McCabe seeking immunity for Senate testimony on Clinton email probe
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is seeking legal immunity in exchange for his testimony on the agency's handling of the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 's use of a private email server.
A lawyer for McCabe wrote to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Tuesday seeking a guarantee of immunity for McCabe's testimony before the panel, writing that the former FBI official would plead the Fifth if prompted to testify otherwise, CNN reported .
"Mr. McCabe is willing to testify, but because of the criminal referral, he must be afforded suitable legal protection," McCabe attorney Michael Bromwich wrote to Grassley, according to CNN.
"This is a textbook case for granting use immunity...If this Committee is unwilling or unable to obtain such an order, then Mr. McCabe will have to no choice but to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination."
McCabe is the subject of a criminal referral from the agency's inspector general, which has reportedly found that McCabe acted inappropriately by leaking information to a reporter and then lying about it to then-FBI Director James Comey .
Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe in March , citing the internal review that found McCabe "lacked candor." McCabe has insisted he acted within his authority in authorizing FBI officials to talk to a reporter about an ongoing investigation surrounding the Clinton Foundation in 2016.
Grassley has also invited Comey, as well as former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to testify before the committee about the Clinton email investigation, sources told CNN.
President Trump has repeatedly and publicly attacked McCabe over donations to his wife's unsuccessful state Senate campaign in Virginia in 2015 from a group led by then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), a close Clinton family ally.
The president has called for an investigation into McCabe, who he blames for bringing the investigation into Clinton to an end.
In April, Bromwich announced that McCabe planned to retaliate by suing Trump for defamation , and was considering other charges.
BY JOHN BOWDEN - 06/05/18 08:09 PM EDT
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
97 visitors
Chuck, you need to get everything there is to know on that Clinton investigation, otherwise let him plead the 5th and then prosecute him to the full extent of the law. Immunity should only be used in exchange for real substantial information
Agree...no immunity, let him plea the 5th. Take him to trial and all the evidence will come out then.
He was a major player and he should be held completely responsible for any illegal actions.
Yeah he can always get advice from:
Jeff Neely or Lois Lerner or Brian Pagliano or Greg Roseman or John Beale or Diane Rubens or John Sepulvada or Kim Graves or .....
Better than getting advice from Rudy Giuliani.
True ..... he's never had to plead the 5th as far as i know ..... so you are correct. He has less experience in that regard.
Who ever he get's advice from it's gonna cost him. Wasn't that one of Clapper's tactics? Let them pay to defend themselves.
The same can be said for the president, Giuliani isn't the kind of lawyer I want representing me in anything, just today they were talking about what he said about Stormy Daniels, he's got his head so far up his backside that he can only look through his own mouth.
What did he get wrong about Daniels?
It's what he got wrong about Trump that's relevant.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Now I'd like to find out what Galen is referring to?
Read 1.1.7, think about it and, then get back to me.
Are you on the phone with Dulay? Working together?
You mentioned Daniels. I remembered what he said about her. He has said a lot about the President. I'm sure some of that was wrong, but I don't think it's relevant to the Mueller investigation, do you?
Giuliani is a POS that has no right to talk about anyone, he has become the whore of Trump and, Trump is nothing more than a Pimp le on the ass of America. Daniels by comparison is an up standing business woman who happens to make porn films, which the last I checked was a legal business in this country. What Giuliani did was compare her to a criminal and, stated that he would trust them over her. Then he made comments about her looks. Total misogynistic shithead.
Why wouldn't we just use chat like y'all do?
I'm really disappointed. Name calling is not a criticism. Do you hear me say such things about Obama? And you know I think he severely damaged this country. Why don't we start with Giuliani was the DA who broke the back of the Mafia in America. He was the very first who figured out how to put Robert Blakey's RICO Act into effect. You may want to argue that he is not really defending Trump but attempting to discredit the Mueller investigation. That would be a fair argument.
Daniels by comparison is an up standing business woman who happens to make porn films, which the last I checked was a legal business in this country.
Ya, it's legal and you won't hear me call her a pig, but please tell me what she is after?
What Giuliani did was compare her to a criminal and, stated that he would trust them over her. Then he made comments about her looks. Total misogynistic shithead.
He questioned her credibility based upon her choice of profession. That can be argued. Remember what Truman Capote said? There was an underbelly in this country a counter culture that lives a separate existence
Why bother with either when great minds think alike?
I seldom do, but it makes sense
That was decades ago, when he was at least a little honest, since then he has sold his soul to people like Trump.
You are correct, Giuliani is trying to discredit the Mueller investigation, just like Nixon tried to do during Watergate, Nixon was guilty, Trump claims that he is innocent so, why is he pulling a Nixon strategy? If Trump is innocent then let Mueller's probe prove it, just like Gowdy's eight investigations proved Hillary was innocent of wrong doing in Benghazi.
Something called justice.
That is a form of slut shaming, IMO, she is as credible, if not more so, than Trump, who has declared bankruptcy 5 times and, has to go to a foreign bank for loans now, who is constantly in debt and, MAY have dealt with the Russians to get elected and, is obstructing justice, tampering with witness's and, threatening an on going probe into something that could threaten our democracy.
" Giuliani is a POS that has no right to talk about anyone"
Guilliani may have just compromised Trumps case with Stromy Daniels buy opening his big smart ass mouth....again, when talking about her:
"Giuliani: I don't respect Stormy Daniels as a woman because she's a porn star"
" I respect all human beings. I even have to respect criminals. But I'm sorry, I don't respect a porn star the way I respect a career women or a women of substance or a woman who has great respect for herself as a women and as a person and isn't going to sell her body for sexual exploitation," Giuliani said at an event in Tel Aviv."
"We cannot have men in positions of power basically making these statements against women," Avenatti added. "It doesn't matter what a women’s profession is. It has nothing to do with their credibility or whether they should be respected."
Source:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While Guiliani has a right to his own opinion of her, making such statement in public can, and I feel sure they will, be used against him during litigation as being biased against the litigant. This could require that Guiliani be dropped as Trump's attorney on the case.
Guiliani is soooo proud of his being able to be one of Trumps attorney's now that his ego is even larger than usual, and he feels he can open his mouth and say whatever he wants to say, no matter how stupid, biased or insulting, just like his client, and he may wind up jeopardizing his clients case.
