Liberal Forum

Andrew McCabe Hasn’t Been Indicted, a Sign That Case May Be in Jeopardy

By The Wall Street Journal

Andrew McCabe hasn’t been indicted for allegedly lying to federal investigators, according to an email from his attorney asking prosecutors to drop the probe, a sign that the government’s case against the FBI’s former No. 2 official may be in jeopardy.

The email is the latest development in days of uncertainty about whether Mr. McCabe, who drew repeated criticism from President Trump during the U.S. criminal probe into Russian election interference, would face criminal charges for alleged false statements he made as part of an internal Justice Department probe into 2016 media leaks.

A federal grand jury met this week, according to people familiar with its deliberations. The days of closed-door drama without any sign of charges could indicate that prosecutors have encountered an unexpected snafu.

In an email dated Thursday, Mr. McCabe’s attorney, Michael Bromwich, asked the U.S. Attorney in Washington, Jessie Liu, to confirm Mr. McCabe’s status, saying he had spoken to the prosecutors involved in the case, Joseph Cooney and Molly Gaston, earlier Thursday.

“At a minimum, based on our discussion with Mr. Cooney and Ms. Gaston this afternoon, it is clear that no indictment has been returned,” Mr. Bromwich wrote.

A DOJ spokeswoman declined to comment.

Mr. McCabe had been under federal criminal investigation since the Justice Department’s internal watchdog concluded last year that he misled investigators about his role in providing information in October 2016 to a Wall Street Journal reporter. Mr. McCabe has long disputed the allegations. He was fired from his job in March 2018 just a day before he was eligible to retire with full benefits.

Prosecutors had presented the case to a grand jury in Washington this past week, according to people familiar with the matter. At least 12 members of the jury—which can range from 16 to 23 people—must vote in favor of an indictment in order for it to be returned. It is extremely rare for a grand jury to decline an indictment sought by prosecutors because it only hears the government’s version of events and doesn’t require unanimity. A common joke in the legal profession is that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, if asked.

Mr. McCabe’s legal team argued that if a grand jury rejected the case, there is no way a trial jury, with a much higher burden of proof, would find the former Federal Bureau of Investigation deputy director guilty.

“If the grand jury voted not to approve charges, it did not find probable cause. Therefore, it is simply not reasonable to believe that a trial jury would find Mr. McCabe guilty of any charges employing a far more rigorous and exacting standard—beyond a reasonable doubt,” Mr. Bromwich wrote.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that the grand jury had been released Thursday with no immediate signs of an indictment.

Yes please.
Let him sue for libel, so we can see all the witnesses that the FBI ignored testify under oath.

****.

Termin8tor » 17 Sep 2019 1:14 pm » wrote:Yadda, yadda, yadda........

Did you see the Corey Lewandowski hearing today Precious?
Lewandowski confirmed that Trump had once asked him to help pressure Attorney General Jeff Sessions to publicly say that Trump was being treated unfairly and to curtail the scope of the Russia investigation.
I believe that's called obstruction.
But those of us who have read the Mueller report already knew that.

The last half hour where Lewandowski was questioned by a lawyer named Barry H. Berke was the best part.

The Republicans came off like a bunch of whiny little brats.

BTW Trump is now committing obstruction by ordering people not to testify, inventing some kind of a privilege that does not exist.

Contempt of Congress is one of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon.

Termin8tor » 18 Sep 2019 6:45 am » wrote:Uh, moonbat, Mueller determined that Trump committed zero crimes regarding Russia, so there was nothing to obstruct.

There does not have to be an underlying crime to commit obstruction.
Ask Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby.

Termin8tor » 18 Sep 2019 6:45 am » wrote:As the Attorney General of the US expressed in legal common sense, it's not obstruction of justice to limit or even end an investigation into somethingif you're innocent.
That is entirely within Trump's Constitutional authority.

You mean the AG who thinks that his job is to protect the president?
That AG?

Termin8tor » 18 Sep 2019 6:45 am » wrote:Further, Mueller alleged zero crimes regarding obstruction.

Only because he was unable to indict a sitting president.

Termin8tor » 18 Sep 2019 6:45 am » wrote:Blah, blah, blah.....

I can't read any more of your ****.

