FBI deputy director McCabe steps down

Ironically, even if you found that statement cause for impeachment, which seems unlikely, he can craft his defense from the same statement. He was acting in good faith that everything to date had shown the Russia narrative was a "made-up story". He was already told before the firing that he was not personally being investigated, so it was clearly not to end an investigation into himself. Moreover, he has the constitutional power to fire for any reason, and a waste of resources would seem to fit. Further, he could have said, " stop investigating Flynn/Russia/Whatever. I'm just going to pardon him." That would also be within the powers allotted to him.

So you're really for trying to unseat an elected president for using powers delegated to him? Sounds like a coup. Maybe next we should indict Obama for refusing to empower Horowitz for years. That'd get the same reaction, right? He was "obstructing justice" by not allowing Horowitz to carry out the duties of his office, no? Didn't his actions align with a potential motivation of protecting the State Dept, for example? Should the Republicans voted to impeach?

What about when Obama stopped federal agencies from illegal immigration enforcement according to the laws of the land? Was that discretionary power assigned to him by the Constitution or was it impeachable?

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Can't wait for the backpedaling here now that trump is saying he had nothing to do with this.
Because if he did it's another check on the impeachment list.
So guys??? Changing your tune yet?

Are yous aying that the President exercising his rights within the frame of his office can somehow be an impeachable offense?

Virtually anything can be an impeachable offense.

The Judicial Branch does not have authority under separation of powers to define what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" leaving it entirely to Congress. This was proved out with Nixon.

Gerald Ford once said " "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

Pres. Clinton was impeached for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury and Abuse of Power.

Silly, i ask this in all honesty...do you know what "impeachment" means?

I need to ask you the same thing.

Well, let me state it this way then: do you believe that impeachment against Trump for firing someone his office has sole discretion to hire/fire would be accepted by the people?

At that point, would you not have a conflict of powers that needs resolution?

He has the sole discretion to hire or fire, but he is still subject to consequences.
We do not have kings.
The people, through their representatives in congress, may remove a sitting President from office.
He would not be impeached for firing Comey, he would be impeached for the reason he fired Comey.

You seem to be missing that plain distinction.

Proper authority does not "trump" the law. We ceased that framework in 1776.

There's a basic problem: The investigation continued without Comey. It wasn't obstructed.

The charge of Obstructing Justice does not require success.
Logically if anyone charged with obstructing justice was successful in their efforts, then no one would ever be charged with obstructing justice....because they would have successfully thwarted those charges.

Been sick for a few days and haven't caught up...

couple of things...


1. Being demoted does not affect your retirement....it's based off your highest three years of pay....not the pay you are at when you retire.

2. Leave can carried over past the maximum allowed by OPM under certain circumstances..... like tactical operators, who due to mission requirements, are unable to use their leave. A waiver has to be requested and granted for this to happen.

McCabe wouldn't qualify to have carry over leave.

He may have had 240 at the end of the fiscal year plus what he has accrued since that point. Do the math and see if it adds up.

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Not so fast... Preservation request for McCabes communications.

Who is that letter from!?

I love everything about the tone of whoever wrote that!

Sorry - Goodlatte.

Nick Short
🇺🇸
‏Verified account @PoliticalShort
7h7 hours ago

Goodlatte letter to FBI Dir. Wray reminding him to preserve all of McCabe's docs/comms pertaining to the FBI's handling of events surrounding the 2016 election as well as docs/comms from his involvement in the pre-Special Counsel Russia investigation. judiciary.house.gov... CAMPAIGN_2018_01_29&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_df41eba8fd-5ddb7f8621- …

a reply to: RickinVa

That is 6 weeks. Assuming it is consumed at 40 hrs/week.

Plus whatever the January accrual would be. Maybe 2 more days...im not familiar with the policy there.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Can't wait for the backpedaling here now that trump is saying he had nothing to do with this.
Because if he did it's another check on the impeachment list.
So guys??? Changing your tune yet?

