Andrew McCabe is fired. Will not collect retirement.

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
25,566
11,943
136
What newspapers do you think CIA analyzed during the Cold War? To analyze them, they'd need to read them: Pravda and Izvestia.

But someone would have to pay me a small salary to watch FOX for any length of time. You can score these media by first dividing their program schedule into "real news" and "news-comment." Then, see how much of an overlap there might be in news-events of the day. Those would be "events" -- facts -- which can be cross-verified. Whichever media outlet suppresses or eliminates more facts as reported elsewhere, that outlet is suspect just for censoring news content.

Back in January 2004, FOX advertised an "upcoming event" for a full week before it was scheduled to take place. Ted Kennedy was supposed to deliver a statement at the National Press Club, directed at Bush and his prosecution of the Iraq War. None of the other media had advertised it in advance to this degree shown by FOX. You thought you'd be sure to see it on FOX at the specified hour and day

So I had my TV all tuned in with reminders on my computer not to miss the broadcast. FOX offered exactly three minutes of Kennedy's remarks, followed by comment on those three minutes. Later, I discovered it was presented on CSPAN. Senator Kennedy's delivery was some forty minutes long. That's just an example.

It seems that FOX had attempted to lure viewers, and then present perhaps a tenth of Kennedy's remarks. It would only be deliberate. You're free to propose some summary of their strategy.

Yes -- you can learn a lot by keeping tabs on media to which you may be averse.
Yea, I force myself to watch it from time to time. I usually want to throw something at the TV before I'm done though. What sucks are the televisions in the public areas (cafeterias) on the Navy base where I work. Apparently the current CO likes Fox so that's what on for now. It bounces back and forth between Fox and CNN and seems to be whatever the current CO approves of. Anyway, one of the main techniques Fox uses is the "lets see what ever else is going on in the world except for the Russia story". They will drag out some plan crash in Slobovia with 2 victims before they will report any negative WH news.

Also, all of their supposed business shows are really just another political commentary presentation. Very little actual market business is discussed.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Unlike you, I don't care what party the guy belongs to. A cop (which is what he is) does something like this, should not be rewarded with a life time pension. He may have very well served the FBI for years honorably. That doesn't get him a free pass to do whatever he wants at the end. Once again, the FBI themselves suggested he be fired. The people he worked with and for.
You're full of shit.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,510
54,324
136
It’s odd that people have such strong opinions about McCabe’s guilt without having any idea what happened.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136
It’s odd that people have such strong opinions about McCabe’s guilt without having any idea what happened.

Right wing propagandists have avenues into their minds that they can't even recognize as being there.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
65,790
14,208
146

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,336
9,873
136

Whoa Nelly, shit just got real. I suppose Sessions fans (any left?) should be happy--as this confirms there was an investigation into whether he lied under oath and nothing came of it. Still, this makes McCabe's firing look all that more suspect. IG needs to make public those report findings that FBI acted on to fire McCabe. I don't think this can wait for the full report.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,336
9,873
136
Also, you should've included this quote:
One source told ABC News that Sessions was not aware of the investigation when he decided to fire McCabe last Friday less than 48 hours before McCabe, a former FBI deputy director, was due to retire from government and obtain a full pension, but an attorney representing Sessions declined to confirm that.
Makes it less likely that Sessions knew, but if Republicans were informed about the probe last year then I don't see how this wouldn't get back to Sessions, who still has friends in the Senate.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
It’s odd that people have such strong opinions about McCabe’s guilt without having any idea what happened.
How could they not have any idea?

It's been all over the news: The IG claims McCabe leaked and lied multiple times while under oath. The FBI's OPR recommended his termination. This seems to be S.O.P. for FBI agents who are accused of being 'less than candid' (or whatever their phrase is).

BTW: I continue to hear that claiming he will get no pension is incorrect.

Fern
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136
How could they not have any idea?