I have never seen anyone treat members of Congress with such contempt as Corey Lewandowski did yesterday. That was disgusting.

I have a yes or no question for you Precious.

Is Congress a co-equal branch of government?
Yes or no?

Do you have the guts to answer that question or will you punt?

Termin8tor » 18 Sep 2019 7:10 am » wrote:You, an ignoramus about Economics, predicted the Financial Freeze?
That's believable.

Yes I did, in March of 2008, and you know I did because you replied and said that it was not going to happen.

It didn't take much of a genius to figure out that there was a housing bubble and people who had no business getting mortgages were getting mortgages.

QUOTE (MistyBlue @ Mar 28 2008, 12:49 PM)

We are headed for an economic tsunami, and McCain's answer is to sit back and let the free market work it out.
Except I guess when some big bank fails. Then he will bail them out with our money.

Your Response:

QUOTE (RichClem @ Mar 28 2008, 12:58 PM)

We aren't on the verge of a meltdown, unless incompetent politicians pass stupid policy, which thankfully has not happened, except in small doses.

McCain has a strong economic plan, the centerpiece of which so far is to slash corporate tax rates, now among the highest in the world. He was being excessively modest when he said he doesn't know much about Economics, but at least he knows the basics; cutting taxes helps growth, and raising them hurts it.

Both Obama and Hillary are clueless on the subject, claiming their massive tax hikes will make the economy better. That's utter crap, the equivalent of proposing alchemy instead of Chemistry. Not a single school of Economics supports that ridiculous claim.

Are you denying that you said that?

Termin8tor » 18 Sep 2019 12:55 pm » wrote:

Misty » 18 Sep 2019 12:22 pm » wrote:Is Congress a co-equal branch of government?
Yes or no?
Do you have the guts to answer that question or will you punt?

Of course they're an equal branch of government, but individuals and government officials routinely defy them. Eric Holder was found in criminal content for refusing to turn over important documents over a period not of a day, but over many, many months.
Never saw you complain one single time about that.

Bush White House counsel Harriet Miers, chief of staff Josh Bolten and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove were also found in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents and testimony in the investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys.
Never saw you complain one single time about that.

I knew you couldn't answer that question without punting to the Obama administration you gaping asshole.

The Obama administration did not stonewall Congress by not allowing any oversight at all and they did not defy all subpoenas.

No one has ever stonewalled Congress the way Trump is doing.
But I don't expect a dishonest piece of **** like you to admit that.

Termin8tor » 18 Sep 2019 12:55 pm » wrote:Those Democrats are liars and con artists, and Lewandowski treated them with the respect they deserve.

Should have known that you would defend that jerk acting like an asshole.
If he had acted like that in any courtroom, his *** would be in jail right now.

Termin8tor » 18 Sep 2019 12:55 pm » wrote:How many indictments will there be?
Do you have the guts to answer that question or will you punt?

As many as Trump's corrupt Justice Dep't can get.

Termin8tor » 18 Sep 2019 12:50 pm » wrote:

Misty » 18 Sep 2019 12:22 pm » wrote:

Further, Mueller alleged zero crimes regarding obstruction.

Only because he was unable to indict a sitting president.
I can't read any more of your ****.

The Mueller Report explicitly said they weren't charging that Trump committed any crimes.
But you detest the truth being in our threads, so you'll censor my post.

You didn't read the Mueller Report you idiot.
I did, so don't tell me what's in it.

I guess you think that if you keep repeating the same lies over and over that people will eventually believe them.
Not me.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

Termin8tor » 18 Sep 2019 12:46 pm » wrote:

Misty » 18 Sep 2019 12:31 pm » wrote:

THE GAPING ASSHOLE: You, an ignoramus about Economics, predicted the Financial Freeze?
That's believable.

Yes I did, in March of 2008, and you know I did because you replied and said that it was not going to happen.
It didn't take much of a genius to figure out that there was a housing bubble and people who had no business getting mortgages were getting mortgages.

So freaking what, Dim? I knew full well there was a bubble. That was really obvious.
But you didn't predict either the Financial Freeze or the Great Recession.

What part of "we are headed for an economic tsunami" did you not understand, dotard?

All they ever do is lie, lie, lie.
In this video Kellyanne Conway says that the guns bills that have been passed by the House are just gun confiscation.