Are yous aying that the President exercising his rights within the frame of his office can somehow be an impeachable offense?

Virtually anything can be an impeachable offense.

The Judicial Branch does not have authority under separation of powers to define what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" leaving it entirely to Congress. This was proved out with Nixon.

Gerald Ford once said " "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

Pres. Clinton was impeached for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury and Abuse of Power.

Silly, i ask this in all honesty...do you know what "impeachment" means?

I need to ask you the same thing.

Well, let me state it this way then: do you believe that impeachment against Trump for firing someone his office has sole discretion to hire/fire would be accepted by the people?

At that point, would you not have a conflict of powers that needs resolution?

He has the sole discretion to hire or fire, but he is still subject to consequences.
We do not have kings.
The people, through their representatives in congress, may remove a sitting President from office.
He would not be impeached for firing Comey, he would be impeached for the reason he fired Comey.

You seem to be missing that plain distinction.

Proper authority does not "trump" the law. We ceased that framework in 1776.

There's a basic problem: The investigation continued without Comey. It wasn't obstructed.

The charge of Obstructing Justice does not require success.
Logically if anyone charged with obstructing justice was successful in their efforts, then no one would ever be charged with obstructing justice....because they would have successfully thwarted those charges.

It does require a nefarious intent though.

Firing Comey was not obstruction of justice. Comey is not the lead investigator on the case and McCabe testified in front of the committee that Comeys termination had no impact on the investigations.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Definitions -
(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section—
(1) the term “official proceeding” means—
(A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury;
(B) a proceeding before the Congress;
(C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or
(D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;
(2) the term “physical force” means physical action against another, and includes confinement;
(3) the term “misleading conduct” means—
(A) knowingly making a false statement;
(B) intentionally omitting information from a statement and thereby causing a portion of such statement to be misleading, or intentionally concealing a material fact, and thereby creating a false impression by such statement;
(C) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a writing or recording that is false, forged, altered, or otherwise lacking in authenticity;
(D) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a sample, specimen, map, photograph, boundary mark, or other object that is misleading in a material respect; or
(E) knowingly using a trick, scheme, or device with intent to mislead;
(4) the term “law enforcement officer” means an officer or employee of the Federal Government, or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant—
(A) authorized under law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of an offense; or
(B) serving as a probation or pretrial services officer under this title;
(5) the term “bodily injury” means—
(A) a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, or disfigurement;
(B) physical pain;
(C) illness;
(D) impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or
(E) any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary; and
(6) the term “corruptly persuades” does not include conduct which would be misleading conduct but for a lack of a state of mind.
(b) As used in section 1505, the term “corruptly” means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.
(c) This chapter does not prohibit or punish the providing of lawful, bona fide, legal representation services in connection with or anticipation of an official proceeding.

Finally exercising constitutional authority is not obstruction.

a reply to: Xcathdra

This is explained ad nauseum and its brushed off and ignored.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: RickinVa

That is 6 weeks. Assuming it is consumed at 40 hrs/week.

Plus whatever the January accrual would be. Maybe 2 more days...im not familiar with the policy there.

Based on leaks right now it looks like McCabe will most likely be fired and prosecuted.

Directing FBI agents to change their 302 forms, tampering with evidence, obstruction etc are some of the things supposedly contained in the IG report.



ETA -

Mark Hemingway Verified account @Heminator 2h2 hours ago

Hoo boy. DOJ IG probe reportedly focused on why McCabe refused to investigate a batch of Clinton emails.

Whacked By WEINER? McCabe Under Investigation For Stalling Probe Into Clinton Emails Found On Laptop

Deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe's sudden departure remains a mystery, but the clues seem to lead back to one man: Anthony Weiner.

