Andrew McCabe, a Target of Trump’s F.B.I. Scorn, Is Fired Over Candor Questions

There's a gentleman on Fox now that used to run the OPR and he says lots of agents were fired for doing the same things McCabe did while he was there. I've seen numerous former agents talking about this. The general consensus is that it was a good decision to fire him. I trust them over some biased left-wing pundits.

a reply to: xuenchenMcCabe deserves his ass handed to him. If he got payola from The Clintons for his dirty work and shady dealings, then he can kiss his pension goodbye. And he can always blackmail them for more, just hope he doesn't end up being suicide. No sympathy for the guy, he knew the people he was getting involved in. The same goes for Comey. Mueller... he's a question mark. Its hard to believe he'd be dolt enough to buy into the Russia Collusion nonsense. But he could use that as a cover to dig up really damaging stuff on Trump he'd otherwise have no access or reason to look for. OR... he could be digging up dirt on Hillary and Obama which would be there for the taking and would make him an instant hero with everything they're guilty of and the nature of their crimes. He's either a moron( believes in collusion) a corrupt and shameless stooge( ot to get Trump by any means possible) or a brilliant fox( going to take down the Clintons and Obama).

a reply to: face23785

...this new type of "democracy" that isn't really democracy, hence we need a new word for it? Republic.

Apparently it's new to you, and I'll blame our steadily declining education system for that, but the founding fathers -- and our Constitution -- were very clear that we would have a Republic and not a Democracy:

The Constitution itself, in Article IV, Section 4, declares: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”

Also noted in our Pledge of Allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...

And it was presented to the people as such. For example:

Benjamin Franklin had similar concerns of a democracy when he warned that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” After the Constitutional Convention was concluded, in 1787, a bystander inquired of Franklin: "Well, Doctor, what have we got? a Republic or a Monarchy?" Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

ETA: Source

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: face23785

...this new type of "democracy" that isn't really democracy, hence we need a new word for it? Republic.

Apparently it's new to you, and I'll blame our steadily declining education system for that, but the founding fathers -- and our Constitution -- were very clear that we would have a Republic and not a Democracy:

The Constitution itself, in Article IV, Section 4, declares: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”

Also noted in our Pledge of Allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...

And it was presented to the people as such. For example:

Benjamin Franklin had similar concerns of a democracy when he warned that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” After the Constitutional Convention was concluded, in 1787, a bystander inquired of Franklin: "Well, Doctor, what have we got? a Republic or a Monarchy?" Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

ETA: Source

It's not new to me. I think you took my post the wrong way. I'm well aware it's a republic. I was explaining to the poster I replied to that calling it "representative democracy" is a misnomer, because such a term is a contradiction. By it's very nature it's not really a democracy, hence why it's called a republic, which was a relatively new concept to most Europeans at the time. I forgot to put [sarcasm] tags on it, or I should've just typed all this out instead of the short snarky version. My bad.

a reply to: face23785

D'oh! Yeah, I missed that... so thanks for explaining -- and good point!

I'm going to chalk this up to a happy comedy of errors that actually served a great purpose. Can't have too many people understanding how significant the democracy vs republic is.

originally posted by: carewemust
Is it true that about 95 FBI employees have been terminated for "lack of candor", over the past 12 months?

More than that actually.

But the figures are not being released (yet).

The coming IG report might have more info.

Many non-employee people gone too.

It's been happening on the "QT" if you know what I mean 😉

Silence is Golden (sometimes) 😎

a reply to: Dutchowl

Some good info will be published soon that might show some proof of McCabe getting "paid" from Russian sources.

It was happening for years and they knew it 😁

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

McCabe is challenging the move in court and has lined attorney's.

Do you have a link for that? Seems to me he has a serious uphill battle in court.

TheRedneck

Fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Lawyers Up

Andrew McCabe, formerly the deputy director of the FBI, has lawyered up. Michael Bromwich of the Bromwich Group confirmed to The Daily Beast that he is representing McCabe for the purposes of the matter that led to his firing.

Last night, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that he was firing McCabe, citing “lack of candor”—a fireable offense in the FBI. McCabe immediately fired back; in a lengthy statement, he said he believed he was actually fired because of his connection to special counsel Bob Mueller’s investigation.

“This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to taint the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more generally,” McCabe said in a statement. “It is part of this Administration’s ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day.”

www.thedailybeast.com...

Plenty of other sources to be found via google.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Note how all these sources confirm he was fired for a fireable offense. What he believes he was fired for is irrelevant unless he can prove it. He does have an uphill battle in court, as does anyone who #ed up on the job but wants to claim they weren't actually fired for that but because their boss had some other unproveable reason.

It's like if you're #ing the boss's daughter, and you also show up for work late on a regular basis. If the boss fires you and says he fired you because you're always late, and you claim he just fired you because he doesn't like you #ing his daughter, you're going to lose in court. Your timecards are documentation that back up his explanation. Even if you can prove he didn't like you #ing his daughter, unless you've got him on record saying he was going to fire you for that, he still had legit grounds to fire you.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Thanks. I heard the news reports a few hours after I posted. He is indeed apparently 'lawyering up.'

TheRedneck

McCabe is going to be McJailed.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: soberbacchus

Note how all these sources confirm he was fired for a fireable offense. What he believes he was fired for is irrelevant unless he can prove it.

They don't confirm that? They explain what sessions claims. McCabe disputes it and feels confident enough to retain a former DOJ Inspector General to contest the firing in court. Should be very interesting.

