.

            1. Allen sez:

              “. . . who have a chance to know all of this about the person before they vote>”

              Didn’t quite work this way, did it Allen?

              Some day, your nose will recede from the nether regions.

              Until then, carry on.

    2. When someone says “degenerate” Trump immediately comes to mind. Can’t help it, so
      there you are…

      1. “When someone says “degenerate” Trump immediately comes to mind.”

        That is OK wildbill, because in that exact fashion I think of you and a few others on the blog. It is all a matter of personal opinion until one can attach fact to the accusation.

      2. Why then does the dictionary have Bill Clinton’s picture as definition of DENGERATE

  5. There will be no prisoner swap of Flynn for McCabe. Go ahead on and indict McCabe, if that will slake your appetite. Mueller does not need McCabe. Comey does not need McCabe. And Mueller does not really need Comey, either.

    If you seek a development more plausible than a prisoner swap of Flynn for McCabe, then you might want to consider the recent extradition of the Russian hacker, Yevgeniy Nikulin, from The Czech Republic (Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Paul Ryan). There have also been intriguing developments in the asylum of Julian Assange in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London. He could be expelled any day now. He would be arrested immediately thereafter. The UK would probably extradite Assange to The US.

    BTW, Putin has several Russians currently imprisoned on treason charges who are expected to confess to the Russian hacking and leaking operation in the 2016 US election in the event that Mueller charges Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear. Those imprisoned Russians are, of course, patsies in waiting. They’ll take the fall for Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear. At some point along the way even Trump, himself, will have to realize just who he has been dealing with the whole way through.

    1. You shouldn’t be drinking at this hour. Flynn pleaded to a mickey-mouse process crime. These are always a dubious bit of business. Trump can, and should, pardon Flynn.

      1. Actually, Mueller already set the sentencing precedent concerning a single charge of lying to the FBI — 30 days in jail. Hardly worth pardoning, except for the symbolic gesture of clearing Flynn’s name. Meanwhile, I think it’s more likely that the judge will dismiss the charge/guilty plea because the FBI personnel that did the actual interview didn’t think Flynn had lied. That was all a Mueller fabrication.

        Always best to let the court deal with crimes and only intervene if really necessary. Otherwise, it weakens the entire criminal justice system when it comes to dealing with actual criminals.

        But you’re right about it being much too early for Late4School to be drinking.

        1. More likely this will be dismissed because the charges are corrupt.

          McCabe was out to get Flynn. McCabe has been disciplined for retribution before.
          Flynn provided a reference for an agent that filed a harrassment claim against McCabe.

          McCabe setup the Flynn interview. McCabe Strzok had the Kislyak transcript prior to the interview.

          You may not interview someone for the purpose of setting them up for a crime – that is called entrapment.

          18 USC 1001 is specifically about misleading an investigation.
          If investigators know the answer to their own question before asking, there is no crime.
          That does not make misrepresentation wise.

          This is also why McCabe’s remarks are much more significant.
          McCabe lied to investigators who did not know the answers to the questions – he therefore mislead the investigation.
          He subsequently lied under oath to protect his prior lies.

          McCabe should be in far more serious trouble.

          1. Agreed. I’ve written similar comments, but I’d forgotten about the vendetta aspect concerning Flynn and his reference for the agent (female, if I recall) and her harassment issue. Not sure I ever knew that McCabe was directly involved there. Thanks for that information.

            And yeah — questioning a witness about information that is already possessed is out of bounds.

            Entrapment is what I’d call what happened when the Russian lawyer offered Trump Jr. information about Hillary while Trump Jr. was just minding his own business. The guy wasn’t out looking for information about Hillary — he merely responded when the offer was made. My theory is that the FBI was involved in that, and I’ve never heard anyone explain why the FBI wouldn’t have known about what those Russians were doing, since one of them was a former Russian military intelligence officer. People such as that aren’t supposed to be wandering around the US without someone knowing what they’re up to. The whole thing looks like it was an unlawful entrapment scheme.

            I’ve never thought about an interview concerning information already possessed constituting entrapment, but it does fit the definition, now that you mention it.

            Thanks. That’s really the whole point of participating in these comment-page discussions — to learn something while sharing what you yourself might know.

            And yeah — McCabe should be in far more trouble than Flynn, not only because he was consciously trying (and succeeding) in misdirecting an important FBI investigation related to a number of very serious leaks, but because he was a law enforcement officer.

            A dirty cop is worse than a citizen criminal under any circumstance. There will always be criminals, but cops are paid to stop them, not be them.

            1. “And yeah — questioning a witness about information that is already possessed is out of bounds.”

              Nit picking – it is not out of bounds for the investigator.
              Much useful can be gain by knowing that someone being interviewed is lying.

              But knowing the answer ahead makes the lie unprosecutable.

              In this case, Flynn failed to note that Kislyak brought up Sanctions and Flynn responded – he could not discuss that now.

              Failing to recall talking about not talking about something is not the crime of the century.

              Mueller charging Flynn on that was a mistake.

              Flynn now has Sullivan as judge – who is predisposed to see prosecutorial misconduct.
              Sullivan has ordered substantial discovery prior to sentencing.
              Flynn and Mueller have indefinitely delayed sentencing.

              By charging low and on the weakest case, Mueller has destroyed most of his leverage with Flynn.
              It is hard to impossible to bring be more significant charges if the deal dies.

              We do not know what is going on. But if I were Flynn (or Mueller) I would be stalling.
              Time is Flynn’s friend. Bring this to a head is very dangerous for Mueller.

              1. He’s already destroyed Flynn financially. So I hope McCabe is happy now.

            2. It is only entrapment – when you try to prosecute.

              There is nothing wrong with trying to test the credibility of someone being questioned.
              There is nothing wrong with trying to catch them in lies.

              18 USC 1001 is unusual – I do not think states have similar statues.

              But its purpose is to prevent those being questioned from wasting government resources by misleading the investigation. It is not false statements that are a crime, it is misleading statements.

              I have a problem with 19 USC 1001 – I think lying to authorities is near a duty.

              Regardless, as Miranda notes – “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law”.

              Lying to authorities makes you look guilty and ruins your credibility as a witness.

              THAT is the punishment that should apply.

              McCabe lied to the IG.
              That is a firing offense.
              It should not be a crime.
              But it was a deliberate effort to mislead,
              and it is an actual unforced violation of 18 USC 1001.

