FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe 'removed' from the bureau By Judson Berger, Jake Gibson | Fox News Facebook Twitter Flipboard Print Email Who is FBI's Andrew McCabe? Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe announced plans to retire in 2018. He has been heavily criticized by President Trump but who is he? Top FBI official Andrew McCabe has been "removed" from his post as deputy director, Fox News is told, leaving the bureau after months of conflict-of-interest complaints from Republicans including President Trump. A source confirmed to Fox News that McCabe is taking “terminal leave” – effectively taking vacation until he reaches his planned retirement in a matter of weeks. As such, he will not be reporting to work at the FBI anymore. Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation? 3:27 PM - Dec 23, 2017 35,38435,384 Replies 36,42536,425 Retweets 122,256122,256 likes Twitter Ads info and privacy The move was first reported by NBC News. McCabe has long been a controversial figure at the bureau. Republicans have questioned McCabe’s ties to the Democratic Party, considering his wife ran as a Democrat for a Virginia Senate seat in 2015 and got financial help from a group tied to Clinton family ally Terry McAuliffe. McCabe was former FBI Director James Comey's right-hand man (Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.) Trump himself tweeted in December: “How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?” The Washington Post last week reported that Trump, during an Oval Office meeting last spring, pressed McCabe, who was then acting FBI director, about whom he voted for in the 2016 election. McCabe, according to the outlet, told the president he didn’t vote. McCabe's name has surfaced in connection with several other controversies. The Daily Beast reported that a GOP memo alleging government surveillance abuse named McCabe, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and ex-FBI boss James Comey. Controversy erupted when a PAC tied to then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliff, an associate of the Clintons, donated money to McCabe's wife's state legislative campaign- even as McCabe investigated Clinton (Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.) Incidentally, the McCabe removal comes after FBI Director Christopher Wray viewed the memo Sunday on Capitol Hill, as reported by Fox News’ Catherine Herridge. Several Republicans also want to know what McCabe knew about anti-Trump text messages between two bureau officials, including one that seemed to reference an “insurance policy” against Trump winning the 2016 election. “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office - that there’s no way he gets elected - but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Peter Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” Some lawmakers think "Andy" was a reference to McCabe.
I got to say, I don’t know if the title is accurate. If he is using his vacation time to get him to retirement, it doesn’t sound like he was ‘removed’ at all. Besides, I don’t think this administration would really want to be tied to McCabes removal.
I have not caught up on the story but there are reports that he- was removed from his position- not the bureau- as happened to strzok and ohgg- and from there he decided to just leave the bureau. And that Christopher Wray removed him from his position- not Trump or Sessions. I might change my mind with more information. Just sayin that might be a way that the different reports fit together. Of course this all relates to the Nunes report because Christopher Wray allegedly saw on the Nunes report on Sunday and then made a decision to remove McCabe. So, in a sense, McCabe is making voluntary decisions, in the same way that you might voluntarily decide to get out of the way of a steamroller. Nothing like lack of choice to help you make a decision.
I’m interested, this is a big deal or it’s not. If the Nunes memo compelled Wray to move McCabe from his position then Nunes better be right. If he is playing fast and loose and Wray acted on it without proper verification then, boom, the FBI is now a political shit show. Or McCabe May have been like f this, I’m out, too. There could be a lot here, or nothing.
The FBI already knows about the original sources that Nunes relied on to write the memo. Those original sources came in to the committee through a combination of FBI sources and documents, and sources and documents submitted by the Inspector General as part of his investigation. Plus testimony before the committee in closed session. Several congressman have said that while the Nunes report is a summary that people may or may not agree with that the summary lists/cites/points to all the sources to support his statements. I don't doubt for a minute that there will be much disagreement about how Nunes summarized it. AT THE SAME TIME, I DO NOT DOUBT FOR A MINUTE THAT WRAY AND OTHERS KNOW THAT SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS AND SOURCES CITED SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES AND WILL NOT GO AWAY AND ARE SERIOUS REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY WERE SUMMARIZED. It might be a good time for to remember our various discussions where I reminded you several times that your were getting to cocky and dismissive by pointing out that I should let you know when there is an independent investigator for the FBI and/or Hillary. I said that that is not the only way that some of this is being looked at and there was more to come. Nunes report, and the IG report coming after March and the Intel hearings are examples of the "more to come" and other ways it is being looked at. Ditto for a pile of other DOJ employees that either are or will be sweating bullets even though there is no independent FBI investigator. Also, Wray does not need to try the case for against McCabe in his office in order to justify moving him out. If he has lost confidence in him and wants to put his own staff in place that is sufficient. McCabe has already established that he is a political hack. Removing him would actually be a step toward making the FBI less of shit show.
you have been warming the dnc trolls... Do you believe the hammer is going to come down on these people or will it the republican leaders just let this fizzle out the way they let lois lerner and the IRS off the hook?
