FBI deputy director McCabe steps down

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Dont lecture me on national security. Especially when Mueller's team has been leaking like the titanic.

I'll lecture you on any damned thing I want to. What now?

No - you try to lecture. When you dont know what you are talking about coupled with no facts your "lecture" is anything but.

There is a difference and one day I hope you stumble across it so you know.

Yes - Democrats are in panic mode. No amount of deflection or thread derailment by you will change that fact.

Got anything else or are you at the "Cash me outside howbwo dah" portion of your post?

Threads? Derailment? Seriously, what the HELL is wrong with you?

This is far beyond threads and derailment....this about the United States of America for f_cks sake....I don't give a S_IT about threads or stars or whatever it is that you think gives rise to my intent..

You claim to be a cop and support this nonsense? I know plenty and I mean PLENTY in Law Enforcement and they all share the same sentiment, that sentiment is you don't intentionally dismantle the DOJ......look for the most part I can't stand your positions on most everything, and I will freely admit that...but can you honestly say, if you are in fact Law Enforcement, that you agree with this nonsense?

Don't answer ME because frankly after about 15 years either lurking or a member of this site, I simply don't see much more that I can add here at ATS....so like I said, don't answer me but answer yourself....as Law Enforcement do you really agree with this s_it? Good luck man, and i DONT mean that sarcastically...I truly wish you good luck.

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?

originally posted by: PolyCottonBlend
haha! and his pension was set to kick in in March, right?
do not pass go. do not collect $200.
let him eat...crumbs.

He's staying on until he gets his pension, and he announced his departure in December. He'd been with the FBI for 20 years.

originally posted by: Willtell
Trump, like an old time dictator is purging anyone who can reveal his criminality

The country is in peril.

TRUMP?? That is lame.. Well, you can pretend to be this 'silly', but your not fooling me...you are SCARED poopless I see....

originally posted by: andrewh7

originally posted by: PolyCottonBlend
haha! and his pension was set to kick in in March, right?
do not pass go. do not collect $200.
let him eat...crumbs.

He's staying on until he gets his pension, and he announced his departure in December. He'd been with the FBI for 20 years.

McCabe is still under 3 separate investigations that we know of. His departure today, from what I have seen, has nothing to do with the FISA memo. Apparently it was all based on the IG memo that Wray received. I know back in November, I think, Wray asked the OIG to speed up his investigation and the IG agreed.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Slow Clap.

Exactly right. The US left screams about dirty cops, a corrupt justice system, etc (that's why they created ACLU and BLM, after all) all day. Never did they care to distinguish that most cops are good. Yet, now that some of them are being taken out, they have this new found respect for law enforcement, and any attack on their corruption is a wholesale attack on the agency (which is what they prefer in other situations) and the entire US legal system.

If they didn't have double standards, they'd really have no standards at all.

Deadness.

McCabe is australopithecus in a world of homo'sapiens.

Just look at that mofo!!

He got punched everyday before lunch

From the video below -

Sara Carter (Circa news) was on talking about McCabe and Wray. According to her sources, and its not confirmed yet, the IG report documents incidents where McCabe asked FBI agents to make changes to their 302 forms (its what agents flll out after interviewing people). According to Carter - IF - that is true McCabe will be fired in the next few days. His resignation does not matter if the claims are true. It is also a criminal offense - obstruction of justice.

Should be interesting.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
From the video below -

Sara Carter (Circa news) was on talking about McCabe and Wray. According to her sources, and its not confirmed yet, the IG report documents incidents where McCabe asked FBI agents to make changes to their 302 forms (its what agents flll out after interviewing people). According to Carter - IF - that is true McCabe will be fired in the next few days. His resignation does not matter if the claims are true. It is also a criminal offense - obstruction of justice.

Should be interesting.

Zero Hedge is reporting the same thing. If this is true, then FBI agents are going to prison. And if it touches Mueller's probe, then not only will the probe be shut down, but the charges he's already filed will probably be withdrawn, because we can no longer trust that witness statements were recorded accurately.