According to a report in The Washington Post, McCabe was the subject of an internal investigation attempting to find out why he stalled nearly three weeks before investigating a set of potentially classified emails found on a laptop shared by disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner, and his wife, Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

The inspector general Michael E. Horowitz, WaPo reports, has been asking witnesses "why FBI leadership seemed unwilling to move forward on the examination of emails found on the laptop," choosing to wait until nearly the end of October to comb through for potentially damning evidence that then-candidate Clinton had mishandled classified information, sending it to Abedin to print, even if Abedin wasn't cleared to see the messages.

Horowitz seems concerned that McCabe and others were attempting to stall the investigation until after the presidential election had concluded, ostensibly to help Clinton avoid any negative press.

click link for article

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Can't wait for the backpedaling here now that trump is saying he had nothing to do with this.
Because if he did it's another check on the impeachment list.
So guys??? Changing your tune yet?

Are yous aying that the President exercising his rights within the frame of his office can somehow be an impeachable offense?

Virtually anything can be an impeachable offense.

The Judicial Branch does not have authority under separation of powers to define what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" leaving it entirely to Congress. This was proved out with Nixon.

Gerald Ford once said " "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

Pres. Clinton was impeached for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury and Abuse of Power.

Silly, i ask this in all honesty...do you know what "impeachment" means?

I need to ask you the same thing.

Well, let me state it this way then: do you believe that impeachment against Trump for firing someone his office has sole discretion to hire/fire would be accepted by the people?

At that point, would you not have a conflict of powers that needs resolution?

He has the sole discretion to hire or fire, but he is still subject to consequences.
We do not have kings.
The people, through their representatives in congress, may remove a sitting President from office.
He would not be impeached for firing Comey, he would be impeached for the reason he fired Comey.

You seem to be missing that plain distinction.

Proper authority does not "trump" the law. We ceased that framework in 1776.

There's a basic problem: The investigation continued without Comey. It wasn't obstructed.

The charge of Obstructing Justice does not require success.
Logically if anyone charged with obstructing justice was successful in their efforts, then no one would ever be charged with obstructing justice....because they would have successfully thwarted those charges.

It does require a nefarious intent though.

Check.

Firing Comey was not obstruction of justice.

Oh...thanks for clearing that up. A boatload of legal scholars seem to have gotten it wrong, perhaps you can email them.

Finally exercising constitutional authority is not obstruction.

He has constitutional authority to fire people in Justice.
He does not have constitutional authority to obstruct justice.
The Congress has constitutional authority to remove him from office for a wide variety of reasons including obstruction of justice and abuse of power.

I don't believe you were ever involved in Law Enforcement, if so I am just grateful I never visited whatever town was desperate enough to let you play cop.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: RickinVa

That is 6 weeks. Assuming it is consumed at 40 hrs/week.

Plus whatever the January accrual would be. Maybe 2 more days...im not familiar with the policy there.

Based on leaks right now it looks like McCabe will most likely be fired and prosecuted.

Based on public statements by the GOP Leader of the House, the memo appears to be turd.

Ryan urges Republicans to take caution with FBI memo
www.politico.com...

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Oh...thanks for clearing that up. A boatload of legal scholars seem to have gotten it wrong, perhaps you can email them.

A boatload of legal scholars have gotten it wrong. Good of you to understand that fact.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
He has constitutional authority to fire people in Justice.

Correct

originally posted by: soberbacchus
He does not have constitutional authority to obstruct justice.

and no obstruction occurred. See above for the reason why.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
The Congress has constitutional authority to remove him from office for a wide variety of reasons including obstruction of justice and abuse of power.

Neither of which occurred. Secondly impeachment is not a legal question but a political one.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
I don't believe you were ever involved in Law Enforcement, if so I am just grateful I never visited whatever town was desperate enough to let you play cop.

And just like the boatload of legal scholars you would be wrong as well.

I provided you a link to obstruction. Feel free to view it and tel us which law he violated and why.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Xcathdra

This is explained ad nauseum and its brushed off and ignored.

The legal definition of obstruction of justice is only relevant if there is a criminal referral for indictment.