Avenatti also said he hopes that Giuliani keeps talking like he is, it is helping Stormy's case everyday he talks.
I think that anyone who has seen how Guiliani acts could make a sure bet that he will continue to let his mouth over ride Trumps azz in this case. It will also be fun to see how Trump reacts to Guiliani's ego mouth fest. My bet is that Trump will try to cover up for Guiliani and throw him to the back of the bus, or....even under the bus. It will be fun to watch.
Karma's a bitch, I suppose. There wasn't much left-wing outrage over the misogyny of David Letterman, Chelsea Handler, David Horsey, Robin Givham, Jimmy Fallon, Michelle Wolf, Samantha Bee and others.
Are they the president of anything? Are any of them being sued by a porn star, guest of their show, and other salacious romps that were settled hush money style? We'll know about those soon as Trump and Cohen got spanked trying to exclude documents.
I'm betting there's at least 4 or 5 more settlements his wife is going to find out about.
Even as a matter of ethics...has any of those people been successfully sued for scamming their customers? Screwing their contractors? Had to admit in court they lie as a matter of promotion? Are any of them proven to lie in excess of 5 times a day?
Or...Flynn, who was trying to shop immunity in exchange for testimony and got shot down because they already had his number....as opposed to people just trying to protect themselves.
Perhaps why it didn't come to your mind first...
And, just how many of these people are lawyers litigating a case involving the president of the United States? Oh yeah, none of them. There is a certain decorum that must be maintained by lawyers, they must be above running an opponent through the mud before the case is heard, there is something that can be claimed by the other side, it's called a mistrial, Avenatti can also petition the court to have Giuliani removed from the case and, have his law license put under revue.
No, they didn't prove anything. Can you think of a Congressional investigation that ever did?
Something called justice.
In what way? She was paid $130,000 for her silence. She has blatantly violated that agreement with no repercussions. So again, what is she after?
That is a form of slut shaming, IMO, she is as credible, if not more so, than Trump, who has declared bankruptcy 5 times and, has to go to a foreign bank for loans now, who is constantly in debt and, MAY have dealt with the Russians to get elected and, is obstructing justice, tampering with witness's and, threatening an on going probe into something that could threaten our democracy.
You need to prove obstruction & witness tampering and you haven't. I know good people who have had to file for bankruptcy and the best of people who are constantly in debt. I don't see how a porn star automatically has credibility or what it proves. I just don't understand what Daniels is after.
Perhaps it takes time for the truth to come out. Three days isn't bad.
Your insults are as weak as your arguments, but then again you got slip by the pesky code
What truth are you alluding to?
Yet you persist.
Not pesky at all.
Oh and I not that you again obfuscate and refuse to answer the question.
Just because the EIGHT investigations by REPUBLICANS didn't turn out the way you wanted them to, they are all of a sudden false, fake and, didn't prove anything, and, you wonder why we doubt that you will accept anything that says Trump is guilty.
And, as far as the rest of it is concerned, look at the news, McCabe was a witness to Comey's memo's, McCabe was fired to keep him quiet, threats have come down from the White House about firing Rosenstein and, Mueller over the probe, Manafort has just had new charges of witness tampering added to his charges from Mueller, all of this is obstruction of justice, even in the eyes of someone like me, who has no legal training. I remember the Nixon impeachment hearings and, Watergate, I lived through that and, this is the same shit, just using different names. Wait until Mueller finishes investigating, if Trump doesn't jump the gun and, fire him first.
Teapot Dome
Church Committee
Watergate
Iran/Contra
Abramoff Lobbying Investigation
Bush Torture investigation
Need more?
Your question has been answered. Sorry, I can't improve on the dictionary
It wasn't congressional investigations that prosecuted any of those. They can't. They don't have that power
Link please
LIE.
Yes, that's evident.
This was your question:
ALL of those Congressional investigations proved a whole lot of things, did they not?
Who were the officials? If the Post dosen't name them, it can't be taken seriously. No wonder people believe such BS
The Post like any other news organization protects its sources, if the source wishes to come forward then that person can do that on their own. Remember, if "Deep Throat" had come forward during Watergate and, admitted that he was the source Nixon would have crucified him in the press, the same would happen today with Trump in office.
Oh, is that what bureaucrats who abuse their office and/or otherwise fail to honor their oath of office are doing?
Damn right they are. Lest they be in jail right now where they belong
No, some blame others for their own criminality, like blaming Sessions for recusing, blaming the media for uncovering their corruption...or they make up the boogeyman "Deep State" they can never seem to identify.
Yeah, i understand your view .... in such cases; bureaucrats appointed by liberals are just protecting themselves and bureaucrats appointed by conservatives are criminals .....
Yep, that about sums up your logic here. Got it.
Lol, the problem is there have been so many unnamed sources when it's about Trump AND so many of the reports turned out to be wrong:
"Former FBI Director James Comey repeatedly warned Thursday that news reports based on leaks of classified information pertaining to the Russia investigation have been consistently wrong.
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Community, Comey said stories about Russia that are based on classified leaks have been a persistent problem for the FBI because news organizations have often received bad information.
“There have been many, many stories based on — well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are dead wrong,” Comey said.
You cited a year old statement. Why not cite Trump's recent tweet about 'phony' sources?
This quote and, this story is a year old now, to the day. What I'm waiting for is the report from Mueller's investigation, not the Senate or, the House investigations, Mueller's investigation is the only one that hasn't leaked anything, they tell you who is being indicted, questioned or, convicted but, they don't tell you anything else.
I cited the statement of the FBI director on media unnamed sources.
So whats the matter now, suddenly you don't trust the FBI? Trump tweets have nothing to do with news sources
So am I, as well as the two IG reports!
You cited a year old statement that has NOTHING to do with current events. Oh and BTFW, do YOU suddenly trust James Comey?
WRONG! Trump's tweets ARE news sources and that one LIED about WH news sources.
In other words, the leaked stories were wrong up to the date Comey made that statement, but were suddenly true thereafter. That's a very strange idea.
No.
Yes it is, what brought you to express it?
That's what your'e saying
I have no control over where your mind takes you. It's okay, nuance just isn't your thing.