              There are numerous differences between Flynn and McCabe.

              McCabe’s statements were at scheduled interviews that he had the oportunity to prepare for.
              Flynn was called by McCabe and told Strzok was on his way over to review revised protocols.
              Flynn was not expecting an interview, did not prepare, and did not know what he was being interviewed about, until the interview started. Flynn made a mistake – he should have sent Strzok packing.

              McCabe subsequently testified under oath, and over time his story has changed.
              He shifted from I knew nothing, it was somebody else’s leak, to Comey authorized it.
              Comey has denied that – but this is NOT he said, he said, because McCabe has contradicted himself.

              1. You’re repeating yourself, and you’re starting to spew nonsense. Please direct your “replies” elsewhere.

      2. That’s what he pleaded to.
        The other, possibly more serious charges, were not brought in exchange for his cooperation.

        Plea bargains 101.

        1. Again, see McCarthy’s treatment. If he’s turning state;s evidence, the conspiracy and his part of it will be delineated in the plea. That didn’t happen. They’re getting bupkis out of him as a witness against anyone else.

          1. You’re forgetting that Mueller is shrewdly circumventing Trump’s pardon power. He is not even charging Manafort with much of what he could. That would be because he wants to ensure that SDNY can avoid the double jeopardy rule by allowing them to charge on some aspects of the crimes of so many of Trump’s crime syndicate. Trump is powerless to stymie the rule of law- with pardons- at state level. Sad!

            1. You’re forgetting that Mueller is shrewdly circumventing Trump’s pardon power.

              Rubbish. Trump has plenary discretion over federal proceedings and Mueller is not employed as a state prosecutor.

              Trump’s ‘crime syndicate’ is a figment of your rancid little imagination.

              1. This is a recent argument of the left.

                The hope is that SDNYC will find a crime that can be prosecuted by the State AG.

                This is a reach. It is not currently occurring.
                It is unlikely that it will play out that way.

                The feds can pre-empt and Trump’s pardon power is NOT a valid argument not to.

                It is also a stupid play – as all it means is that in the future each party will start using freindly state AG;s to go after their political opponents.

          2. Not necessarily.

            “Why Mueller left out possible crimes from Flynn’s plea deal”


            “The plea deal seems not so lenient at all — in fact it may even be extremely harsh. To the extent that Mueller obviously wants maximum cooperation from Flynn — against higher ups in the Trump campaign, and maybe even the president himself — Mueller may have in fact gained maximum leverage over Flynn, the person most likely so far to point his finger directly at the president.”

            1. Again, see McCarthy. The notion that he is providing any co-operation is a fantasy.

              1. Thus far there is no real evidence that anyone Mueller has charged is usefully cooperating.

                Though even that question is complex.

                Lets say Papadoulis, Flynn, Vad Der Zwaan, Gates are all “cooperating”

                i.e. telling the truth.

                If there is no harmful truth to tell, what does it matter ?

                At the same time Lynch, Comey and McCabe are ratting each other out all over.

    2. Late is wearing blinders and still shocked and hurt by Trump outworking HRC to win presidency in 2016.

      1. That’s not true. The whole thing is the greatest guessing game that has ever come down the turnpike. It could be anything. It could be nothing. Both anything and nothing are complete and total guesses. L4D knows that. Bill Martin does not. There really is no point in denying it, Bill.

          1. That’s still not true, Bill. I have no idea what Mueller has got. I’m not supposed to know what Mueller has got. And I’m pleased as punch to guess at whatever Mueller might have. I do, however, understand why Trump supporters and defenders are as displeased with all of the guesses as though each were gallstone they were struggling to pass. When will it all end? Hopefully no time soon.

        1. In the past few days, Kellyanne Conway attributed Trump’s win to Comey’s pre-election announcement about a Clinton investigation. She’s trying to backtrack the slip.

      2. 2016 featured possibly the two worse candidates for President since Aaron Burr. It was the election from Hell.

    3. No one is looking for a “prisoner swap”.

      There is a reasonable possiblity that Flynn will withdraw his Plea.

      Flynn has judge Sullivan who really really does nto like prosecutorital misconduct or failure to disclose.

      McCabe was VERY deeply involved in the Flynn matter, it was actually a personal vendetta because Flynn had provided a reference for an agent that filed a harrasment case against McCabe.

      McCabe is a bad apple – though he is not the only one.

      I would expect that a criminal referal against McCabe will yeild significantly more criminal conduct,

    4. What do you read “Louis Mensch” ?

      cozy bear and fancy bear are the names of hacking toolkits that originated with Russian hackers, but are readily available to anyone.

      They are not “people” you can not indict them.

      Further contra the stupidity of Crowdstrike you can not prove a hack was performed by the Russian’s because it used cozy bear or fancy bear. Several DB & FB hacks have been rooted in the mideast.

      Further though we do know that APT28(FB) and APT29(CB) were used on the DNC,
      We do NOT know that they were used to acquire the DNC emails. Further it is near certain the DNC was separately hacked atleast a year earlier.

      Assange has previously offered to agree to extradition to the US – provided that some reasonable conditions to protect his rights were met.

      There MIGHT be a secret sealed US extradition order for Assange – if it exists it is from sweden not the UK.

      Assange successfully resisted extradion to Sweden for 2 years BEFORE seeking asylum.
      Assange is in the UK specifically because he has better due process in resisting US extradition.

      You are further both presuming Assange has something to give up, and that someone who has fought swedish extradition for years is going to cave immediately to Mueller.

      What are you planning on waterboarding him ?

      Assange has claimed repeatedly he can prove that the Russians were NOT the source of the DNC emails and that they were a leak not a hack.

      Assange does you more harm than good.

      1. Tiara Boy asked, “What do you read ‘Louis Mensch’?”

        No. I do not read Louise Mensch. But, out of curiosity, did it really take you nineteen minutes to compose your reply, Tiara Boy? (I’ll check back in another nineteen minutes or so)

        Meanwhile, why would the Russians have three fall guys waiting in the wings ready to confess to the hacking and leaking operation, if the Russians didn’t already know that their own intelligence operatives at Apt. 28 and Apt. 29 were going to need a passel of patsies to take the fall for them?

        1. “Meanwhile, why would the Russians have three fall guys waiting in the wings ready to confess to the hacking and leaking operation, if the Russians didn’t already know that their own intelligence operatives at Apt. 28 and Apt. 29 were going to need a passel of patsies to take the fall for them?”