What they claim he did was green-light people at the FBI to push back on a false story in the press.

Ironically, what he authorized was aimed at the Obama DOJ for not moving quickly enough to investigate the Clinton Foundation and made it clear the FBI had authority to investigate it whatever DOJ determined.

Mr. McCabe, working through the F.B.I. press office, authorized a spokesman and a bureau lawyer to speak with The Journal in order to rebut allegations that Mr. McCabe had slowed down the Clinton Foundation investigation. To the contrary, the article ultimately noted, Mr. McCabe had insisted that his agents had the authority to investigate the foundation, even if the Justice Department refused to authorize grand jury subpoenas.

www.nytimes.com...

And when you coordinate with the FBI press office and authorized spokesperson and the Bureau Lawyer about what can be told to reporters...It aint a leak and it aint dishonest.

Also this. Apparently McCabe has information to share that has not been made public.

“They have every reason to believe that I could end up being a significant witness in whatever the special counsel comes up with, and so they are trying to create this counternarrative that I am not someone who can be believed or trusted,” McCabe added

www.politico.com...

Significant Witness for the Special Counsel?

This speaks to both where Mueller is headed as well as McCabe having significant information in regards to Trump's criminal activity.

It also explains Trump's recent desperate move to make a case for firing Mueller despite the GOP in congress all going out on the news programs this weekend warning him not to.

Mueller is coming for Trump.

a reply to: soberbacchus

His statements are in conflict internally.

The FBI's OPR was advised by the IG to terminate, which they then advised Sessions of. His statement is attacking the credibility of the FBI, as it is the FBI's own mechanisms that reviewed his work and rejected him.

Unless Trump, who is reported to not even be able to get a cabinet to work for him, has managed to put OPR and Horowitz under his thumb, in which case perhaps he had a hand in the termination. But that isn't likely, and if it is it destroys a whole host of other narratives that the liberal folks hold on to, like Trump being ineffective and his own people hating him and working against him.

Its quite the pickle this puts the left's narrative in, that is for sure.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soberbacchus

His statements are in conflict internally.

The FBI's OPR was advised by the IG to terminate, which they then advised Sessions of.

Where? Link please?

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: soberbacchus

Note how all these sources confirm he was fired for a fireable offense. What he believes he was fired for is irrelevant unless he can prove it.

They don't confirm that? They explain what sessions claims. McCabe disputes it and feels confident enough to retain a former DOJ Inspector General to contest the firing in court. Should be very interesting.

What they claim he did was green-light people at the FBI to push back on a false story in the press.

Ironically, what he authorized was aimed at the Obama DOJ for not moving quickly enough to investigate the Clinton Foundation and made it clear the FBI had authority to investigate it whatever DOJ determined.

Mr. McCabe, working through the F.B.I. press office, authorized a spokesman and a bureau lawyer to speak with The Journal in order to rebut allegations that Mr. McCabe had slowed down the Clinton Foundation investigation. To the contrary, the article ultimately noted, Mr. McCabe had insisted that his agents had the authority to investigate the foundation, even if the Justice Department refused to authorize grand jury subpoenas.

www.nytimes.com...

And when you coordinate with the FBI press office and authorized spokesperson and the Bureau Lawyer about what can be told to reporters...It aint a leak and it aint dishonest.

Also this. Apparently McCabe has information to share that has not been made public.

“They have every reason to believe that I could end up being a significant witness in whatever the special counsel comes up with, and so they are trying to create this counternarrative that I am not someone who can be believed or trusted,” McCabe added

www.politico.com...

Significant Witness for the Special Counsel?

This speaks to both where Mueller is headed as well as McCabe having significant information in regards to Trump's criminal activity.

It also explains Trump's recent desperate move to make a case for firing Mueller despite the GOP in congress all going out on the news programs this weekend warning him not to.

Mueller is coming for Trump.

Yes they do. Look at the WaPo article I linked a few pages back. Even their sources tell them the firing was recommended by career agents at OPR. Sorry it doesn't fit the narrative you were sold.

ETA: And from the NY Times article you posted:

Mr. McCabe is accused in a yet-to-be-released internal report of failing to be forthcoming about a conversation he authorized between F.B.I. officials and a journalist.

It doesn't say that's what Sessions said. It's not a quote or a reference to Sessions' statement. That's what NYT is reporting.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's the real issue, isn't it?

Time after time we are told by one select group that Trump is a Russian plant that is working against Russia, a mental midget that has outsmarted every person who has tried to attack him, and an impotent buffoon who has the ability to manipulate every corner of national interest.

Sometimes I think they aren't even listening to themselves.

OK, most of the time...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Dutchowl

Some good info will be published soon that might show some proof of McCabe getting "paid" from Russian sources.

It was happening for years and they knew it 😁

YET ANOTHER reason why McCabe bailed out so quickly after his boss (Cris Wray) saw the I.G. report findings in January. If McCabe doesn't reach a deal to tell all he knows, his goose is cooked...pension or no pension.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Logic only gets in the way in certain circles. None of those theories have to jive with each other. It's just about making them feel better for the next 3 years. They think it's only until Trump gets impeached but it's for the next 3 years, maybe 7.

The firing of McCabe...reveals the depth of corruption and the proliferation of sycophants in the Trump administration.

originally posted by: Erno86
The firing of McCabe...reveals the depth of corruption and the proliferation of sycophants in the Trump administration.

Back this statement up with facts please. Otherwise ill simply believe it reveals cognitive dissonance.