It is not relevant for a referral to congress to impeach.
The Supreme Court has clearly ruled on that fact.

As it stands Special Counsel Mueller is gathering evidence to determine whether or not Trump is Guilty of Obstruction of Justice
And if so, does the evidence warrant
a Criminal Referral
or a Referral to Congress for impeachment proceedings.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: alphabetaone

*yawn

I will lecture you any time I choose and will correct your mistakes anytime you make one.

As for the law enforcement comment I absolutely agree with what Congress is doing. In case you arent aware Congress is doing their constitutional duty by exercising oversight of the DOJ and FBI. A constitutional checks and balance to take it one step further.

As i have seen in many threads on this site people often times bitch about law enforcement and what they do. Now we have you, who has bitched in other threads against law enforcement actions, all of a sudden take a holier than thou approach and find oversight of the FBI and DOJ as some misperceived threat that should never occur.

Guess what - The DOJ and FBI broke several laws. They violated several individuals constitutional rights. They MUST be held accountable as our system demands. The political leadership in place that allowed this to occur must be held accountable. The politicians who broke the law must be held accountable.

If we flaunt our own laws and fail to prosecute simply because someone lost an election then going after the FBI / DOJ and anyone else involved is pointless. At that point what have we learned? What does that conclusion do to this country.

Since you are lost - the purpose of law enforcement is to investigate possible violations of the law. We are to go where the evidence takes us, regardless if we like the outcome or not. That is how the system MUST work.

The last 8 years for Obama and last few decades for Clintons have seen a 2 tier justice system. Maybe you can point out in the Constitution where that is spelled out because over all my years in school and college and law enforcement and dealing with the criminal justice system and legal system as a whole I have never found it. The FBI / DOJ / DNC and Clinton campaign created a false scenario using legal firms and 3rd party entities to fabricate a fake dossier by russians then turned around and used that dossier to obtain a FISA warrant to try and provide legal cover for their illegal surveillance.

Let me spell this out for you because I still dont think you adequately grasp what occurred. Factions of our government conspired with a candidate in order to sway an election and then continued to conspire when they lost for the sole purpose of removing a lawfully elected President.

If you are still not able to grasp this - Those factions conspired together to remove a duly elected President. Those factions conspired together to remove the President from power.

Those factions were caught engaging in a coup in the United states.

So you are damn right the FBI / DOJ and anyone else involved MUST be investigated and if evidence supports it, charged and tried for their crimes.

If you cant comprehend that then why are you in this thread throwing a tantrum while trying to protect the accused where the evidence is overwhelming? If you cant comprehend that then I am worried for you as it says you are wiling to allow behavior based solely on whether you like some or you dont. It doesn't say a lot about our system if its allowed and it sadly says a whole hell of a lot about your ethics if you accept it because you dislike Trump or his policies.

Honestly I dont want your good wishes. We never got along and i doubt we ever will. I imagine it has to do with how we each see things based on our experiences. Unlike you and others, if there was evidence Trump broke the law I would be demanding an investigation and charges if evidence supported it.

Thats the difference between us. I am willing to see things objectively based on my experience and training where as you and some others seem locked into ideology and at the basic level, hatred for Trump. You dont like him, you dont like the fact he won and your willing to ignore everything you claim to hold dear because you think he might get removed in a coup.

Again, as you stated, I will answer you and challenge you and call you out anytime I see fit. If you dont like it well I dont really care. You posted your position and I responded. That is the way this works, unlike how some wish it would go, which is you posting then bitching anytime someone posts a response that differs from yours. The Democrats have been pulling that # for the last 9 years now and how has it worked out for them? If you dont know ask thei8r constituents, the dreamers and illegals, who apparently are their base now.

You want to come back to the topic now are is there some more dramas still built up you need to release?

Let me help bring it back -
Yes the FBI needs to be investigated.
Yes the DOJ needs to be investigated.
Yes politicians need to be investigated.
Yes it is not only legal to investigate but constitutionally required that they do.

