The IG is not going to make criminal accusations/findings as part of a personnel action. He is not authorized to do that. He is authorized to make referrals. Personnel actions, however, is an area where he has authority. He is only presenting sufficient evidence to justify the personnel action. That is common practice in criminal proceedings too. You hold the person and book them on whatever you have to justify holding them but should never, ever assume that more charges are not to come. The IG presented sufficient cause to support the recommendation of dismissal. He is not trying the criminal issues or accusations or possibilities with the OPR. That is not the way you would go. Look for the not-so-small signs. The IG and the FBI has a full set of McCabes emails and they are under direct, direct, direct order from the court to release them as part of FOIA request from Judicial Watch but they are saying they are not releasing them because it would jeopardize an ongoing investigation. More to come.
One interpretation is of course that McCabe was trying to protect Clinton by "softening" the language. When the layman reads 'grossly negligent' versus 'extremely careless', however, he doesn't see much difference, both seen bad, and one expression doesn't seem any "softer" than the other. What we have here is one lawyer making an important correction in another lawyer's draft. If the conclusion was that successful prosecution was unlikely because all necessary components were not present, than the specific legal connotation of "grossly negligent" would introduce, from a legal standpoint, an inconsistency with the overall finding. It appears, in this instance, McCabe's edit was for the purpose of bringing consistency. It could be argued that if the language 'gross negligence' were to be left standing, than consistency would require a change in the conclusion of the investigation, which would then introduce still other inconsistencies. It seems McCabe's edit was skillful and correct here. He is a careful reader, and was on this occasion at least, a good editor. As deputy director, McCabe would have been an appropriate person to edit the official findings. Naturally, someone who is at odds with the Agency's findings in the Clinton case may read into this editorial change an effort to protect Clinton, and particularly so if they have convinced themselves that McCabe, because of his wife's politics, was biased in preforming his professional duties. That argument, however, ignores the compelling reason why it was necessary to edit the lawyerly language in the report so that it would correctly communicate the agency's overall findings. Had the original language been left standing it would have prejudiced the report toward a conclusion that could not be supported by the overall findings.
I don’t think so. You’ve been calling for a special counsel to investigate what you perceive as anti Trump activity for quite some time. You seem to be layering this McCabe thing in with all of that but it doesn’t fit, and neither does most of what else you are claiming. All of these waters are made muddy by the right on purpose. Saying Flynn and McCabe situations are similar is a textbook false equivalency. Same for saying a special counsel is needed for Clinton because one was appointed when Trump fires Comey then went on TV and said he fired him because of the “Russia thing.”
Right. If the findings of the investigation were unsubstantiated then you shouldn’t use language that would lead a reader to believe it was substantiated, such as the legal definition thereof.
"One interpretation is of course that McCabe was trying to protect Clinton by "softening" the language. When the layman reads 'grossly negligent' versus 'extremely careless', however, he doesn't see much difference, both seen bad, and one expression doesn't seem any "softer" than the other." Let's stop right here, okay? What a layman sees is neither here nor there. She was the subject of an FBI investigation. When a prosecutor or other lawyer sees the words "grossly negligent" THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE. "Grossly negligent" is the exact definition of the crime in the Espionage Act. Why the hell do you think he changed it? What you should be pointing out is that when a prosecutor sees the words "exceedingly careless" that that is the very definition of "grossly negligent." And then you said something below that in your post but no need to even advance that far if you are trying to fly with the above spin. Non starter.
You people are spending waaaaaaaay too much time on this. Stop and go make some money. There are dozens on sites where you can donate to McCabe's pension, I saw at least 6 on gofundme.com For the rest of us, we can give our money to someone who isn't worth $11 million and bitching about his pension.
When a special investigator looks at his and his wife's bank accounts you will find that the DNC has already paid for his retirement.
Why do you leave me with the impression you didn't read my entire post, or if you did, you failed to grasp it. We have both made the same point, but I stated it in a more circumspect and careful manner without over reaction or hyperbole, such as your silly foray into the 'Espionage Act'. However you have not addressed why it was necessary for the Deputy Director to substitute 'extremely careless' for 'gross negligence'; whereas I have. Please read my post, carefully this time.