Yeh, they got butt hurt over at MSNBC. Too bad dat. What is missing from the little summary is that it was the independent inspector general who initially referred McCabe for prosecution. And Horowitz was appointed by Obama and no one has ever accused him of being in Trump's hip pocket. Second, they harp on the fact that McCabe was fired the day before he was to get early retirement. The large back story is that they tried to fire him and he appealed it up through the DOJ/fbi's internal review and appeal system and it chewed up months of time but everyone knew what the cut-off time for decision was. Eventually, the recommendation came from the head of their internal review personnel agency headed by a person who WORKED FOR ANDREW MCCABE. So they are triggered over at MSNBC your favorite source. THEY AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET. By the time Barr and Durham are done, Rachel Maddow will be on a heart-lung machine.
It's not going to happen. The probability is no more than the probability of Hillary being "locked up." The necessary elements needed for successful prosecution are not there.
Depends on how many charges they bring against him. Usually they bring a major charge and then nail em on perjury if that poops out. They can get him to plead on perjury, minimum. Also, the probability is much greater than with Hillary because there was no recommendation to even prosecute Hillary so it ended there. McCabe is up against the fact that the DOJ has already recommended that he be prosecuted and a grand jury is already seated on other issues. So he is much further along than Hillary was. His chances of being indicted are considerable. Even if he is not prosecuted and convicted it is ridiculous to say that that "the probability is no more" than with Hillary. Her case went nowhere and the department was working overtime to kill it. McCabe could wake up in two weeks and be indicted, and then be indicted on stuff that Durham is still investigating down the road. Nope. Your statement is bullshit. Hillary had little chance, McCabe is at substantial risk. Also bullshit, is your statement that "the necessary elements" are not there. You have no idea what he will be charged with over the next six to eight months or what the DOJ has for evidence on the current charges. Nor do you even know what the current charges are. Nor will the DOJ present all charges to the grand jury at once in general. They often like to work with the grand jury on a charge and use their subpoena powers as to develop the other charges as they go along. McCabe is not going to be out of the woods for a long, long time even if he is not indicted in the current attempt. Durham will be at it for months and months. Maybe they will just continue to bust him down, cost him millions in legal fees, and keep his life in chaos for years and nothing will come of it. That's fine too. He has done it to many others. Even tried to overthrow a presidency.
Jessie Liu --US Attorney-- Trump appointee Jeffrey Rossen --Deputy attorney General-- Trump appointee https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/us/politics/andrew-mccabe-fbi.html The defense lawyers met multiple times with the prosecutors on the case to try to get them to drop charges, then appealed both to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie K. Liu, and to Mr. Rosen. The prosecutors and Ms. Liu have all recommended charges, one of the people familiar with the matter said. Ms. Liu, a Trump appointee, had made a bid for the No. 3 job at the Justice Department but withdrew after senators objected to her nomination. Hints of the case’s weakness have since emerged. The investigation was referred about 18 months ago, which is an unusually long stretch for an inquiry with a limited set of facts and witnesses. It dragged on for so long that the first grand jury examining the evidence expired before apparently being called back this week. One prosecutor assigned to the case recently left, an unusual step so close to an indictment. Another departed for a private law firm and has expressed reservations about the merits of the case. And one key witness testified that Mr. McCabe had no motive to lie because he was authorized as the F.B.I.’s deputy director to speak to the media, so he would not have had to hide any discussions with reporters. Another important witness testified he could not immediately remember how the leak unfolded. Both would have been crucial to any prosecution. If a grand jury declined to indict — an embarrassment for prosecutors — they could ask for a different grand jury to present evidence and try to secure an indictment. Federal grand juries are made up of about 16 to 23 people, and at least 12 must concur with prosecutors to issue an indictment, according to Justice Department guidelines. A grand jury needs only to determine probable cause to indict, a lower standard than establishing guilt at a criminal trial.
Wow. What a big steaming pile of bullshit this is. Because he is authorized to speak to the media, he is authorized to leak to the media? Ahhh no. Let's not forget that Comey directly testified before Congress that he never authorized anyone to speak to the media about internal investigations related to hillary or the dossier/fisa flap. NEVER. Both Page and McCabe argue that Comey did authorize McCabe to leak that info to the media. So if people want to go around and around the barn to find out who is lying there, then fine. That is what a trial is for. But this bullshit by the NTY times - quoted above- that he was authorized to say anything he wanted to the media because he was the FBI Director is a complete crock. As I have said many times, on the leaking charge, McCabe has a defense that he wants to present and that defense is that Comey is lying and did authorize him to leak to reporters. And Page backs him up on that. So he can run with that and should run with it if he believes it to be true and workable. But using the NYT argument which is "hey I was the the Deputy Director and we are authorized to speak to the media?" Ahhh, no. And yes, I see that the Times is just saying some witness said that but I also see the Times hyping the argument to support their thesis in that article. Also as I said yesterday, I have read sources that say that the DOJ has texts and other witnesses and actions of McCabe that show that he took steps to cover up what he had done and was doing in ways that demonstrate that he was trying to hide it. I dont know whether that is true or not. I dont know all the evidence that the DOJ and Durham and others have. Some of the tards here act as though they do. They don't.
That's absolutely true. I don't expect him to charged with anything.I do expect this business to be dragged out for months going into the 2020 election.
You have agency policy confused with statutory law. You've become what's known on the street as a "sucker."
Yeh. Fine. We will see if the DOJ cites any statutes if they charge him with anything. I am guessing they will. The DOJ has some experience in prosecutions. The Inspector General referred him for criminal prosecution too. I think he knows the difference between departmental policy and a potential criminal violation, duh.
If McCabe is not at any serious risk of being charged or prosecuted on anything, then fine, he can listen to you and be comforted. Just as when he was alllegedly not at risk of being fired. If he is still on the job or if he left and got his early bird retirement benefits, etc, fine. All is good. Tell him how swimmingly well all that went for him. He has atmospherics that are on his side. The biggest is that it is damn near impossible to get a jury in DC to convict a democrat on anything. So I give him that. He will be tried- if he is charged and does not plead- in a Dem Plantation Court so that is almost an automatic acquittal right there. That's why they will charge with enough to get him to plead on something if they do anything.