Vic, Vic, Vic, Vic, Vic........ how short is your memory? It was just last week when the Trump ordered briefing to congressional leaders revealed no wrongdoing by the FBI in relation to the Russia probe.
Are you actually going to go through this 1000 times. Didnt all the failures of the right wing conspiracy theorists to have any success with Benghazi , etc., teach you anything?
McCabe is covering his bases. Because of the referral he is open to charges IF anything he reveals was illegal.
This does not mean he is about to reveal a vast deep state conspiracy.
There is no end to this silliness in the age of trump.
I think your getting confused John. That was a classified meeting involving spying. McCabe already has a criminal referral and the IG report which is 500 pages long and about to be released involves Mr McCabe and others. Nice try though.
McCabe is covering his bases. Because of the referral he is open to charges IF anything he reveals was illegal.
Yup, there ya go.
This does not mean he is about to reveal a vast deep state conspiracy.
As somebody famous said "Lets wait for the results of the investigation"
I get the feeling you folks are going to start screaming the IG is a member of the "Deep State"
Lol, I am going to stand by what IG Horowitz says - 100%
I doubt you will
You doubted I could back up my accusation either, when I did you deleted the article.
For doing what?
So the IG report called for him to be prosecuted? Link?
I asked you a question, I didn't say you said anything.
Mueller allowed Flynn to PLEAD to the offense with the LOWEST penalty in exchange for his cooperation. His actual crimes are myriad and carry a hell of a lot more time.
So WTF is stopping them? Trump is large and in charge right? RIGHT? Where's the Clinton indictment? I've yet to see even one seed about Trump's abdicating his responsibility on this issue. Why is that?
The Justice Department’s internal watchdog has sent a criminal referral for fired FBI official Andrew McCabe to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington.
The move follows a recent DOJ inspector general report that found McCabe leaked a self-serving story to the press and later lied about it to then-Director James Comey and federal investigators, prompting Attorney General Jeff Sessions to fire him on March 16.
Thanks for admitting that it was a question.
Perfect example of a strawman.
Never said he didn't.
Never said it wasn't.
No edification required. I read he charging documents and his signed plea agreement. He could have been charged with a plethora of crimes but he got off with a slap on the hand for his cooperation.
Nope, I'll wait for the movie.
Take your condescending crap and shove it.
Another one who doesn't think that the meaning of words matters on a venue where we communicate exclusively in words.
BTW, y u mad?
So what you want is for Sessions, who LIED to Congress multiple times, to prosecute McCabe for lying to the FBI. Got ya.
BTW, as Trump supporters, since when is lying an issue for y'all?
There is a difference, is there not? I am not conceding that Sessions lied, but tell me who has been prosecuted for lying to Congress?
On the other hand people have lied about silly things to the FBI and they get prosecuted.
Sorry, but that's the way it is
Try it.
ques·tion
[ˈkwesCH(ə)n]
NOUN
a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information.
In grammar, a question is a type of sentence expressed in a form that requires (or appears to require) an answer.
Then why is it called a question mark?
Well please try to be mad more softly.
I'm not a 'pseudo' intellectual and I don't 'wannabe' anything that I'm not already, except more wealthy.
Where the fuck do you think you get the authority to tell me where or when to go or do anything?
John Mitchell and H.R. Haldeman....Both Republicans...go figure.
Sessions conceded that he lied. He submitted 'addendums' in writing to his Confirmation testimony. You can go read them for yourself. In later testimony, after being confirmed by GOP sycophants, he stated that he 'misremembered' and 'misspoke'.
Here's a quick list:
Jerry Weissman
Rita Lavelle
Harvey Matusow
H.R. Haldeman
John Mitchell
There may be more, go look...
I thought you were going to say Alger Hiss - liberal in the State Department who was a spy for the Soviet Union!
That is not lying. A meeting at which there are approx 50 people and one of them is the Russian Ambassador hardly qualifies as a meeting with a Russian, nor can anyone be blamed for not remembering or even knowing the Russian Ambassador was there. That's called overreaching for straws. Aren't you ashamed?
Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador, one on one, in his Senate office.
Secondly, do you think that Sessions just went into his confirmation hearings without weeks of preparation?
Thirdly, any Officer of the U.S. Government who FORGETS meeting an Official of the Russian government shouldn't have his/her job.
He lied. If y'all can call 'not been forthcoming' a lie, I can call 'misspoke' a lie.
Not one bit.
Just another day when you assumed and were wrong.
That would be the meeting the ambassador asked for. So what?
Secondly, do you think that Sessions just went into his confirmation hearings without weeks of preparation?
He was prepared. So were democrats trying to crucify him.
Thirdly, any Officer of the U.S. Government who FORGETS meeting an Official of the Russian government shouldn't have his/her job.
How about an incoming team forgetting about meeting Iranian officials?
He lied. If y'all can call 'not been forthcoming' a lie, I can call 'misspoke' a lie.
I don't
E.A I am Cornfuzzled, is that not what " ambassadors " are for ?
Oh so if the Ambassador asked for the meeting it's all good right?
He LIED.
How did Democrats crucify him? He was confirmed despite lying.
Whataboutism…
Yes the double standard is evident.
It's all good anyway, but the fact the Ambassador asked for it makes a world of difference.
He LIED.
Nope.
How did Democrats crucify him? He was confirmed despite lying.
Well, here's a sample:
Whataboutism…
Actually, It's precedent. Why is it that all other incoming administrations were allowed to meet with foreign representatives, yet the Trump people were not?
Yes the double standard is evident.
Yup, only it's yours
You know this how? Link?
Wow, not very detail oriented I see. That video you linked is of Sessions AFTER the confirmation hearings we are talking about. Note that it says 'Attorney General' on the screen. Sheesh that's some weak shit.
The question Sessions LIED about pertained to events during the CAMPAIGN.
Fail.
“At the time [his statement] was honest and correct as I understood,” said Sessions, who argued he was acting in his capacity as a senator at the September meeting with Russian ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak in his Senate office.
Asked about his September meeting, the attorney general said Kislyak sent a staffer who asked for a meeting, which was then arranged. As far as what was discussed, Sessions did not remember much, except a mention of a trip he took to Russia in 1991 as part of a church group."