Any questions?

Xcathdra you pretty much nailed every single point that could have possibly been needed and I would like to thank you for holding it down in this thread with such dilligence.

We have seen things differently on a few topics, but I have great respect for you and your opinion. You are consistently pointing out the criminality that we see being exposed and your measured tone and to the point style is commendable!

Also thank you for linking the rest of that letter!

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Based on public statements by the GOP Leader of the House, the memo appears to be turd.

Ryan urges Republicans to take caution with FBI memo
www.politico.com...

Funny.. can you quote where he said it was a turd?

Secondly the info I posted is not from the memo but from the OIG report. 2 completely different things.

a reply to: soberbacchus

His point, as well as mine, is exercising constitutional authority is not obstruction.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

His point, as well as mine, is exercising constitutional authority is not obstruction.

My point, as well as the rest of the sane worlds, is that his constitutional authority is bound by law.

He can not fire a cabinet member for refusing to perform sexual acts on him.

You guys keep desperately conflating his authority to fire someone with an authority to act criminally.

Sure he can fire Comey, but he can not obstruct justice. If his intent was to impede the investigation that was Obstruction of Justice.

As far as "intent"...here is just one piece of evidence amongst many:

For example, according to the New York Times, Mueller has an early draft of a letter drafted by Trump aide Stephen Miller at Trump’s direction offering an unvarnished view of Trump’s thinking regarding the firing of Comey.

The Times and Post also reported that McGahn expressed concerns to Trump about the letter, and the Times noted that McGahn gave Miller a marked-up copy of the letter, highlighting sections that he wanted removed.

www.politico.com...

I wonder what that letter says?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

His point, as well as mine, is exercising constitutional authority is not obstruction.

Never can be obstruction, for a sitting POTUS to fire whomever in the gov for any cause, or we have no Republic. He is the Elected Head of the US gov, period.

ETA

"its good to be the king"

but we elect a pres

originally posted by: soberbacchus
My point, as well as the rest of the sane worlds, is that his constitutional authority is bound by law.

And in this case he has constitutional authority to fire his FBI director. They serve at the pleasure of the President and he does not need a reason / cause to fire them. Even Comey stated this.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
He can not fire a cabinet member for refusing to perform sexual acts on him.

Please cite your source where Trump ordered Comey to perform a sex act on him.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
You guys keep desperately conflating his authority to fire someone with an authority to act criminally.

No - you keep trying to make an argument based on a hypothetical that does not apply. It is not criminal to fire the FBI director, and Comey stated this. Terminating his FBI head is not criminal nor is it obstruction. Something you seem to not be understanding. Comey was not running the FBI's investigation. McCabe testified it had no impact on that investigation.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Sure he can fire Comey, but he can not obstruct justice. If his intent was to impede the investigation that was Obstruction of Justice.

Since Comey was not running the investigation your comparison, again, is based on faulty information. When the Police Chief of a city gets fired none of the cases currently under investigation by his officers are affected. Comey is an administrator and not a field agent.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
As far as "intent"...here is just one piece of evidence amongst many:

For example, according to the New York Times, Mueller has an early draft of a letter drafted by Trump aide Stephen Miller at Trump’s direction offering an unvarnished view of Trump’s thinking regarding the firing of Comey.

The Times and Post also reported that McGahn expressed concerns to Trump about the letter, and the Times noted that McGahn gave Miller a marked-up copy of the letter, highlighting sections that he wanted removed.

www.politico.com...

I wonder what that letter says?

We should ask Rod Rosenstein since he also drafted a letter for his reasons for terminating Comey. Something you guys on the left overlook. Sessions did the same thing.

POTUS is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States. There was no obstruction by performing a constitutional power.

a reply to: elementalgrove

Wider distribution of the memo, and bam next day he is gone. FBI is wanting to clean up. After Mueller's nothing burger is served maybe we can get onto the business of country. This is a good thing.

Yeah.