          Apparently reading is NOT your forte.

          APT 28 and APT 29 are widely available hacking toolkits that originated with the Russian government – they are not “russian operatives”.

          Contra Crowdstrike most people grasp that the use of APT 28 and APT 29 are meaingless. both – as well as CIA and NSA toolkits and many others are available to hackers from any country as well as individuals throughout the world.

          Most APT28 and APT29 use is in the mideast.

          Absent a confession from an actually reliable source, or an internal government leak there is no means to truly know the source of any hack – as any actual expert will tell you.

          You can not tell if APT 28 is the russians, someone pretending to be the russians, or the russians pretending to be someone pretending to be the russians.

          If all the clues point one way – you are either dealing with a newby or your can be certain that wherever the clues point that is the WRONG place.

          1. Tiara Boy said, “APT 28 and APT 29 are widely available hacking toolkits.”

            Tiara Boy also said, “cozy bear and fancy bear are the names of hacking toolkits.”

            L4D predicts that Tiara Boy will soon say that “Russian hackers” are widely available hacking toolkits. Also “Russian intelligence operatives” are widely available hacking toolkits. But most of all, you can’t indict a hacking toolkit any more than you could indict a hack saw. IOW, without the hands of a hacker on the widely available hacking toolkit, the hack is not a hack, in which case there was no hack, from which it further follows what was assumed up front that there were no hackers. Pshaw!

            1. Cozy Bear == APT 29
              Fancy Bear == APT 28

              These are not people.

              Everywhere you read these are groups or people you are reading idiots who know next to nothing about hacking.

              It is not possible to know from the hack that has infected you what its source is.
              The best you can tell is who created the original hacking tool kit.

              That does NOT mean they are the ones who used it to infect you.

              No one has been indicted for hacking the DNC.

              You have the mastery of logic of a toddler.

              The inability to trace something does not mean a source does not exist – it merely means it is not knowable.

              The DNC was absolutely hacked – atleast twice and probably 3 times.
              We know the APT 28 and APT29 infections – they were spotted by Crowdstrike and monitored actively.
              That is not the same as knowing their source.
              Further no evidence has been provided by crowdstrike or exists in the logs from the DNC – that the FBI actually has, that demonstrates that APT28 or APT29 were used to DL the DNC emails.

              In fact the dates of some of the emails as well as the timing of Crowdstrike being called in make it unlikely that the emails were retreived by hacking.

              VIPS a group of well regarded ex NSA experts analyzed the actual WikiLeaks files and determined that they were copied at high speed, likely in the EDT time zone at data rates that can not be even close to duplicated across the atlantic, and at rates that match those of many USB sticks.

              Absolute proof – nope. More probable than Crowdstrikes Russian Hackers – by a long shot.

              1. dhlii, without expanding the discussion too much I assume you believe the DNC WikiLeaks was from a USB stick. I assume their computers are networked. If both are true why can’t they determine which particular computer was the cause of the leak? (not debating just working things out in my mind)

                1. I do not have specific beleifs regarding the DNC emails.

                  The evidence we have – which is likely all we will every get, is only sufficient to establish different possibilities each with their own probability.
                  The most likely is a leak, not a hack. There are numerous possible source for the leak.

                  I am not sure the forensics you want were possible immediately after the leak.
                  It is not possible now. DNC gave no one but Crowdstrike full access.
                  Crowdstrike imaged a few machines, but mostly wiped machines – they were trying to kill off an infection in the midst of an election.

                  The kind of logging you are expecting is not common, and not usually backed up.
                  You might find that at NSA.

                  I would further note that if a leak it need not have been from a DNC machine – presuming as is likely that the DNC had remote access – VPN’s etc.

                  Finally, though I have not been able to fully digest it, The Awan’s were working for both the DNC and the House Democrats. They had administrative access to everything, and though they appear to be very good at scamming people, they do not appear to have been very good at IT,
                  Anyway, they introduce a whole additional level of Mess.
                  They could be the leakers, they could have been acting on their own, They could have been working for ISI, they could just be incompetents who made hacking or leaking easier.

                  One of the other great unanswered question is why did Deb Wasserman-Schultz sacrifice her reputation for there guys ?

                  1. “One of the other great unanswered question is why did Deb Wasserman-Schultz sacrifice her reputation for there guys ?”

                    Money, love, power, or sex.

        2. “Russian Fall Guys” ? Really ?

          Why does Putin need a fall guy ?

          The russians could admit hacking the DNC, they could deny it.
          Most likely they will do neither.

          They will do neither – if they did it. They will do neither if they didn’t.

          Russia has no need for a “Fall guy”.

          Do you think we are nuking Russia over this ?

          They killed somebody in the UK (maybe) and we did little.
          They provided the Syrians with WMD’s (maybe) and we blew up some syrian bases.

          There are claims that Trump is playing 3D chess – maybe.
          But the Russians are – and you can not even manage checkers.

      2. Well outlined! And to it I’d add that the CIA has been proven to both possess and to have lost possession of a criminal hacking tool designed to mimic Russian hackers, for the purpose of doing a hack and then blaming the hack on Russians. And even without extracting documents, that hacking tool can be used to plant a fake digital fingerprint implicating Russians as having committed a hack.

        Failure to disclose this information while claiming that trace digital “evidence” proves Russians hacked the DNC is a criminal fraud perpetrated upon the citizens of the USA as well as the citizens of the world. Even if a hack occurred — keyword “if” — there is NOTHING conclusive about trace evidence that could just as easily have been planted by the CIA or any other actors with the sophisticated capabilities related to planting digital evidence.

        1. Your beloved whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, knows all about NSA custom hacking tools and simulated cyber-warfare, as well. Why wouldn’t The Kremlin use Snowden’s knowledge and skill to implicate the NSA in the DNC hack and leak operation? If they didn’t use Snowden, would that prove that the Russians didn’t have anything at all to do with the DNC hack and leak operation? Or would that be just as inconclusive as any other formally untestable hypothesis?

          1. (1) “Your beloved whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, knows all about NSA custom hacking tools and simulated cyber-warfare, as well.”

            I don’t know that Snowden knows any such thing. From interviews with him that I’ve read, he doesn’t seem all that bright to me. More likely, he only knows about the things that he handled personally. I’m trying to recall specifically what he said in one of his statements about a question he’d asked someone just before he made off with the files. It was something that displayed horrendous ignorance of the law — something that I’d have assumed the average high schooler would know.