You certainly ask for a lot of links on what has become common knowledge. I hope you can satisfy my requests as well. You want every word I say verified, yet that fact has been widely reported
The question Sessions LIED about pertained to events during the CAMPAIGN.
Nope. I'm willing to bet he will not be charged with perjury. Do you want a piece of that?
How about this:
"At the time [his statement] was honest and correct as I understood it" said McCabe.
Have you asked me for a link I haven't provided?
YEP.
The question was about events DURING the campaign. In FACT, Sessions answer is about events DURING the campaign too:
What's hilarious is that Sessions didn't even answer the fucking question and he LIED about his own actions.
On the one hand you have a meeting requested by the Russian Ambassador and on the other you have Sessions clarifying that the meetings with the Russian envoy were taken in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and not as a campaign surrogate for then-candidate Donald Trump.
One more thing. I am delighted with the fact that the vindictive, biased Senator representing Minnesota is gone and that the honorable Jeff Sessions is the AG.
According to Sessions, who's veracity is in question.
Does that mean that he took off his MAGA cap when meeting with the Ambassador?
BTW, Sessions was asked about ANY communication with Russians 'during the campaign', NO MATTER the 'capacity'. His 'clarification' was merely an equivocation to try and save his ass and it worked.
Yup.
His 'clarification' was merely an equivocation to try and save his ass and it worked.
It worked well
Until it didn't and he rightly recused himself. Now, the wrath of Trump, who's cowardly practice of punching down from behind his twitter account, should make Sessions realize that he sold his soul cheap.
From the day it was announced that the Trump campaign was part of an investigation, AG Jeff Sessions had to recuse himself because he was part of that campaign. It's that simple. As a matter of fact Rosenstein should have recused himself as well. He signed the sharply critical memo of Comey which helped lead to the firing of Comey and he also signed one or more of the misleading FISA warrants, which used the Steele Dossier.
Hence the word 'rightly' in my comment.
So does that mean that you are admitting that the Comey firing is a subject of the investigation?
BTW, it's pretty clear from Trump's own words that the 'recommendation' was irrelevant to his decision to fire Comey.
And? That investigation was being done by the IG, NOT Mueller. Rosenstein isn't involved.
If Robert Mueller believes Comey was fired because he didn't end the investigation, then yes, it would be part of the investigation. I think that would be a stretch but when people start guessing at motives silly things happen.
BTW, it's pretty clear from Trump's own words that the 'recommendation' was irrelevant to his decision to fire Comey.
He did say that among many other things. Do you remember the reason/reasons he gave for firing Comey?
And? That investigation was being done by the IG, NOT Mueller. Rosenstein isn't involved.
He is...He can still be called as a witness in the Mueller investigation.
Actually, all Mueller has to believe is what Trump said to Lester Holt, there's NO guessing about it.
Yes.
If you're claiming that Rosenstein is involved in the IG FISA investigation, prove it.
And I notice that you didn't include that broad, open ended statement, which is the one the left has chosen for their narrative: Liberals claim he said it was because of the "Russia Investigation".
In the Holt interview itself Trump gives many reasons and if you look at the interview he mentions (as Comey has confirmed) that he had asked Comey if he was under investigation and Comey told him "NO"...(on three occasions), so President Trump kept asking him to make that public and Comey refused. I've always wondered about that. Since that time I believe Susan Rice has given us the answer with her comments on the infamous Jan 5th, 2017 meeting between Obama and Comey, where Obama asks if the incoming administration should be told of the investigation details. That is when I realized that Comey was lying to the President all along. Why? So the President couldn't end it. Mueller may be on the same page as Comey. If so, the President isn't going to be treated fairly. Let's face it, if there hasn't been any evidence of the Presidents involvement in any act of collusion, we all should have been told that by now, at the very least.
Yes.
All of them, including his original agreement with the Rothstein recommendation?
If you're claiming that Rosenstein is involved in the IG FISA investigation, prove it.
LOL, No I'm not saying that - the IG investigation is a recent development. I'm saying Rosenstein should have recused himself from the get-go because he after all signed a recommendation to fire Comey (he can be called as a witness in matters arising out of that - if you believe there is an obstruction charge AND he signed a one or more of the FISA warrants (which may cause him to be called as a witness in a conspiracy case). Either way Rosenstein is conflicted multiple times.
I've already said yes. Now would you say that the right has chosen the Rosenstein recommendation as THEIR narrative?
It sure read that way to me. You said:
When I said that Rosenstein isn't involved in that investigation, you said that he is.
THAT is why he appointed Mueller. He discharge his responsibility to conduct the investigation himself.
Being a witness in an investigation does not inherently require Rosenstein to recuse.
Hell, I'm pretty damn sure that dozens of FBI Agents will be and have been witnesses and NONE of them have to recuse. That is because they have no political or personal relationship subject being investigated.
You know that there is a specific DOJ regulation that covers recusal right?
Again with the BS FISA connection. You acknowledge the IG in one breath and then throw in the FISA warrant in the next. Stop.
What conflicts are you referring to?
Again, you know that there is a specific DOJ reg on that too right? FYI, a 'conflict of interest' is defined as a 'financial conflict'.
Who has used that. I, myself have used the same statement the left uses. The difference is I believe when Trump says its because of the investigation he means that Comey never told the public what Trump asked for 3 times - that he was not under investigation. I believe Iv'e said it many times.
THAT is why he appointed Mueller. He discharge his responsibility to conduct the investigation himself.
Ah, No, Mueller reports to Rosenstein. He has to check with him before he goes after someone not connected to Russia, for one example
Being a witness in an investigation does not inherently require Rosenstein to recuse.
I have to disagree
Again with the BS FISA connection. You acknowledge the IG in one breath and then throw in the FISA warrant in the next. Stop.
Rosenstein presides over the Mueller investigation
What conflicts are you referring to?
Twice is enough
Again, you know that there is a specific DOJ reg on that too right? FYI, a 'conflict of interest' is defined as a 'financial conflict'.
That's it? Then the fact that Sessions was part of the campaign means nothing? It's been interesting seeing you dance around why Rosenstein should/shouldn't recuse. It tells me a lot about Rosenstein.
Most on the right.
Yes he does. And?
Point? He isn't conducting the investigation. Mueller has to refer anyone outside of the Russian investigation.