It's been all over the news: The IG claims McCabe leaked and lied multiple times while under oath. The FBI's OPR recommended his termination. This seems to be S.O.P. for FBI agents who are accused of being 'less than candid' (or whatever their phrase is).

BTW: I continue to hear that claiming he will get no pension is incorrect.

Fern

That's just Sessions' story & he'll stick to it until he can't. Given his history & current situation it may not be the truth at all.

There was this time Sessions showed a lack of candor under oath, himself. Well, he actually volunteered a lie but his fellow GOP Senators let him slide right into the AG office. He couldn't let McCabe slide for another 26 hours, however.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
"Just Sessions' story"?

Every major news outlet is reporting it.

From CNN:

Washington (CNN) - Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was set to officially retire on March 18, but according to a source familiar with the matter, he could be fired just days before and lose his pension after a more than two-decade career at the bureau.

The embattled official abruptly stepped down at the end of January and has been on leave since that time.

CNN has learned the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility has recommended McCabe be fired and now the decision is up to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The issue stems from findings in an internal Justice Department watchdog report that claims he misled investigators about his decision to authorize FBI officials to speak to the media about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

A representative for McCabe declined to comment.

That report, which has been complete for over a week, according to the source, has not been released publicly. The office is currently examining how investigations were handled at the department and the FBI in advance of the 2016 presidential election, including, notably, the Hillary Clinton email server probe.

"The Department follows a prescribed process by which an employee may be terminated. That process includes recommendations from career employees and no termination decision is final until the conclusion of that process. We have no personnel announcements at this time," Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement.

The inspector general's report has taken on increased attention as President Donald Trump and his allies have railed against FBI officials like McCabe over the agency's handling of certain investigations and claims of political bias.

The New York Times first reported the FBI recommendation.

Also, I've seen McCabe and his lawyer's responses etc.: I noted no denial.

Fern
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136
"Just Sessions' story"?

Every major news outlet is reporting it.

From CNN:



Also, I've seen McCabe and his lawyer's responses etc.: I noted no denial.

Fern

That's bullshit. McCabe's statement is not as you portray it.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/16/politics/mccabe-fired-statement-fbi-deputy-director/index.html

Trump needs to discredit McCabe because McCabe backs up Comey's story. That's what it's all about. Instead of being a retired FBI agent McCabe gets painted as a liar by some of the biggest liars who've ever disgraced their positions in the govt.

And the Faithful fall right in line, believing what ol' Jeff is telling them.

I don't, & anybody who does isn't thinking straight, all things considered. I'll give McCabe innocent until proven guilty & I haven't seen a shred of actual proof.

Where is Wray, McCabe's boss? Refusing to comment & obfuscating mightily-

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...be-termination-politics-fbi-don-t-mix-n858611

Funny how Sessions reached right around Wray to fire McCabe, huh?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,510
54,324
136
How could they not have any idea?

It's been all over the news: The IG claims McCabe leaked and lied multiple times while under oath. The FBI's OPR recommended his termination. This seems to be S.O.P. for FBI agents who are accused of being 'less than candid' (or whatever their phrase is).

BTW: I continue to hear that claiming he will get no pension is incorrect.

Fern

The report detailing why he was fired hasn’t been released. Like I said, nobody has any idea what the conclusions were yet people have very strong opinions about it. It’s bizarre, but I imagine it’s mostly out of partisanship where conservatives want to bash the FBI, ironically for how it was unfair to Clinton, the same person they think the FBI was too lenient on.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,336
9,873
136
Here's the best non-partisan synopsis I've found to date on the McCabe firing:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-firing-andrew-mccabe

"The FBI takes telling the truth extremely seriously: “lack of candor” from employees is a fireable offense—and people are fired for it. Moreover, it doesn’t take an outright lie to be dismissed. In one case, the bureau fired an agent after he initially gave an ambiguous statement to investigators as to how many times he had picked up his daughter from daycare in an FBI vehicle. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against the agent when he appealed, finding that “lack of candor is established by showing that the FBI agent did not ‘respond fully and truthfully’ to the questions he was asked.”