            (2) I seriously doubt that the Kremlin needs Snowden’s knowledge. I think his presence in Russia is because that was a place he could go and be protected from CIA goons that were heard saying, “That guy needs to be disappeared.” And I suspect Russia invited him merely as a propaganda plus to stick it in Obama’s face.

            (3) Not sure what you’re getting at in your finally sentence, but I agree that there’s nothing conclusive about any of the supposed digital evidence. There are way too many variables and unknowns involved. It could literally have been anyone that hacked the DNC (if it was actually hacked), and simultaneously, the presence of trace digital evidence of a hack doesn’t prove that a hack occurred and it doesn’t prove that documents were extracted even if the system was infiltrated, and it certainly doesn’t prove that the documents weren’t simply leaked by an insider with direct access to the allegedly-hacked device(s). It could have been Seth Rich. It could have been the Awans. It could have been a Bernie operative (they DID hack the DNC early in the campaign — people forget that). Anyone could have gotten the allegedly-hacked documents, and the CIA hacking tool might have been used after the fact to cover up an insider leak and turn the leak into a political advantage. There are limitless possibilities concerning what actually happened. The story that’s been peddled is almost too simple to believe. It’s like something concocted for the stupidest of the population to buy.

            (4) What IS conclusive is that the “intelligence community” perpetrated a fraud upon the public by concealing information that the alleged trace digital evidence of a hack could have easily been planted or been left by hackers other than Russians. The “intelligence community” had an anti-Russian agenda, and motivation to pin the alleged hack on Russian, regardless of whether there was a hack or who did it. They failed to disclose a bucket load of material information while pinning the alleged hack on Russians. Even if Russians did the hack and a hack was how the documents got accessed/released, the “intelligence community” still perpetrated an enormous fraud by intentionally concealing material information.

            1. Just to be clear Snowden is probably reasonably smart.

              But he is not a hacker any more than Daniel Elsberg or “chelsea manning” are.

              the IC has perpitrated a fraud – but not the one you noted.

              CrowdStrike – a private security firm did the “investigation” of the DNC.

              DHS and FBI were not given access to the DNC systems.

              The government did nothing but read the Crowdstrike report and say “yup”.

              Crowdstrike has a horrible reputation – specifically for misattribution.
              Their distinguishing characteristic from other firms is that are willing to say this attack came from Here.
              No one else is stupid enough to do that.

              In the specific case of the DNC it is at most 50:50 that the Wikileaks emails came from a hack.
              It is even less likely they came from the APT 28 and 29 hacks.

              While the IC – particularly Brennan and Clapper have sprayed garbage through this.
              They did not conduct an investigation of the DNC.

              1. Again, from what I’ve read of Snowden’s statements, he didn’t impress me as being particularly intelligent.
                And I know enough about the law to know that concealing material information IS fraud, whether done intentionally or accidentally, and the “intelligence community” DID commit fraud by concealing a mountain of information while peddling its “assessment” that Russians hacked the DNC — and that’s regardless of CrowdStrike’s conduct.

                It’s a similar concept to being put under oath and swearing to tell not just the truth but the “whole truth.” The intelligence community, at most, only told a partial truth about its “assessment.” What it didn’t say — such as that the CIA went to a great deal of trouble to design a hacking tool to mimic Russian hackers — constitutes material information when the intelligence community claimed that digital evidence proved that Russians hacked the DNC. And one wonders whether CrowdStrike was supposed to know about the CIA’s hacking tool. My guess is that that tool was so highly confidential that nobody outside of the CIA knew about it — probably not even the FBI. Yet they allowed the forensic examination of the DNC device(s) to be done by a firm that likely knew nothing about what the CIA might have done.

                And, of course, there’s no reason to think others aren’t as capable as the CIA.

                I’ll never know what actually happened as a technical matter, because I’m never going to get to look at that evidence. But I CAN figure out the law concerning what is known to have happened concerning the “assessment,” and there’s no doubt that it was a fraud — just as there’s no legal doubt that Clapper lied to Congress about NSA domestic spying, and that probably dozens of others in the intelligence community knew Clapper had lied under oath and didn’t report the perjury — and not reporting perjury is also a crime:

                18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of felony

                “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

                Under all of these circumstances, it’s not only insulting, but it’s ridiculous to expect reasonable people to have any faith in what the intelligence community says about anything.

                Trust is like virginity — when it’s gone it’s gone, and there ain’t no getting it back.

                1. I think the role of the IC is more complicated.

                  The purported 17 agencies report – which was really a small group of Brennan/Clapper hand picked people fed a conclusion at the start and not the normal IC people who would have done such an assessment – is problematic.

                  Brennan and Clapper’s remarks are also probelmatic.

                  As Brinley – formerly of NSA and now the lead in VIPS, has noted.

                  If Trump (or anyone) conspired with the Russians, NSA absolutely positively knows it.
                  Even if they did not pick up on it during the election, they have metadata collected that could verify the entire Steele Dossier if true.

                  Brinley and his people at NSA went BACK over the NSA collected data in the moth AFTER 9/11 and not only found the entire plot, but the support network, the parts of the plot that failed, and the support network exiting the country. For their success they were forced into retirement.

                  NSA’s data collection abilities are far greater today.

                  While Brinley deserves Kudo’s for his after the fact 9/11 efforts – and he claims had his surveilance scheme(thin Thread) instead of “Trail Blazer) been deployed 9/11 would have been prevented.

                  Detecting something ahead of time when you do not know what you are looking for is hard.
                  You can stare at the evidence and no know it.

                  But after the fact it is easy.

                  If Trump conspired with Russia – the NSA knows it, and can prove it, and would have provided Mueller with the breadcrumbs to wrap this up a long time ago.

                  When you have captured nearly everything – the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

                2. We have a long long long record of intelligence failures.

                  We failed to grasp the USSR’s progress on the A bomb, were thoroughly shocked when they quickly got to the H bomb, were caught sitting on out buts, by their rocketry, the first satelite, the first animal, the first man.

                  We were wrong about the gulf of Tonkin, We missed the impending collapse of the USSR,
                  We missed the Iran/Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, Sadam’s non-WMD’s,

                  And on and on and on.

                  The failures of the FBI, CIA, NSA, …. are long and numerous.