Oh, my bad. I thought we were dealing with facts rather than opinion.
How does that address my comment about citing the FISA warrant AGAIN.
Once would be better. You've yet to cite even one conflict of interest.
Actually, the part of my comment that you conveniently omitted addresses that. Here's what I said:
So you already have the answer to your question.
I haven't been dancing around anything. I posted facts for why Rosenstein need not recuse. All you've posted is opinions.
In Sessions' recusal letter, he stated that he sought the advice of the Ethics Division of the DOJ and they advised him that the regs called for his recusal. There is no reason to think that Rosenstein hasn't done the same but with a different result.
How can something that I post tell you anything about Rosenstein.
Again - Name them!
Yes he does. And?
This is getting weird. I really think your'e trying to test my temper. Go back and read it!
Point? He isn't conducting the investigation. Mueller has to refer anyone outside of the Russian investigation.
Third time - Mueller reports to Rosenstein
How does that address my comment about citing the FISA warrant AGAIN.
Third time- Mueller signed at least one of those based on the Steele Dossier. You don't think that could be a problem? We will need to see all that and Rosenstein presiding over this? I think that's fairly simple to understand. That's a conflict of interest
Once would be better. You've yet to cite even one conflict of interest.
You are wearing your blinders
Is this how you wear people down? You either address the facts I have posted or we end it
Nope, CoC prohibits it.
I did.
Third time. So the fuck what?
Actually, that was Rosenstein but I'll take into consideration that your obviously verklempt.
No and since you've already admitted that the IG is handling the investigation of the FISA warrant and Rosenstein isn't involved, I don't see why you would either.
So you don't trust the IG and you want to see the FISA warrant for yourself? It looks like you're going to have to prepare for disappointment on that one. I doubt you ever will.
Again, CITE the financial conflict that Rosenstein has with the subject of both the Mueller investigation and the FISA investigation.
Do you have an issue with reading for comprehension? The DOJ defines a 'conflict of interest' as a 'FINACIAL conflict'. Go fucking look it up for yourself.
Now you may have your own personal definition but it's hardly a cogent basis for an argument.
Well hell Vic, nobody if forcing you to post here. I've asked you cogent, relevant questions. You've yet to answer most of them. If it tires you to continue tap dancing, by all means, stop.
That's hilarious! I've addressed. in good faith, every fucking sentence that you posted, most of which contain your opinion, not facts. If you want to bail, BAIL. I really could NOT care less.
Ya, I meant Rosenstein
No and since you've already admitted that the IG is handling the investigation of the FISA warrant and Rosenstein isn't involved
Wha....How is he not involved? he signed it and it did not explain where the Dossier came from. That's a potential problem
So you don't trust the IG and you want to see the FISA warrant for yourself? It looks like you're going to have to prepare for disappointment on that one. I doubt you ever will.
I absolutely trust the IG, but the FISA warrant will have to be turned over to an oversight committee. The American people deserve to know what happened. You don't want that?
Again, CITE the financial conflict that Rosenstein has with the subject of both the Mueller investigation and the FISA investigation.
That is your claim that it needs to be financial. Read the concerns of professor Shugerman below. Tell him it has to be "financial"
I've addressed. in good faith, every fucking sentence that you posted,
Except you couldn't explain why Sessions recusal need not be "financial" but Rosenstein's needs to be?
Iv'e given you every chance to defend your argument, Iv'e given you the final word, but in fairness to the readers of this article, I think I have to provide the real problem with Rosenstein not recusing himself:
" There has been an undercurrent of questions about why he has not recused himself from overseeing Mueller's investigation, given that he is somewhat wrapped up in the obstruction of justice case through his authorship of that Comey memo."
"Some experts say this still raises valid questions, even as they have praised Rosenstein. Fordham University law professor Jed Shugerman said Rosenstein has a “huge problem” — even though rules for recusal aren't hard and fast.: " But if we're being honest with ourselves, Rosenstein has a huge problem.
He is a witness to the obstruction case he is supervising as Acting AG. And it's worse than that. He may have participated in covering up the corrupt intent. What does this mean? Unclear...There aren't clear rules about recusal. But the basic standard is that if there is "an appearance of bias," one should recuse."....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/05/31/should-rod-rosenstein-recuse-himself-the-latest-russia-revelation-complicates-the-answer/?utm_term=.29f9b058ed95
It's not as if the recusal of Rosenstein hasn't been discussed. It may become important later.
We shall see
I'll play the part of the liberals now "oh, no evidence of wrongdoing! It's all a distraction from the prosecution of President trump!"
Wrong and wrong!
There is overwhelming evidence that the FBI ran a fake investigation of Hillary Clinton, which was obvious, while launching a counterintelligence investigation of President Trump for no reason.
"but but Gowdy said....
No Gowdy didn't even read the material. What has been holding up the IG report?
"They need to redact to protect lives...lives are in danger....
No, it looks like Andrew McCabe is going to jail. Justice will be served
He will be the first of many to fall. Many lesser wrong doers will start squawking about the corrupt higher ups in order to save their own butts and avoid sharing a cell with Bubba or Big Sally.
Wasn't it just last week when your team was screaming about the very idea that one could plead a lesser crime in exchange for testimony was fundamentally wrong, now it is fundamentally expected!
As far as I'm concerned it all leads back to that Jan 5th meeting between Obama & Comey, remember the one Susan Rice tried to cover for by adding a memo to it minutes after Trump was inaugurated. She said that Obama reminded everyone to do things "by the book". Lol, ya, ya gotta remind people after 8 years to keep doing things by the book! She also added that the President asked if information should be withheld from the incoming administration.
Liberals are truly amazing. They think everyone is stupid. instead of covering for Obama, she drew suspicion to the meeting
Does this sound familiar? "Lock her up, lock her up", for thirty years the Right tried to "Lock her up", the same will happen to McCabe, you all will yelling "Lock him up" in thirty years with no evidence to back up locking him up, but, it won't matter to you because you don't need facts, you just want to lock up anyone that doesn't agree with you.
she is not safe yet.
that OIG report is going to ruin her day and your argument.
so I reckon you have about a week to try and fly that flag (unless even more evidence comes out)
Cheers
Haven't you been saying that for the past eight years? How's that been working for ya?
no, I said "that" about 18 minutes ago.
what I said for the last 8yrs was that obamas admin will cover up her crimes. (they are complicit)
actually... everything I have predicted would happen? has happened or is in progress. (so far... so good
but anyways... try not to live in the past, the future is so much more fun.