That is total ****.

https://globalnews.ca/video/5920197/whi ... nfiscation

THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMETH

That's all I'm sayin' for now.

Misty » 18 Sep 2019 4:59 pm » wrote:
What part of "we are headed for an economic tsunami" did you not understand, dotard?

Yeah, one of your lies and smears finally got lucky. Even a stropped clock is right twice a day.

Every bit as accurate as Bush being a war criminal or Karl Rove being frog marched off to prison or Bush being to blame for black mold in military barracks or the endless **** you spread.

Misty » 18 Sep 2019 10:56 pm » wrote:THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMETH

That's all I'm sayin' for now.

Another Deep State smear in desperation to head off the coming indictments.

Carried in the corrupt pro-Beltway WashPost that was a central part of the coup attempt against Trump.

Misty » 18 Sep 2019 4:52 pm » wrote:

The Mueller Report explicitly said they weren't charging that Trump committed any crimes.

But you detest the truth being in our threads, so you'll censor my post

.

You didn't read the Mueller Report you idiot.
I did, so don't tell me what's in it.

These words were in it, psycho. Obviously you only read the parts Rachel Madcow and other wackjobs quoted.

The Report said explicitly that they were not accusing Trump of committing any crimes.

I guess you think that if you keep repeating the same lies over and over that people will eventually believe them.
Not me.

As she tells every Official Democrat Talking Point Lie that's ever been told.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

That's a gross violation of longstanding Justice Dept rules and an abuse of power, psycho.

Prosecutors are not supposed to express any such thing. They either indict or don't.

Why would they violate the rules that?

And why didn't they explicitly opine what crimes Trump committed, as Barr and Rosenstein requested?

Termin8tor » 19 Sep 2019 10:25 am » wrote:It was a **** clown show and a hoax by liars, con artists and imbeciles.

Yet you support this completely lawless administration.
Why is the AG blocking the Intelligence committee from getting whistleblower info that the IG said was credible and urgent, and the DNI is required by law to turn over to them?

Once again Baghdad Barr is showing that he thinks that his job is to protect the president.
That is NOT his job.

Trump Re-Tweeted to his 64 milion followers a Tweet posted by a troll named Terrence K. Williams that showed a video of Ilhan Omar dancing on what he said was 9/11.

Except the video was shot on September 13th.





Trump praises the troll on Twitter and Re-Tweets him regularly.





Ilhan Omar's response.



And now the conspiracy theorist is whining that his Twitter account is under attack.

Termin8tor » 19 Sep 2019 10:41 am » wrote:Of course you'll attack a public figure of courage and unquestionable integrity.
While lying on behalf of the criminals.

Why is the AG blocking the Intelligence committee from getting whistleblower info that the ICIG said was credible and urgent, and that the DNI is required by law to turn over to them?

Termin8tor » 19 Sep 2019 10:48 am » wrote:

Misty » 19 Sep 2019 10:35 am » wrote:Why is the AG blocking the Intelligence committee from getting whistleblower info that the IG said was credible and urgent, and the DNI is required by law to turn over to them?

As if you know what the law is.
Why didn't the intelligence community refer Obama for this, wackjob?
Deceiving American voters to be even softer to Putin.
Obama, not Trump, was Putin's Pet.

Why can't you ever answer a question without punting to Obama?

Simply speaking, if a whistleblower working for an Intelligence Community agency wants to bring something to the attention of the congressional intelligence committees, they must write up a complaint and give it to either their agency’s inspector general or the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), specifically stating that it is an ICWPA complaint.

The ICIG then has 14 days to decide if the complaint pertains to an “urgent concern” and if it is credible.

Schiff’s letter states that in the case of this whistleblower, the ICIG determined the complaint was both credible and an “urgent concern.”
[.....]
Once the relevant inspector general makes such a determination that the complaint credibly raises an urgent concern, he forwards it to the head of the agency – in this case, the DNI.

The law then requires the DNI (or the relevant agency head) to forward the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees, along with any comments he wishes to make about the complaint, within seven days.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66211/qa-o ... ommittees/

The acting DNI did not follow the law.
Instead he consulted with the DOJ who is now blocking the complaint from going to the intel committees.

The law is called the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA).
Look it up Precious.