                  Once upon a time it was the left who did not trust the “deep state”, now it is the right.

                  Left or right, many in these agencies are good people.
                  But presuming they are right about everything (or many things) is reaching.
                  And presuming that they do not serve their own interests, is stupid and dangerous.

                3. @William Bayer April 16, 2018 at 11:56 AM
                  “I’ll never know what actually happened as a technical matter, because I’m never going to get to look at that evidence.”

                  Here’s a peek:

                  The Key Event

                  “July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device.

                  “That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

                  “It thus appears that the purported ‘hack’ of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device.

                  “Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a ‘Russian hack.’ This was all performed in the East Coast time zone.”


                  1. Yes, thanks. I’ve read that account, or one similar to it, before. But it’s not from a source I have a clue as to whether is truthful or skillful.
                    I believe a number of analysts have pointed out the speed of off-loading the data greatly exceeded the possible speed of an online hack.
                    My tendency is to believe that information, but as I have no way of confirming it, I can only consider it as a possibility, not an actual fact.
                    That’s one of my major gripes about the whole situation — that the “evidence” rests in hands of people I know nothing about and remains unverified, even if some of what’s been written is entirely accurate.

                    1. The Source is VIPS – they are a highly respected technical and intelligence Group.
                      They are responsible for uncovering numerous false administration technical claims – including those of both the Bush and Obama administrations.

                      Lead members in VIPS are Brinley and Loomis – I beleive Loomis designed the hardware that was eventually used by the “Stellar Winds” program that is NSA’s mass surveilance, program.
                      Brinley was responsible for “Thin Thread” – filtering and analysis software he developed at NSA that was much better than Stellar Wind or Trailblazer (the program that NSA never got to work).
                      Thin Thread has safeguards in that made unmasking impossible.

                      Thin Thread was run on the NSA’s previously captured data after 9/11 and not only revealed the entire plot – but that it was part of a much larger global effort – most of which failed, and then showed Al Qeda’s support existing the country post 9/11.

                      For their good work exposing the flaws of Trailblazer and the NSA Brinley and Loomis were forced into retirement 2 months after 9/11.

                      There is some valid criticism of the VIPS work – meaning it is not 100% conclusive.
                      There are other possible explanations for the data rates VIPS derived.

                      HOWEVER the VIPS work does demonstrate that the DNC email like was significantly more likely a leak than a hack.

                      Absolutely proof is hard to come by, probabilities are not.

                      BTW there is a good documentary on Brinley on Netflix called “The Good American”.

                      I would further note than VIPS is NOT partisan.
                      Bjut it is mostly former NSA people.

          2. Anything that you think you know about any hack could be a deliberate effort to deceive you.

            It is not even possible to tell a newby script kiddie that screwed up and left their fingerprints all over, from a very sophisticated hacker pretending to be a novice.

            In otherwords you can not tell actual mistakes from deliberate false flags.

            Even if you have an actual expert who makes a mistake that points back at themselves,
            You can not tell that from an expert deliberately leaving evidence to point elsewhere.

            Snowden BTW was an analyst NOT a hacker.

            His contribution to the Russians was exposing some of the NSA’s tools.
            That does not mean Snowden is some expert hacker.

            He is an insider who downloaded alot of information – much like Manning.

        2. From everything I have read regarding the DNC email mess:

          It is near certain that APT 28 and APT 29 were used to “hack the DNC” during the spring and early summer of 2016.

          The DNC was also hacked in the summer of 2015 – by unknown parties.

          It is completely unkown where these hacks actually originated.
          All but the newest script kiddies can make it look like someone else is doing whatever they are actually doing.

          It is at best 50:50 that the DNC emails came from these two hacks.
          It is probable – possibly more probable that the DNC emails were leaked rather than hacked.

          I would note that during this time the DNC IT was a disasterous mess. Remember this is the time period we have the pakistani crooks running amuck in the DNC. And we have a DNC staffer being murdered.

          You do not have to beleive that the murdered staffer was the source, or the Pakistani’s were the source.

          Any sane person – i.e. not a progressive would be able to say – we do not and possibly can not know.
          And that the Russians are a possible, but improbable source.

          I would note that if the Russians are NOT the source of the DNC emails – the entire Trump Russia garbage goes down the tubes – because everything else Trump/Russia has a reciprocal or worse Clinton/Russia counter.

          Trump wanted OPO on Clinton from Russia
          Clinton GOT OPO on Trump from Russia

          The argument only democrats can “collude” with russia is not going to fly.

          1. A lot of deduction can be applied concerning things nobody ever mentions — such as I mentioned above, about a Bernie operative having hacked the DNC earlier, to get financial records, if I recall correctly.

            Who benefited — or was intended to benefit — from many of the specific DNC documents that were released? Bernie Sanders — because the documents showed that the primaries were rigged.

            In solving crimes, motive isn’t always an essential element, but it’s never completely neglected — and there’s Bernie’s organization, which stood to benefit from the information disclosed, and which previously hacked the DNC, and which was affiliated with the democrat party in which there were many that preferred Bernie over Hillary. When people — the media and politicians, democrat AND republican — engage in apparent group-think to avoid talking about something, it always looks suspicious to me. How could so many supposedly-intelligent people simultaneously agree not to even consider a fairly-obvious possibility?

            Blaming Russian could have easily been a politically expedient alternative to blaming the Bernie people that had previously hacked the DNC.

            But lots of people had motives. Israel had a motive, due to the expectation that Hillary would win compared with Israel’s distain for the Iran nuke agreement which was ALL democrat. And Israel certainly has the technical capabilities.

            When people never mention obvious possibilities and hastily decide to blame the most politically-beneficial culprit, it sounds alarms in my mind. Even if there weren’t dozens of other possibilities, for that reason alone I’ll never be convinced that Russians hacked the DNC.

            And yeah — the entire Russian-collusion narrative stems from the assumption — unproven — that Russians hacked the DNC. I think it was a scheme hatched in a democrat think tank.

            And Trump was actually asking Russia to return federal records that were stolen by Hillary, if they had them. It’s not a crime to request the return of stolen federal property. Nobody ever mentions that, either. Instead, democrats always twist Trump’s actual words to make is sound like Trump was asking Russia to hack someone, when all he was asking was that they return stolen records if someone happened to have given them to Russia.

            There was so much nonsense involved in the accusations during that several-month period that I’ll never believe any of it.