That I can agree with, I just wonder why the Right has always got to try to put Hillary in jail when she hasn't done anything worthy of jail but, Trump has and, they made him president.
that is where you are going to find you are wrong.
patience grasshopper... all will be revealed soon enough.
nope.. not going to fly
hillary paying russians to lie about trump is the only russian collusion in town.
Cheers
It's been going on for the past thirty years and, you want me to be patient? How about you and, yours be patient, after all the Mueller probe compared to the Clinton investigations, (yes, multiple investigations in the last thirty years), has only just begun. So, you be patient I'll move on, 'cus, "there is no there, there".
And he says he's always right.
Links? Of course not because, it never happened.
Wow you are some kind of psychic as you have claimed infallible predictions about every Supreme Court decision and now lordy you again claim spectacular results. I am guessing you are simply restrained in playing powerball.
The IG says there is evidence. Isn't that what a criminal referral means?
Paying for what? To help trump win? I think you are thinking of trump has has so many ties to Russia one has to ask, "did he hire anyone that DIDN'T have ties to Russia? Also, the right wing was all up in arms that if Hillary was elected, she would start a war with Russia within days....NOW all the sudden she was working with them.....to help trump?
The rights conspiracy theories get more ridiculous by the day.
patience grasshopper... all will be revealed soon enough. ... I agree.
9 Clinton investigations so far
1/2 of 1 trump investigation so far
Yep I'm waiting.
WASHINGTON — The presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid for research that was included in a dossier made public in January that contained salacious claims about connections between Donald J. Trump, his associates and Russia.
using that info to get a fisa warrant against trump? is why they will all fall down
This is utter nonsense. Skirting the CoC [ph]
He saw it on the fake news channel so it must be true, faux admits their lies when they get caught.
There is an IG report coming out that deals with the FBI's conduct of that investigation. You know the one you say was conducted normally. The one Andy McCabe took away from the DC field office and handed over to the highest levels of the FBI. The one that Peter Strzok was so deeply involved in. The one that had no grand jury. The one that gave 5 or 6 individuals immunity for no reason, the one that had been decided before Clinton was interviewed, the one that needed to be rewritten so as not to invoke the statue which says that gross negligence equals guilt and the one that the AG Loretta Lynch compromised to the point that James Comey had to make the decision in the case in order to save face.
THAT ONE!
So you're making this claim about Gowdy, a member of the House Joint Intelligence Committee and the ONLY member who was allowed to read the FISA application?
Prove it.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) recently suggested the FBI did nothing wrong when it used at least one government informant to secretly collect information on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Public reports indicate, however, that Gowdy never even reviewed the relevant documents on the matter subpoenaed by Congress. In fact, a spokeswoman for Gowdy told The Federalist that the congressman doesn’t even know what documents and records were subpoenaed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).
I don't charge anything for educating
Well for 'educating' purposes, how about you explain WTF that has to do with this seed about McCabe? The documents mentioned in your linked article are limited to the CI that talked to Page and Papadopoulos.
Oh and BTFW, I watched the Gowdy video and I don't remember him saying that he based his opinion on 'documents'. So the whole premise of the linked article is BS.
There are videos of hearings, in which Gowdy participated and voted about the other mile high stack of documents that the Committee has reviewed. And again, Trump's minion, Nunes, PICKED Gowdy to be the one to review the actual FISA application.
So stating that Gowdy 'didn't even read the material' is BS too.
Ironically, Nunes admitted that he didn't read the underlying documents reviewed to write HIS memo. Got anything to say about that?
Nunes has been as quiet as a church mouse since that kabuki briefing.
Now it's CI. If your'e the one being investigated it's called a spy.
WTF that has to do with this seed about McCabe?
Everything. McCabe is offering testimony in exchange for immunity. That testimony includes all matters.
Ironically, Nunes admitted that he didn't read the underlying documents reviewed to write HIS memo. Got anything to say about that?
Ya, I do. The IG is now investigating the matter. I prefer to put my faith in him rather than these politicians. Now my question for you. The IG has already competed one report - on FBI handling of the Clinton investigation. The DOJ has been sitting on it but it will be released soon, probably next week when the North Korea meeting is underway....Will you accept it's findings? If not why not?
Simple questions
No, it has only been CI.
That isn't what you seed says:
-----------
I ask you about Nunes and you deflect. Why would you then think that you qualify for good faith replies?
No even the New York Times admits there was a spy/informant, call him what you want.
That isn't what you seed says:
It will involve all matters once such negotiations begin. McCabe may offer the Clinton investigation matters, which is about to be exposed, but as good as it may sound, it will end up being about all matters or no deal. Negotiations may already be going on.
I ask you about Nunes and you deflect. Why would you then think that you qualify for good faith replies?
Well let me be very direct and precise! It is already on YouTube.....The reason Gowdy and Nunes never got to read those documents - THE DOCUMENTS THAT PAUL RYAN NOW WANTS!
ENJOY!
I already have but you keep whining about it.
You're fabricating.
Not much of a legal eagle I see.
No shit Sherlock.
A linked to a video of LOUIE GOMERT is your idea of a 'very direct and precise' reply?
WTF!
First of all, Louis Gomert is intellectually bankrupt and anyone who uses anything that comes out of his mouth to bolster an argument is equally so.
Secondly, Louie Gomert wasn't even in the fucking briefings and doesn't even know what was said.
Thirdly, I could NOT care less what LYIN' RYAN wants.
Please STOP insulting my intelligence and take that weak shit elsewhere.
Now, do have anything to say about the FACT that Nunes has admitted that he didn't read ANY of the underlying documents or NOT? You wouldn't be demanding that Gowdy be held to different standards than Nunes would you?
I already have. There is already talk that democrats filibustered the meeting so that there was no time to look at documents. When I think about that - now it makes sense why neither Gowdy or Nunes looked at the documents and it makes more sense that Ryan is demanding them.
Why can't the public see them?
