Did McCabe issue ‘Stand-Down’ order on FBI Clinton Email Investigation?

Multiple former FBI officials, along with a Congressional official, say that while there may have been internal squabbling over the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation at the time, there was allegedly another “stand-down” order by McCabe regarding the opening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of her private email for official government business.

McCabe’s stand-down order regarding Clinton’s private email use happened after The New York Times first reported Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules in March 2015 and before the official investigation was requested by the Justice Department toward the end of July 2015.


After The New York Times publication, the FBI Washington Field Office began investigating Clinton’s use of private emails and whether she was using her personal email account to transmit classified information. According to sources, McCabe was overseas when he became aware of the investigation and sent electronic communications voicing his displeasure with the agents.

“McCabe tried to steer people off the private email investigation and that appears to be obstruction and should be investigated,” said one former FBI official with knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the investigation. “Now if the information on the ‘stand-down’ order is obtained by the IG that could bring a whole lot of other troubles to McCabe.”

saraacarter.com...

As usual, until we see the actual sources, take it with a grain of salt.

But sara carter has been right on with most of her reporting.

If this is true, it shows that McCabe was ordering a standown of the hillary email investigation, and as the fbi agent says, this is obstruction of justice at the highest levels of the FBI.

Again, I am sure we will see calls for a special counselor from all of the people that wanted a special counsel against trump for his possible obstruction.

I am sure they will be as vocal as they were on this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yup he sure did and I know who told him to.

😎

a reply to: Grambler

What's your take on Sara Carter? Is she truly an 'investigative journalist', or a 'lap dog' for parroting Hannity's premises and delusions?

She's done some interesting work...pieces I've found myself asking, "damn, that's a lot closer to the truth than what 'they' would have you believe"...but her insistency on lapping up and spoon-feeding Hannity his talking points have dissuaded me. Again, what's your take on Carter?

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Grambler

What's your take on Sara Carter? Is she truly an 'investigative journalist', or a 'lap dog' for parroting Hannity's premises and delusions?

She's done some interesting work...pieces I've found myself asking, "damn, that's a lot closer to the truth than what 'they' would have you believe"...but her insistency on lapping up and spoon-feeding Hannity his talking points have dissuaded me. Again, what's your take on Carter?

So far I think she has been pretty spot on with her reporting.

By that I meaan much of what she has reported has been confrimed, and very little if any of what she has reprted has been shown to not be true.

That does not however mean that I will trust her based on solely anonymous sources.

As far as her connection to hannity, I am sure she would be more than happy to go on cnn, msnbc etc., but they probably dont want her.

hannity gives her a platform.

I like may of the people hannity has had on, Bonigino, Larry elder, etc.

but them or her being on hannitys show is of little relevance to me.

Does her work seem to be legitimate; so far more often than not, yes.

a reply to: Grambler

Pretty much my take.

Exception being: the partisainship that devalues the message; make no mistake, her contributions are slanted to deliver a message. But, hey, that's the world we live in.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Grambler

Pretty much my take.

Exception being: the partisainship that devalues the message; make no mistake, her contributions are slanted to deliver a message. But, hey, that's the world we live in.

Well I am sure she is partisan, as you would probably agree I dont think we have any journalist that arent.

BUt being partisan, although not prefferable, does not discredit a story for me.

Now if her partiusanship led to a history of her being wrong, then I bwould find it more relevant.

But like I said, I havent seen any evdince of her beingb totally wrong.

I would be open to seeing ot of someone presents it though.

a reply to: Grambler

Must've crossed signals: I meant the partianship of Hannity's show -- not Carter.

Again, I think she's a solid journalist. Just wanted to clear up the "partianship" piece.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Grambler

Must've crossed signals: I meant the partianship of Hannity's show -- not Carter.

Again, I think she's a solid journalist. Just wanted to clear up the "partianship" piece.

Oh yeah, he is defibitely hyper partisan.

I dont dismiss things he says, nor things maddow says or any partisan on the other side out ofnhand though.

It definitly makes me more skeptical, but not enough to refuse to look at it.

I hate when people on both sides say "Oh that article os from X, so I wont read it cause its fake news"

That is poor form in my opinion. Now if only that source is saying it, then perhaps their is reason for skepticism.

But I see people almost everyday say something must be fake because a source they dont like reported it, when often that source will link directly to a different source that eprson would trust.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Grambler

What's your take on Sara Carter? Is she truly an 'investigative journalist', or a 'lap dog' for parroting Hannity's premises and delusions?

She's done some interesting work...pieces I've found myself asking, "damn, that's a lot closer to the truth than what 'they' would have you believe"...but her insistency on lapping up and spoon-feeding Hannity his talking points have dissuaded me. Again, what's your take on Carter?

She is hardly a reporter. Reporters don't get the kind of scoops she gets. She is a mouthpiece, a drop box, a tool. The real questions, why and who?

Strange, yet another example of possible obstruction that the same people wanting a special counsel for trump on obstruction seem to just ignore

Further proof it’s not about the law, but getting trump by any means necessary