(03-17-2018 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We need an investigation, so that these questions are cleared up. Next special counsel in line, front and center.

I’m just hoping they release the report. Trump’s giddy response on Twitter was a bit much.

Why would they release the report? Is that SOP when an agent is fired?

Seriously, though, there is so much rotten or questionable in the FBI’s behavior that an investigation is called for.

They have already done one - that is why I think releasing the DOJ’s findings would be good. And I have no idea if that is SOP - that’s why I said I hope.

(03-17-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We need an investigation, so that these questions are cleared up. Next special counsel in line, front and center.

I’m just hoping they release the report. Trump’s giddy response on Twitter was a bit much.

Why would they release the report? Is that SOP when an agent is fired?

Seriously, though, there is so much rotten or questionable in the FBI’s behavior that an investigation is called for.

They have already done one - that is why I think releasing the DOJ’s findings would be good. And I have no idea if that is SOP - that’s why I said I hope.

The IG cannot interrogate people who are not in the FBI or who have left service, so more than an IG investigation is need. We need to know what connections, if any, exist between the Democratic Party and personnel in the FBI/DOJ that may have been misused in a perversion of Justice. The FBI cannot investigate itself. Plenty of suspicious things beyond McCabe. IOW, lots of smoke.

(03-17-2018 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We need an investigation, so that these questions are cleared up. Next special counsel in line, front and center.

I’m just hoping they release the report. Trump’s giddy response on Twitter was a bit much.

Why would they release the report? Is that SOP when an agent is fired?

Seriously, though, there is so much rotten or questionable in the FBI’s behavior that an investigation is called for.

They have already done one - that is why I think releasing the DOJ’s findings would be good. And I have no idea if that is SOP - that’s why I said I hope.

The IG cannot interrogate people who are not in the FBI or who have left service, so more than an IG investigation is need. We need to know what connections, if any, exist between the Democratic Party and personnel in the FBI/DOJ that may have been misused in a perversion of Justice. The FBI cannot investigate itself. Plenty of suspicious things beyond McCabe. IOW, lots of smoke.

Wait, there is something in this firing that connects McCabe to the DNC? I thought this was for lack of candor about authorized conversations between FBI officials and the press.

(03-17-2018 12:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m just hoping they release the report. Trump’s giddy response on Twitter was a bit much.

Why would they release the report? Is that SOP when an agent is fired?

Seriously, though, there is so much rotten or questionable in the FBI’s behavior that an investigation is called for.

They have already done one - that is why I think releasing the DOJ’s findings would be good. And I have no idea if that is SOP - that’s why I said I hope.

The IG cannot interrogate people who are not in the FBI or who have left service, so more than an IG investigation is need. We need to know what connections, if any, exist between the Democratic Party and personnel in the FBI/DOJ that may have been misused in a perversion of Justice. The FBI cannot investigate itself. Plenty of suspicious things beyond McCabe. IOW, lots of smoke.

Wait, there is something in this firing that connects McCabe to the DNC? I thought this was for lack of candor about authorized conversations between FBI officials and the press.

Like the trump investigation, it is not laid out so neatly. But we have the Strock emails about the meeting in inAndy’s office, we have the change by him in Comey’s wording wording about Hillary, we have the wife’s donation, we have the use of the DNS paid for dossier, we have all sort os suspicious connections between the FBI and either proHillary or antiTrump actions that should not be a part of the FBI, and voila, a room full of smoke.

You believe where there is smoke, there should be an investigation, don’t you?

(03-17-2018 12:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 12:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why would they release the report? Is that SOP when an agent is fired?

Seriously, though, there is so much rotten or questionable in the FBI’s behavior that an investigation is called for.

They have already done one - that is why I think releasing the DOJ’s findings would be good. And I have no idea if that is SOP - that’s why I said I hope.

The IG cannot interrogate people who are not in the FBI or who have left service, so more than an IG investigation is need. We need to know what connections, if any, exist between the Democratic Party and personnel in the FBI/DOJ that may have been misused in a perversion of Justice. The FBI cannot investigate itself. Plenty of suspicious things beyond McCabe. IOW, lots of smoke.

Wait, there is something in this firing that connects McCabe to the DNC? I thought this was for lack of candor about authorized conversations between FBI officials and the press.

Like the trump investigation, it is not laid out so neatly. But we have the Strock emails about the meeting in inAndy’s office, we have the change by him in Comey’s wording wording about Hillary, we have the wife’s donation, we have the use of the DNS paid for dossier, we have all sort os suspicious connections between the FBI and either proHillary or antiTrump actions that should not be a part of the FBI, and voila, a room full of smoke.