Actually no you haven't. Perhaps it's an issue with short term memory. Here, I'll repeat the question as posed:
Please proceed.
Thanks for the confirmation. He had no time
If you mean Nunes, Bullshit. Nunes the Chairman and his minions wrote the memo. He had all the time in the world to read whatever document he wanted, chime in and even put pen to paper himself. He has too busy running back and forth between the WH and fallacious Front lawn news conferences.
It's a good thing he did. Right now I would have to say the Mueller investigation is diverting attention from a serious scandal.
Yes because Trump needs a sycophant in the Congress to pretend to find 'evidence' during an investigation that was actually handed to him two minutes ago in the WH. Sadly, the 'evidence' was just another in a long line of duds, as was the Nunes 'memo'.
Now, 9 out of 10 members of Congress that were in the briefing agree that the 'spygate' scandal was bullshit. Can you guess who the holdout is?
You're turning on Goudy ?
Cannibals much ?
Some republicans are turning on Ryan too.
I guess they don't realize he is retiring.
Even the alien isn't far enough right now! Wow...
"I guess they don't realize he is retiring."
And in some instances, Ryan is now defecting against Trump. As are a few others who were not too long ago his best backers. Could they be seeing the handwriting on the wall?
What that blue wave?
What was the % of democrat voters that showed up in California?
I think I read that it wasn't impressive.
I assume you mean Trey Gowdy. Since when was he your Guru?
You only needed to wait until I got home. There is an easy way to see who is logged in
You only need to lock your seed if you don't want comments posted while you're not online.
After being purged from the FBI and the gop trumping-up criminal complaints McCabe is taking his lawyers advice...
Andrew McCabe will be vindicated eventually both legally and professionally. McCabe is just begun fighting injustices.
The FBI itself and its own watchdog office within it recommended McCabe be fried for lying under oath about authorizing media leaks. Trump and the GOP didn't get him fired. Sessions just followed the FBIs own recommendation.
That is hardly the whole truth. McCabe told the truth. For that he was purged based on Trumped-Up charges.
McCabe, a Republican, will be vindicated when the whole truth is known. What Trump did to him is criminal...
Trump did not do a thing to him.'
The IG report nailed him, because of HIS OWN ACTIONS.
Is this the same FBI that trump says is corrupt and shouldn't be trusted, (even though the top brass are all trumps people)?
wait until he bends over to pick up the soap... in jail.
he will be fighting injustices then I am sure.
cheers
Care to wager?
A self induced suspension?
Tic tock tic tock tic tock .... the deep state lackey .... tries to hide behind the clock.
BOHIC liberals ....... you are not going to enjoy this one ..... the house of cards you've built is about fold in a spectacular fashion.
You can only hope this is just one BOHIC and not a BOHICA or twelve
They are gonna keep denying. Like they did when Hillary was under investigation. The problem is the Obama people are no longer in charge of the investigation.
and who keeps denying the trump investigation, that's right the die hard supporters that pretend the flaming arrows are sent to start the camp fire, now we have rodman and Kardashian as political figures.
Not me. Haven't you seen my seed by Jonathon Turley, which has asked that we all have patience for all the investigations to be completed?
So basically all they have on him is leaking information. The rest looks like a fishing expedition.
McCabe commuted multiple felonies for lying under oath. It wasn't the leaking, it was the lying.
Where did he commute them to? And, how did he commute them? By car, boat, train or, plane?
He committed them in front of his superiors and while under oath. But keep using spell check jumping the gun to deflect.
Sure, Ok, I just thought you had a Norm Crosby moment there.
The AG did the same.
Sessions recused himself over minor details of meetings he forgot. McCabe deliberately lied and obstructed.
You mean that he said, "I cannot recall" in his Congressional hearing. How many times couldn't he recall something as important as a meeting with Russians during the campaign?
if his memory is that bad, maybe he shouldn't be AG.
Since Sessions didn't even mention his 'misremembering' in his recusal letter, you're wrong about that.
You know this how? Oh and I see you added obstruction. Link?
I guess Sessions took lessons from Hillary then:
And please the Washington Post is far from a fringe right source.
"The referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia occurred some time ago, after the inspector general concluded McCabe had lied to investigators or his boss, then-FBI Director James B. Comey, on four occasions, three of them under oath."
Now unless you want to claim the IG has nothing better to do than make frivolous criminal referrals....
No, what I AM claiming is that you are whining about inaction but refuse to hold those responsible for TAKING action accountable.
Oh and BTFW, how does a referral PROVE that he 'deliberately lied and obstructed'?
BTFW, where is the Clinton indictment?
A referral means that there is enough evidence to prosecute.
Oh and BTFW, Congress sent referrals against Comey, Lynch, Clinton and McCabe in April. It's JUNE! WTF are Trump and Sessions waiting for. They've the goods all lined up right? RIGHT?
Pfffttt.
Gee, we were all talking about McCabe and the referral from the IG, and you jump in with THAT???!!
OMG, that is so precious!
You're deflecting.
If the April referral gave them enough evidence to prosecute all of them, WTF are Trump and Sessions waiting for?
Once again, dude, that isn't what we were talking about.
Why do you seem desperate to change the subject?
Actually, it is EXACTLY WTF we are talking about. The seed is inherently about a criminal referral to the DOJ since THAT is what McCabe is seeking immunity from.
Why are you desperate to be ignorant of it?
So STOP deflecting and answer the question.
BTFW, there is only 1 'Dude' and I ain't him so don't call me dude.
Oh and BTW, are you seriously claiming that McCabe is ONLY seeking immunity from ONE referral?
A review of my posts will prove that I very rarely use this emoji.
I think it's time to start a tally on the number of questions left unanswered.
I'll have to start a folder for Tex.
"I'll have to start a folder for Tex."
He doesn't have answers, all he has to contribute is snark and deflection.
You mean like Muellers witch hunt?
Nope.
Leaking & lying plus whatever is in the IG report
Why is it that when the left looks for crimes like buying Russian help or committing felonies, they only care if it involves Trump and don't care if it's Democrats or deep state members?
What is this deep state you all refer to?
The "Deep State" is the right's bugaboo to blame for checks and balances our Constitution provides us...
The right holds all the reigns of power so they do not understand why they cannot get away with crimes.