            1. The russian’s are possible
              A Bernie supporter in the DNC is possible.

              Hackers from anywhere are possible

              The pakistanis IT guys are possible – either as agents of the ISI or just as another financial or blackmail scam.

              There are no end to the possibilities.

              What is aproaching certainty is that no matter what the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump was NOT involved in the DNC hacks.

              Whatever happened to the DNC Trump’s weak contacts with the Russians came AFTER.

              Mueller is claiming to have Cohen in Praugue – which Cohen vehmently denies, but in late August/early september. That is AFTER Wikileaks dumped the DNC emails.

    5. “There will be no prisoner swap of Flynn for McCabe. ”

      The thinking process of this response by Diane is one that would be expected from a nine-year-old child.

  6. “After The Inspector General Report, Questions Grow Over The Lack Of A Criminal Referral For McCabe”

    Uh huh — except that the Inspector General’s report was released late Friday night, and it’s not yet dawn on the following Monday morning, so any impatience would be that criminal referral (not to be confused with criminal charges being filed — a different thing entirely) wasn’t made or announced on Saturday or Sunday.

    And the public wouldn’t necessarily be notified if a criminal referral has been made. The criminal referral goes to the DOJ (which already has Huber working the case and doesn’t really need a referral), then the DOJ takes it to a grand jury to get an indictment and/or subpoenas for additional information. Only then would charges be filed, and only then would the public be notified about criminal charges being brought.

    So at this point, the public wouldn’t be expected to know whether criminal issues related to McCabe have been taken to a grand jury.

    Please, Professor Turley, don’t become a rabble rouser. You could never compete with Hannity on Fox or Cuomo on CNN for that distinction. Best to go with your strengths — such as knowledge of the law.

    1. One teeny tiny, itty bitty, little detail. DOJ has had the IG report for some time before its public release. Actins should have been announced simultaneously with the release of the report.

      1. (1) That “actions should have been announced simultaneously with the release of the report” is your own subjective conclusion, not based upon any precedent. Congressmen announce that they’ve issued a criminal referral, and to the best of my knowledge, ONLY Congressmen do that and they do it for political reasons, not reasons having anything to do with justice.

        (2) Criminal actions are not disclosed until charges are filed. That’s been the policy of the DOJ and FBI for many years until Comey came along, and Sessions has repeatedly stated that his intent is to return the DOJ to that long-standing policy.

        (3) Turley is in grotesque error in suggesting that a criminal referral needs to be made. The purpose of a criminal referral is to bring a matter to the attention of the Justice Department and/or FBI, and Sessions has already announced that he already has a DOJ prosecutor from outside Washington working the case.

        AKA — the criminal referral has already been made and it’s already a matter of record.

        This article is pure rabble-rousing nonsense that doesn’t nothing to enhance Turley’s reputation concerning knowledge of the law.

  7. The difference is that bad cop McCabe is a deep state insider, and Flynn was part of disruptor Trump’s team.

    1. The standard of conduct expected the nations top cops should be the HIGHEST not the lowest.

      It is far more important that McCabe is aggressively prosecuted.

  8. Is there such a thing as a lie detector machine which actually is truthful? Congress should make these guys take lie detector testing. So should CNN.

    1. For Congress and CNN, the best lie detector would be the one that was once used to detect witches: throw them in the lake, and if they float, they’re liars, and if they drown, they were telling the truth.

  9. You cannot compare McCabe to Flynn. McCabe has been a trusted employee of the Deep State. Flynn was never an employee of the Deep State.

    How many times do I have to explain the ironclad Adamo principle at work here: THE DEEP STATE ALWAYS TAKES CARE OF THEIR OWN.

    Got it?

    If not, I’ll repeat it yet again:

    Still not getting it? If that is the case, you must be a programmed leftist incapable of any thought, reasoning, or analysis and are simply doomed to repeat the leftist mantras with which you’ve been programmed, and are beyond hope–except through extensive deprogramming that may take years, particularly given the erosion and deterioration of your neurotransmitters, mitochondria and other cell organelles.

    1. Ralph, would you mind explaining to me how the Deep State is taking care of McCabe? Because I’ve got to tell you, Ralph, it looks to me like the Deep State has left McCabe hanging out to dry while slowly twisting in the wind. Unless all of the contributions to McCabe’s GoFundMe site are from his Deep State colleagues. Otherwise, I just don’t get how the Adamo Principle applies to McCabe. Do I have to wait and see?

  10. McCabe knows he’s going to be indicted, thus the Go Fund Me account. I’m sure there may be a few folks that donated that would like their money back.

    One can look back at Andrew McCabe’s rising star and wonder what happened. Very simple. When the Clinton family makes an offer, you need to refuse.

    I’m sure the McCabes are regretting the push from McAuliffe to run for a seat in VA. The bigger question will be, will he turn or will he be willing to take the fall?

  11. Turley’s comparison of the two cases (McCabe and Flynn) is hardly reasonable. Flynn was on the hook for a lot more, he knew it, which is why he cut the deal. Turley seems almost more upset that McCabe raised a defense fund in advance of the report? There are likely provisions if the funds aren’t needed, they will be returned. Even if not, there’s certainly nothing illegal about it and Flynn was/is entitled to raise any amount of funds he likes. He was out in Californa endorsing a candidate and helping raise funds for someone else.

    Three people I wouldn’t hang my hat on based on the likelihood of their actual innocence; Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, and Donald Trump.

    1. Are you really this naive or are you just a partisan? So since he worked for Trump, whom the bum Obama (who is a scum that needs to be jailed) spied on, he is somehow worthy to be targeted. Your logic is dimwitted.

      1. McCabe, Flynn, and Cohen worked for Trump. Which one do you mean? (Notice how I can engage in a conversation without insults and name-calling)?

        1. But, but . . . ron Milam said the magic word–logic. You’re supposed to lie down roll over and play possum, enigma, whenever any MAGA cultist says the magic word–logic.

          P. S. This is also what they really mean when they claim that we don’t play by the rules–[their rules].

      2. Your comment consists solely of childish name calling.
        Try to do better.

        1. The term ‘name calling’ does not mean what you think it means.

          1. ron Milam used the words bum, scum and dimwitted in his comment. If those don’t count for name-calling, then neither does the word “childish” deployed by wildbill99.

            1. ‘Dimwitted’ is an adjective, ‘bum’ a colloquial noun, and scum a common noun. ‘Scum’ and ‘bum’ are metaphors. They are not nominative. They were used contra Barack Obama, not contra the other commenter.