New Book: McCabe Initiated White House Meeting That Led To Leak This story gives a glimpse into how the original Russia narrative may have been spread around to overly compliant journalists and other members of the 'resistance.' By Mollie Hemingway JANUARY 29, 2018 The FBI’s top brass initiated conversations with a White House official that were quickly leaked to CNN, according to a new book. Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe asked to speak privately with White House chief of staff Reince Priebus following a February 2017 intelligence briefing. The scene is described in “Media Madness,” Howard Kurtz’s new book on the press and its relationship with the Trump administration. McCabe said he asked for the meeting to tell Priebus that “everything” in a New York Times story authored by Michael S. Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo was “bullsh-t.” The story was yet another one of those anonymous “bombshells” you’ve heard so much about during the Trump era. It was headlined “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence” and was sourced to not one, not two, not three, but four “current and former American officials.” It was just like every other similar story Americans have read or seen in the past year — no indication that the three reporters had verified, much less seen, the underlying evidence, but lots of threatening language insinuating treasonous collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, all sourced to high-ranking but anonymous officials. CNN’s Pamela Brown, Jim Sciutto, and Evan Perez reported a very similar story, also sourced to anonymous officials. Sciutto is a former Obama administration appointee who is close to Obama administration officials. Perez has extensive ties to Fusion GPS, the Democrat-funded firm that created the Russia narrative. McCabe claimed to want Priebus to know the FBI’s perspective that this story was not true. Priebus pointed to the televisions that were going non-stop on the story. He asked if the FBI could say publicly what he had just told him. McCabe said he’d have to check, according to the book. McCabe reportedly called back and said he couldn’t do anything about it. Then-FBI director James Comey reportedly called later and also said he couldn’t do anything, but did offer to brief the Senate Intelligence Committee on the matter later that week, suggesting they’d spill the beans publicly. You’ll never guess what happened next, according to the book: Now, a week later, CNN was airing a breaking news story naming Priebus. According to ‘multiple U.S. officials,’ the network said, ‘the FBI rejected a White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump’s associates and Russians known to U.S. intelligence.’ Priebus was stunned by the implication that he was pressuring law enforcement. Had he been set up? Why was the FBI leaking this information when one of its top officials had initiated the conversation? CNN’s story was authored by Sciutto, Perez, Shimon Prokupecz, Manu Raju, and Brown. Raju is the reporter who later messed up a massive Russia-collusion story by not verifying underlying details in any serious way. He has not explained how he got the story wrong or done anything to regain credibility lost by running a blatantly false story. The story is sourced to a “U.S. law enforcement official” who seems to know an awful lot about McCabe (e.g. “A law enforcement official says McCabe didn’t discuss aspects of the case but wouldn’t say exactly what McCabe told Priebus.”) The story suggesting obstruction is explosive: The direct communications between the White House and the FBI were unusual because of decade-old restrictions on such contacts. Such a request from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications with the FBI on pending investigations… The Trump administration’s efforts to press Comey run contrary to Justice Department procedure memos issued in 2007 and 2009 that limit direct communications on pending investigations between the White House and the FBI… The effort to refute the CNN and New York Times stories came as increasing numbers of congressional members were voicing concern about Russia’s efforts to influence individuals with ties to Trump. This story dropped just days after the earlier story alleging nefarious contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. It was part of a long campaign to suggest that President Trump was a traitor who colluded with Russia to steal an election. That was, in fact, the major theme of media coverage throughout 2017. In June, Comey testified that the original story was “not true,” though The New York Times said their original sources inside the bureau checked out. There seems to be a disparity between what FBI officials tell reporters under the cloak of anonymity and what they admit under oath or to those who are more knowledgeable of the matters at hand. Opponents of President Trump, be they the media, Democratic activists, or Never Trump Republicans, are moving on from Russia conspiracies to claims of obstruction of justice. This story gives a glimpse into how that original Russia narrative may have been spread around to overly compliant journalists and other members of the “resistance.” It was the hysteria surrounding this and other stories that led the White House to be frustrated with a law enforcement agency and chief playing games. As Comey admitted under oath, he did tell President Trump three times that Trump was not under investigation. These private statements to Trump occurred while Comey publicly insinuated the opposite. This story above fits the same pattern. Partisan operatives in or close to the FBI communicated snippets of information with reporters who didn’t demand proof or substantiation, then FBI officials denied to White House officials who knew the facts that they were seeding that information, then officials suggested that White House operatives were obstructing justice by asking for the truth to out. At a time when people are looking for patterns, this is a pattern of improper behavior that deserves focus from the media. Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
Nunes is a known liar, that has twisted information in collusion with the White House before. There was the whole unmasking fiasco that had him recuse himself from the Russia investigation and be reviewed by the ethics committee. I understand Gowdy is involved in this memo, too. He’s another known quantity with a reputation for coming up short. However, I am not dismissing this. A man like McCabe generally stays until his last day, but the media attention and political pressure something that could have been a factor too. There could be more to come and there could be more duds too.
Yup, and his last day turned out to be the day following the day when his boss/Wray went over to Capitol Hill on a Sunday and read the Nunes report and the sources referenced. Cooincidence? Let the viewers decide. And McCabe still works for the FBI. Being on vacation time does not make him fully resigned. The report can come out. And McCabe can come back in as as requested/subpoenaed to explain anything that Nunes does not properly characterize. IT'S ALL GOOD!