The Deep State is up there with Big Foot, Agenda 21, Roswell and Chem-Trails with Conspiracy Nutters...
The Deep State is very real. Trump/ Russia collusion not so much...
There is more evidence of Trump/Russia collusion in the last election than there is of any "deep state". Kind of like comparing the existence of the Tooth fairy (the deep state) and, the existence of a jet plane (Trump/Russia).
We all realize you are completely unaware of it but you are making my point for me and quite profoundly...
Careful, if righties ever find out there is no Santa Claus it will break them. We can't have that. Can we?
Sorry, I forgot.
McCabe- fired and possibly jail bound
Comey- fired
Strzok- demoted to HR hell
Page- resigned
Hillary- giving insane rants no one wants to hear
Obama- agenda nearly overturned
Trump- still winning and MAGA!!!!
Democrats are obsessed with idea of govt being Santa Claus. Free stuff and getting something for nothing.
It seems many republicans tend to believe that. Fortunately not any of the democrats I know feel like like that but many republicans seem to believe they do. That's the problem with confining oneself to a particular set of ideological thinking people.
Tunnel vision.
Possibly with a wrongful firing suit in the works
Mueller is investigating the firing for possible obstruction charges against Trump.
He was stupid.
Same situation as McCabe.
Who cares, she won't be running for president again.
It's going to be hard to wipe out his total agenda and, wipe him from history.
You mean Trump is still Whining and, America was great until Trump became president, now, it is turning into a cesspool.
So anybody filing a wrongful termination suit is automatically vindicated just because they filed it? That's a pretty low bar of proof. If McCabe is so sure of himself why is he asking for immunity? Innocent people don't need immunity.
Or plead the fifth or do the homework about giving themselves and everyone connected to them a pardon. Nope that indicates innocents./s
Sure sounds like he is guilty of something!
The only 'Deep State" I ever heard of is Texas.
Why is it that the right can't see the continuous stream of evidence that flows from trump and his cronies actions of illegal, unethical, immoral behavior? All the while pretending everything is made up by some undefined deep state, reach for straws and ignore the obvious.
Why is it the left and Mueller can't find any evidence of wrong doing by Trump but ignore the mountains of evidence over Clinton, McCabe and the rest?
Lol - you have access to Mueller's files?! You must be really important.
Are you unaware of the FACT that 'the left' isn't in charge of the DOJ? Sessions is and BTFW, according to Trump's lawyers, Trump is. So where are the indictments based on this 'mountain of evidence' you allege exists? Why aren't you contacting them to demand action? Ya'll claim ad nauseam that 'America is Great Again', yet your leader has done NOTHING about all of this alleged 'wrong doing'. Why aren't y'all critical of Trump for his lack of leadership?
Trump has complained bitterly about lack of control over the DOJ and lamented picking Sessions as AG. I guess he wished he could have a "wingman" like Obama had with Holder. I don't recall liberals complaining about lack of distance between Obama and Holders DOJ.
Hell Obama and his justice Dept. were so close they could have shared underwear!
Yes he has yet his Lawyers wrote a 20 page memo, that Trump signed off on, that stated he was all powerful and in complete control of the DOJ. So which is it? Is he powerless or all powerful?
Obfuscation. Trump and Sessions are in power now and they have done NOTHING. Stop whining about Obama and Holder and start holding your guys accountable.
I don't recall conservatives complaining about the lack of ACTION by their leadership.
Different investigations. Let's not conflate them
They always use the false flag of the "Deep State" as if it is on the level of "The Men in Black". Do all these RW conspiracy nuts live in an X-Files episode in their minds.
If anything at all RW conspiracy theorists should be kissing the ground the "Deep State" walks on because it gave them Trump and Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government!!!!!
The short list:
Comey? Fired
McCabe? Fired
Strzok? Demoted
Page? Resigned
Chief Lawyer for FBI, James Baker? Resigned
Yeah, everything is just as right as rain at the FBI right?
Compared to Trump's administration?
Not even a good attempt at obfuscation there .....
Oh I think it was pretty spot on...
Oh but of course you do ..... changes nothing i said.
Oh but is does put into perspective.
On but it does not. Not in the context of the question i was responding to.
You weren't responding to a question.
Sure i was, the comment involved was questioning the concept of a "deep state" possibly operating within our government at cross purposes with their assigned duties.
Feel like arguing this morning? I know you love it so .....
You replied to a posit, not a question.
Feel like obfuscating some more this morning? I know you love it so...
No obfuscation on my part .... now you on the other hand .... yeah you're REAL good at that
So you've devolved to 'I know what you are, what am I'. Not surprised.
Please proceed.
Keep digging ....
sorry skippy... no deals. your ass is going to jail.
Why does he need immunity? Just tell the truth.
what he did was illegal and he knows it.
there will be no deals...
it will be fun watching him plead the 5th, get indicted and then go to jail
Cheers
Cohen will be doing that as well.
Wow---who'd a-thunk it?
Another Obama-era flunky trying to plead the 5th.
Now watch liberals start the usual crap about "his rights" when just a few months ago they were SCREAMING that a Trump-era member pleaded the 5th "because he is guilty as sin!"
Did he tell you he was doing that?
PLEASE do try to keep up.
Of COURSE he didn't tell me that--he has never met me.
Jeeze.
His lawyer is asking for immunity for him to testify before Congress.
it is knowledge that you too can attain by reading.
Try JUST the first paragraph of the seeded article you are posting under.
If that isn't clear enough for you, continue reading the second and third paragraphs.
Potentially further than you got looking at pictures.
Look, you asked ME a question. A question that, frankly, was rather stupid.
If you didn't really want an answer---stop asking. Pretty simple.
Mccabe became Deputy Directer in February 2016. It wasn't Obama in charge then.
Want to move that goal post back further?
Mccabe started the in the New York FBI Field Office in 1996. hmmm... Nope Obama wasn't President then either.
Whatever you think of the man, or what he did/didn't do, at least get your facts straight.
Everyone that testifies before Congress when they are looking for scapegoats tries to get immunity prior to talking. Everyone...
I can't edit my post above. I shouldn't post on little sleep... Obama was President in '16. I'll admit when I'm wrong.
He certainly was!
Accepted
Cohen...