              1. You’re expecting some pretty sophisticated reading skills from a 9 year old girl, DSS.

              2. Anywhere else it is called name calling but at talking points headquarters, it is cold calculated syntax. Thanks comrade for setting the record straight.

      3. Ron, his logic is not only dimwitted but wrong. His statement turns his rancid opinion (Thanks NII) into present-day fact even after he has been proven wrong. That makes Enigma into anything but an honest person.

        1. Enigma said, “Flynn was on the hook for a lot more, he knew it, which is why he cut the deal.”

          Allan said, “His statement turns his rancid opinion (Thanks NII) into present-day fact even after he has been proven wrong.”

          Enigma’s observation was neither an opinion nor proven wrong. Flynn’s lawyer sought immunity for Flynn to testify before Congress while claiming on TV that Flynn “certainly has a story to tell.” Congress refused to grant Flynn immunity on the grounds that Flynn is so estranged from the truth that nobody would believe Flynn’s story anyway. Flynn then invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to refuse to comply with the subpoena from Congress. Thus, Flynn was on the hook for a lot more than lying to the FBI. And Flynn knew it. And that’s why Flynn copped a plea with Mueller.

    2. Correct in every particular.
      Thanks for a fine comment, Enigmainblackcom.

    3. Flynn was on the hook for a lot more, he knew it, which is why he cut the deal.

      See Andrew McCarthy’s treatment of the plea. The process crime is that of which they had evidence. There was no conspiracy delineated in the plea to which he admitted being a party. What he pled to was what they could nail him on, full stop.

      1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

        “Consistent with Bharara, Just Security’s Ryan Goodman and Alex Whiting write in the National Review that “with the power to potentially drive the highest officials in the country from office, Mueller may even have intentionally avoided getting Flynn on the public record now, to make sure that the FBI has built the strongest and clearest possible case if he ever does unveil an indictment that involves a conspiracy to work with the Russians in election interference.”

        So which is it? Will we eventually see Flynn plead guilty to other charges or is this it? And what has he shared with Mueller and what new doors of investigation did this information open? Stay tuned …”

        It truly is the greatest guessing game in a generation or more. IOW, you’re just guessing, too.

        1. Your excerpt is crap.

          This hypothesis requires Mueller violated DOJ policy on pleas – that IS an ethics violation.
          Current indications are that Flynn/Mueller are stalling – as Flynn’s lawyers review the Exculpatory evidence that Sullivan has ordered that Flynn is provided.

          BTW McCabe’s conduct is exculpatory with respect to Flynn – McCabe was key in the Flynn investigation, and McCabe has an axe to Grind with Flynn and has previously been disciplined for retaliation.

          Your thesis is likely impossible.

          What is possible is Flynn withdrawl’s his plea and Sullivan finds McCabe’s misconduct bars prosecution.

          Regardless, the 5th amendment and double jeophardy bar Mueller from further charges.

          Go back and look at the Iran contra Cases.
          It is near impossible to further prosecute someone you have made a deal with.

          That is the reason for the DOJ policy requiring that pleas be to the highest proveable crime.

          Neither you nor Mueller get to make things up as you go along.

          Remember that aphorism of Adam’s – “the rule of law, not man”

          We have relatively well defined processes, because discretion creates a mess and lawlessness.

              1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

                The thing that caught my eye is that Flynn’s lawyer said that he “certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it.” It is important to remember that Flynn has a history of being very erratic and that part of the reason he lost his last two jobs and seems to be in so much legal trouble is that he isn’t very well acquainted with the truth. When/if he gets to tell this story, the question will be, “can we believe him?”

            1. A blast from the past: Remember when Flynn wanted immunity before he’d agree to testify before Congress? And Congress said no way? What was up with that?

    4. Bzzt, Wrong,

      DOJ guidelines REQUIRE that plea deals be to the HIGHEST provable crime.
      There are incredibly important reasons for this.
      Aside from precident, and the impact on pleas in other cases with the same or other prosecutors,
      there is the fact that once the party starts cooperating all kinds of 5th amendment and double jeophardy issues arrise should the deal fall through.

      BTW this is true of All of Mueller’s pleas.

      What is far more likely is the rumoured charges were garbage, a threat to get a plea, a threat of torture by process, but that Mueller knew they had no substance.

      This is not an uncommon prosecutors game – overcharge or threaten to get a plea.

      1. Tiara Boy said, “DOJ guidelines REQUIRE that plea deals be to the HIGHEST provable crime.”

        If an investigation is still under way, and if the plea-deal has NOT been placed under seal, then wouldn’t the highest provable crime be a moving target as the investigation proceeds forward? Also, is it possible to unseal one portion of a plea-deal while leaving the remaining portions of the plea-deal under seal?

        1. Nice catch, Enigma. Tiara Boy is a slippery one. If a plea deal is roughly analogous to a contract, then Flynn’s plea deal might contain contractual obligations–not merely contractual “guidelines.”

          1. Catch what ?

            Mueller is EITHER unethical and not following DOJ guidelines,
            Or he is following them and the pleas he has made ar the the most significant provable charges.

            I have no idea what Enigma’s cryptic remarks refer to.

            With respect to your “contracts” analysis – you can not contract away due process, 5th amendment, double jeophardy rights.

            More simply – even if Mueller undercharged, Mueller will find it near impossible to increase the charges later.

            Further Flynn now has Sullivan as Judge. He is not going to tolerate prosecutorial shenanigans.

            You can speculate that Unicorn farts smell like Strawberries – given there are no unicorns the speculation is meaningless.

            I would further note that 2 years of investigations has not found anything, and never produces more than rumours that it will. Has resulted in process volations, and no plea deal thus far has resulted in anyone “turning”

            Comey, McCabe, and Lynch have not even been charged and they are turning on each other.

            Either Trump’s affiliates have a code stronger than the Mob’s “omerta”, or they just do not have anything to tell. Flynn might be “honnorable” but Manafort would rat out his mother.

            Comey hysterically titles his book “a higher loyalty” – to what ? The constitution ? To AG Lynch ? To McCabe ?

            Comey – and the rest of them absolutely have “a higher loyalty” – to themselves.

  12. “The issue is not as much the crying need to indict McCabe as it is the lack of consistency of how this law is being applied.”