Consider also that although Sessions made the ultimate call to fire McCabe, the public record shows that the process resulting in the FBI deputy director’s dismissal involved career Justice Department and FBI officials—rather than political appointees selected by President Trump—at crucial points along the way. To begin with, the charges against McCabe arose out of the broader Justice Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigation into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation. While the inspector general is appointed by the president, the current head of that office, Michael Horowitz, was appointed by President Barack Obama and is himself a former career Justice Department lawyer. As Jack Goldsmith has written, the inspector general has a great deal of statutory independence, which Horowitz has not hesitated to use: Most notably, he produced a highly critical 2012 report into the Justice Department’s “Fast and Furious” program. So a process that begins with Horowitz and his office carries a presumption of fairness and independence.

After investigating McCabe, Horowitz’s office provided a report on McCabe’s conduct to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which investigates allegations of misconduct against bureau employees. This office is headed by career Justice Department official Candace Will, whom then-FBI Director Robert Mueller appointed to lead the OPR in 2004. According to Sessions, the Office of Professional Responsibility agreed with Horowitz’s assessment that McCabe “lacked candor” in speaking to internal investigators.

Finally, Sessions’s statement references “the recommendation of the Department’s senior career official” in advocating McCabe’s firing on the basis of the OIG and OPR determinations. (The official in question appears to be Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools.)

So while Sessions made the decision to dismiss McCabe, career officials or otherwise independent actors were involved in conducting the investigation into the deputy director and recommending his dismissal on multiple levels.

As Sessions frames it, McCabe was dismissed for lacking candor when speaking to investigators on the matter of an “unauthorized disclosure to the news media.” McCabe denies these allegations.

...

The full inspector general report on the Clinton email investigation, which will presumably include information on McCabe’s conduct, is to be released later this spring. Without seeing the report, it’s impossible to know whose story reflects the truth here—Sessions’s or McCabe’s. But at the end of the day, the record will either support McCabe’s dismissal or it will not. On the merits, we should have the discipline to wait and see.

There are, however, at least two features of the action against McCabe that warrant consternation, even if McCabe himself behaved badly enough to justify the sanction. The first is the timing, which is hard to understand. The only factor we can fathom that might justify it is the notion that if McCabe in fact had acted very badly, the window to punish him and thus make an important statement to the bureau workforce was closing.

But we are unaware of prior cases in which authorities rushed through the merits against a long-serving official in a naked and transparent effort to beat the clock of his retirement."

--end quote

So basically, I'm with Adam Schiff on this: McCabe's firing may be both justifiable AND tainted. We'll have to wait for the final OIG report and documented instances of McCabe "lacking candor" before we can judge whether he was truly a "bad actor" or doing something equivalent to using an FBI vehicle to take your daughter to school.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136
The report detailing why he was fired hasn’t been released. Like I said, nobody has any idea what the conclusions were yet people have very strong opinions about it. It’s bizarre, but I imagine it’s mostly out of partisanship where conservatives want to bash the FBI, ironically for how it was unfair to Clinton, the same person they think the FBI was too lenient on.

The fact that Sessions fired McCabe rather than Wray doing it is *highly irregular*, to say the least. The fact that Wray refuses to endorse that firing speaks volumes all by itself.
 

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,264
2,286
136
How could they not have any idea?

It's been all over the news: The IG claims McCabe leaked and lied multiple times while under oath. The FBI's OPR recommended his termination. This seems to be S.O.P. for FBI agents who are accused of being 'less than candid' (or whatever their phrase is).

BTW: I continue to hear that claiming he will get no pension is incorrect.

Fern

What was it he leaked again? Must have been some negative info on Trump right?
 