It also confirms what I suspected yesterday: the FISA memo was the last straw:

Carter: What we know tonight is that FBI Director Christopher Wray went Sunday and reviewed the four-page FISA memo. The very next day, Andrew McCabe was asked to resign. Remember Sean, he was planning on resigning in March - that already came out in December. This time they asked him to go right away. You're not coming into the office. I've heard reports he didn't even come in for the morning meeting - that he didn't show up.

lol, burn it down!

originally posted by: wakeupstupid

I took months of terminal leave when leaving the military. Official dole beats retirement dole, by far. Nothing better than getting paid on vacation before you retire, except cashing it all in at the end for a phat check. So, this is not the ideal situation for McCabe. My sense is that he was forced with strong suggestions and financial incentives

Terminal can be nice in the right situation. I wanted to work til the end and cash all my leave in, but I had some medical issues I was dealing with so the terminal was nice. I'd agree this definitely wasn't ideal timing for McCabe. With his salary, all that time he was gonna cash in was probably gonna be 6 figures.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: andrewh7

originally posted by: PolyCottonBlend
haha! and his pension was set to kick in in March, right?
do not pass go. do not collect $200.
let him eat...crumbs.

He's staying on until he gets his pension, and he announced his departure in December. He'd been with the FBI for 20 years.

McCabe is still under 3 separate investigations that we know of. His departure today, from what I have seen, has nothing to do with the FISA memo. Apparently it was all based on the IG memo that Wray received. I know back in November, I think, Wray asked the OIG to speed up his investigation and the IG agreed.

Personally I'd rather the IG took his time and looked in every dark corner. Let's hope nothing was missed in the rush to get this out there faster. Republicans may have been better off letting the IG continue on his own timetable. If he finishes in the next month or two and a lot of it goes public, it's going to be off a lot of people's radar by the time November comes.

a reply to: Willtell

Peril! To your battle stations Santa Anna is here

a reply to: Scrubdog

This 7 year old boy is your president. Not mine.

If you are a US citizen, he's your President too. People need to understand this. You don't just get to pick and choose which personality in a seat of power you will accept.

Afraid of an organization that can investigate Trump?

Mueller's investigation is still ongoing after a year with no indication they have anything on Trump; the US Congress is still operating, and the House has already had a vote on impeachment... it failed. What in the world are you talking about?

TheRedneck

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.

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? Or can does it make sense that the legislators would micromanage the executive using the spectre of impeachment as both carrot and stick?

a reply to: Tempter

As a Gub'ment employee, I accumulate a specific number of hours per pay period based on years of service. I think it starts at 4 then 6 then 8 after fifteen years. Half that for sick leave. Probably varies by department? There is a limit to how much annual leave that I can have on the books at the end of the calendar year. 160 hours? I have no idea. Regulations are boring to read. If you exceed that specified amount of accrued hours, those hours become "use or lose." You take vacation or they disappear. Whatever does not exceed that use or lose limit carries over to the next year. I might be mistaken, but I think you can burn sick leave and annual leave to sort of retire early. You can also donate sick leave to people that suffer an extended illness and do not have enough to cover their time out.

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?

Let's assume for a moment that my opinion, or anyone apart from congress, on the matter is actually relevant (it's not).

If his intent was to obstruct, interfere with or otherwise end or impede the investigation into whether or not his campaign colluded with agents of Russia during the 2016 campaign season, then yes, he would be guilty of abuse of power and obstruction of justice and Presidents are not immune.

What evidence do we have of his intent?

During a televised interview the President explained his reasoning for firing Comey.

""In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, 'You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. "
www.latimes.com...

Briefly thereafter Trump told the Russian Ambassador and foreign Minister,
"“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off.” Mr. Trump added, “I'm not under investigation.”.

Add to that his demand for Loyalty from Comey before firing, his ask for the Flynn investigation to be dropped and a dozen different reported requests to his AG, DOJ, FBI and intel communities about what could be done to end the investigation?

And by all accounts the case for Trump obstructing Justice and Abusing Power has gotten much stronger than that since Comey's firing.
And lord knows what evidence Mueller has amassed.

But that's just my opinion. What Congress does under pressure is what will matter in the end.

Curious sidenote: I read today any conclusion Mueller comes to needs to be approved by Rod Rosenstein before moving forward. Either an official recommendation to Congress to Impeach or a referral to DOJ for criminal indictment. Either of which would need to be signed on off by Rosenstein to publicly advance.

If Trump is able to oust Rosenstein before Mueller concludes, he could put a more loyal person in Rosenstein's place and would have no worries of Mueller's conclusions ever being publicly shared or going anywhere. Sure, Mueller's conclusions might leak, but then again they might not and either way, no official referral for impeachment or indictment and Trump could claim he was cleared and vindicated.

Rosenstein is the next to take heavy fire.

But go ahead and continue to cheer the attack on the justice system in defense of Trump.

I honestly expect nothing less.

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.

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.

On the other hand, if the reports of McCabe ordering agents to alter (ie, falsify) witness reports is true, then that is obstruction of justice.