    (1) The Inspector General’s report concerning McCabe’s leaking and lying about it was just released two days ago. There’s still plenty of time to indict him.

    (2) There’s MUCH more to McCabe’s alleged misconduct than these leaking-and-lying allegations. This report will probably end up being a mere footnote in a much larger report that will be released in parts, due to the enormity of misconduct, much of which is still being investigated.

    (3) I’d think that being an attorney, JT would know that they want/need to finish investigating all of the misconduct that McCabe was involved in before charging him with anything. Odds are that the issues mentioned in Friday’s IG report are the least of the infractions McCabe has engaged in.

    (4) It could be that, for all of McCabe’s bluster, he’s in the process of working out a deal, now that the Inspector General has outlined 4 of his crimes (couched in language of policy violations, not criminal statutes).

    (5) And JT couldn’t be more wrong here. The issue IS about the “crying need to indict McCabe” and others, because just firing people won’t clean up rampant misconduct by government officials that has turned the federal government into a playground for every miscreant in the country. That’s the main purpose of the criminal statutes and criminal prosecution — not to punish specific offenders but to dissuade others from engaging in similar conduct. The reason things got as bad as they’ve gotten is that the stakes were low — that even if caught there’d be no real punishment handed out. Criminal prosecution is essential. It’s literally the only remedy, short of the population getting together to begin building guillotines in bulk quantity.

    For the thousandth time:

    “*** Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. ***” Justice Brandeis, OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

    1. Good post William.

      If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;

      And yet Brandeis’ warnings, Bastiat’s warnings, the framer’s warnings, and those they sourced for their political philosophy are insufficient to keep the government in check. Just following this blog proves how easily people are manipulated to support injustice. They see it, they know it, they understand it, and yet they refuse to admit it. I believe there is a reason Jefferson used the word whenever and not if ever in the following: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, We’ll get there eventually; it just depends on how much injustice the people are willing to tolerate before they demand change.

      1. Well observed, Olly. I only know that I came to understand what injustice really means because it happened to me. I did nothing to deserve it. I was just minding my own business, when suddenly some guy decided that he wanted to own a piece of property that I owned (the only piece of property that I’ve ever owned), and cooked up a scheme to take it when I didn’t want to sell. He had friends in the sheriff’s department, and his lawyer was a former prosecutor who was a former business partner with the then-current prosecutor, and they were both friends with the judge.
        And they cooked up a wild scheme that I was lucky enough to uncover during a phony trial.
        I’d have never believed anything like that could happen in America. Never in a million years. So I really can’t pass judgment on other people’s ignorance about injustice, since I might well be as ignorant as they are if it hadn’t happened to me.

        1. So I really can’t pass judgment on other people’s ignorance about injustice, since I might well be as ignorant as they are if it hadn’t happened to me.

          You make a great point about injustice. It reminds me of the the long train of abuses Jefferson identified. It’s as though that train can keep chugging along racking up victims, and as long as it’s impacting someone else, well that’s their problem. It’s a get on board or get run over mentality. That’s not just ignorance, that’s willful ignorance.

          1. Olly, I once read a book about Jefferson — and you’re inspiring me to go looking for it. The last book I read that remotely touched on Jefferson would have been Vidal’s book, Burr — which I read a long time ago and remember enjoying. But I can’t recall who wrote the Jefferson book that I read. I’ll figure it out, though. Could be that most of what I know about Jefferson came from architecture school, not history or literature. There are many roads that lead to Jefferson.

  13. It will come out eventually but in the meantime there is probably information people don’t want out … remember there are two sides. Citizens and government. Going to take a lot of work to clean up this mess and that means dump the Rinos and Deport the Dinos.;

  14. Out here in the America disdained by D.C. and the MSM the conclusions are pretty starkly drawn. The relevant factor in charging folks with crimes is who the are, not what they did. And “who” they are means who they are politically. Not just are they Republican, but are they associated with Trump? The “Mueller is a Republican” or “Comey is a Republican” lines have long since stopped working. This is about the establishment vs Trump.

    And btw, you think we don’t notice, don’t you? Keep it up and you will see where this leads.

    1. The left does not grasp where this will go in the event they succeed.

      Lets assume that Mueller, etc. manage to haul off Trump and his entire entourage in chains – on the same kind of lame charges that Mueller has been alleging thus far.

      At the same time, Comey, McCabe, Ohr, Clinton, …… all walk or worse still as far as the left is concerned are hero’s.

      Too much of the country it will be transparently clear that our justice system is OWNED by the left, and is an injustice system.

      If the left is LUCKY the result will be Tea Party II with most everyone with a D behind their name voted out of office and a demand for “swamp cleaning” that makes what Trump proposed look tame.

      Because the Alternative is a Tea Party II such as we had in Boston in 1773.

      The rule of law demands that whatever the outcome of this, that vast majority of people accept it.
      Not merely the lawless left.

      1. Tiara Boy said, “The rule of law demands that . . .”

        Hokum. That’s you making demands, Tiara Boy, whilst leveling threats of insurrection and rebellion if your demands are not met. Thou art a stranger to the rule of law. And, for your sake, I hope you never make the acquaintance.

        1. So you are saying you are OK with some tiny minority of the people removing the president outside the law because they do not like him ?

          Or because they are making up their own law ?

          The “threat” I am referencing is not my own, it is Thomas Jefferson’s.

          “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,”

          “Thou art a stranger to the rule of law. ”
          Tis Thee not me.

  15. What an absolute disgrace and all of them from the witch down will get away with lies, deception and literally an attempted coup. The “Collusion” illusion.

  16. Hollywood…Flynn was under the crushing assault of the entire Independent Counsel, DOJ and FBI who were threating his son and pushing him into bankruptcy. McCabe gets a $500,000 legal defense fund and full retirement. That’s equal treatment under the law to you?

    You don’t know that Flynn was on the hook for a lot more. Unless you believe our judicial system, which now has no believability.

  17. You are pushing beyond the known facts. Yes, McCabe is no angel. Flynn cut a deal. He was on the hook for a lot more.

    1. The facts are that McCabe lied and is not getting prosecuted just like Hillary broke the law and didn’t get prosecuted. The purpose of the article is to point out the double standard of how those on one side get treated vs the other.,

    2. Was he?

      Can’t prove it by me. Too much cover up and speaking of collusion how about the RINO/DINO conspiracy to coin a not new but relevant phrase.

Comments are closed.