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,264
2,286
136
The fact that Sessions fired McCabe rather than Wray doing it is *highly irregular*, to say the least. The fact that Wray refuses to endorse that firing speaks volumes all by itself.
Given his obvious diminished mental recollection perhaps Dobby fired him out of confusion or forgot the proper protocol.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136
As career civil service McCabe can't be fired w/o the observance of proper procedure, rules that protect all of them from capricious bosses. Quite what they are or how they apply to McCabe I honestly don't know but he's probably entitled to notification & a hearing of some sort, one he obviously didn't get. If that's true then his firing was obviously political & a rush job to discredit him.

It's not like Trumpian strategy through any of this has been more than opportunistic poo flinging.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
16,269
1,853
126
As career civil service McCabe can't be fired w/o the observance of proper procedure, rules that protect all of them from capricious bosses. Quite what they are or how they apply to McCabe I honestly don't know but he's probably entitled to notification & a hearing of some sort, one he obviously didn't get. If that's true then his firing was obviously political & a rush job to discredit him.

It's not like Trumpian strategy through any of this has been more than opportunistic poo flinging.

Well, from what I'd read so far, he'll pick up the two days needed to complete his 20 years from a congressman, working on "election security." But even if he didn't, his retirement fund would become available for annuity distribution in another five or ten years.

Also, if this involved "leaking" to the press, he had argued in his statement that he was authorized to release that information, IIRC. Or maybe I misread or misinterpreted something. "Not candid?" That has a different dimension to it, but it wasn't a crime.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
They could have just let him retire... But they didn't learn from firing Comey, which exploded into the Mueller probe, so they fired McCabe. We'll see where that goes. But I can't imagine that it turns out more Republicans than Democrats in November. Ultimately, it's all about the House election. If Democrats win, they will investigate everything. And boy will there be a lot to investigate. If GOP loses House, Trump becomes nothing more than a political liability for them, I wouldn't be surprised if they vote to impeach him just to attempt to wash that stain off their party.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
16,269
1,853
126
They could have just let him retire... But they didn't learn from firing Comey, which exploded into the Mueller probe, so they fired McCabe. We'll see where that goes. But I can't imagine that it turns out more Republicans than Democrats in November. Ultimately, it's all about the House election. If Democrats win, they will investigate everything. And boy will there be a lot to investigate. If GOP loses House, Trump becomes nothing more than a political liability for them, I wouldn't be surprised if they vote to impeach him just to attempt to wash that stain off their party.
Here's an off-the-cuff observation that might take us in an enlightened direction.

Trump's core support were keenly bristling with resentment for the Obama election victories. They've adopted a position of "winner take all." This is their conviction: even if the Dems scored a 3 million surplus in the vote count, they feel entitled to impose their views, preferences and policies on everyone else without compromise.

Failure to accept a regime of compromise parallels a desire to be vindictive. Was there ever a day since the inauguration that Trump didn't attempt to slap the Democratic opposition in the face? So you could expect this sort of thing from them.

It seems that compared to almost any group in the political realm over the last 70 years, they know the least about what has made our system work through two and a half centuries. Suffering through their ascendance will be an ordeal. We just don't think they've got a lock on government for the next 50 years, as was Bannon's ambition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeeJay1952

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
Looks like McCabe has a gofundme for his legal defense. He know's perjury charges are forthcoming. So, if anyone is sympathetic and want to help the bloke out, you can google his gofundme page. Rep. Jim Jordan says they've caught him lying 4 times and it's in the report that got him fired.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
16,269
1,853
126
Looks like McCabe has a gofundme for his legal defense. He know's perjury charges are forthcoming. So, if anyone is sympathetic and want to help the bloke out, you can google his gofundme page. Rep. Jim Jordan says they've caught him lying 4 times and it's in the report that got him fired.

Well, I can admit that possibility exists in the sieve of all things that could happen. If McCabe did those things, it simply complicates the process of objectively discovering Trump's treasonous actions -- which are also in the sieve of possibilities.
There are just a lot more evidentiary artifacts and events occurring over a span of years to make Trump's possible crimes more likely, even if McCabe's seem no less so.