You believe where there is smoke, there should be an investigation, don’t you?

I’ve said multiple times I would support an investigation into the dossier. With respect to the FBI, I don’t see smoke and have stated why multiple times - too many actions that went against Clinton to suggest there was a concerted effort to help her. Plus, since when has the FBI become a bastion of liberals? That’s kind of an out there suggestion, as they have historically been known to be rather conservative.

(03-17-2018 04:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 12:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 12:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They have already done one - that is why I think releasing the DOJ’s findings would be good. And I have no idea if that is SOP - that’s why I said I hope.

The IG cannot interrogate people who are not in the FBI or who have left service, so more than an IG investigation is need. We need to know what connections, if any, exist between the Democratic Party and personnel in the FBI/DOJ that may have been misused in a perversion of Justice. The FBI cannot investigate itself. Plenty of suspicious things beyond McCabe. IOW, lots of smoke.

Wait, there is something in this firing that connects McCabe to the DNC? I thought this was for lack of candor about authorized conversations between FBI officials and the press.

Like the trump investigation, it is not laid out so neatly. But we have the Strock emails about the meeting in inAndy’s office, we have the change by him in Comey’s wording wording about Hillary, we have the wife’s donation, we have the use of the DNS paid for dossier, we have all sort os suspicious connections between the FBI and either proHillary or antiTrump actions that should not be a part of the FBI, and voila, a room full of smoke.

You believe where there is smoke, there should be an investigation, don’t you?

I’ve said multiple times I would support an investigation into the dossier. With respect to the FBI, I don’t see smoke and have stated why multiple times - too many actions that went against Clinton to suggest there was a concerted effort to help her. Plus, since when has the FBI become a bastion of liberals? That’s kind of an out there suggestion, as they have historically been known to be rather conservative.

Doesn't need to be a bastion, however that is defined. But the actions of a dozen or so at the top are suspicious. Doesn't even have to be liberals. A lot on nonliberals do not like Trump - look at all the never Trumpers in the GOP. I don't care if all the guilty are GOPers - a lot of actions add up to bias.

1. The Strohk-Page emails, specialy the one about Andy's office
2. the tarmac meeting by Loretta Lynch. who believes it was about grandchildren?
3. The editing of Comey's statement from negligent to extremely careless - by McCabe
4. leaks to the press by Comey and McCabe - illegal enough to get McCabe fired.
5. Mccabe's wife's campaign contribution
6. The use of the dossier - bought and paid for by the DNC -to obtain FISA warrants
7. Possible illegal discussions with the FISA judge

There are high ranking officials overstepping their authority - wonder who doesn't want them prosecuted and why?

This is is not meant to be a complete list - just a sampling. hard to believe you see no smoke here.

Investigating the dossier is like searching one room of a house. It is a piece of the puzzle, not the puzzle.

Nobody is trying trying to say the FBI/DOJ is top to bottom corrupt. It appears to be just a small cabal at the top. But how will we know without an investigation?

And who should do that investigation? The FBI cannot investigate itself. The IG can only work with active FBI- not retired or fired agents or with other agencies like the State Department or the Clinton Campaign. This needs the scope and reach of a special counsel.

Again, to repeat a mantra we have heard in the Trump investigation, if they have done nothing wrong they have nothing to fear.

If you want to investigate all of that, I wouldn’t try and shut anything down. I don’t see as much smoke as you do, but I agree that these people have nothing to hide, outside of the Lynch meeting (a DOJ, not FBI issue). Even if there wasn’t anything done that was dirty, the optics were so bad that someone deserves a slap on the wrist.

I think there is enough information out there about both Comey’s and McCabe’s character that I don’t think they all of a sudden became radicalized against Trump, and as mentioned numerous times, they both did things that were detrimental to Clinton (Comey may have even cost her an election!).

Also, McCabe’s “leaks” were not what go him fired - reportedly it was his discussion about conversations he authorized and the lack of candor about those authorizations that got him fired. He wasn’t fire for leaking.

I think what we are seeing can be summarized briefly. They are ALL crooks. Every single one of them.

Basically, when you are inside the Beltway you get the notion that the laws that apply to everybody else don’t apply to you. So they may not be criminals so much as delusional.

Collusion?

(03-17-2018 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you want to investigate all of that, I wouldn’t try and shut anything down. I don’t see as much smoke as you do, but I agree that these people have nothing to hide, outside of the Lynch meeting (a DOJ, not FBI issue). Even if there wasn’t anything done that was dirty, the optics were so bad that someone deserves a slap on the wrist.

I think there is enough information out there about both Comey’s and McCabe’s character that I don’t think they all of a sudden became radicalized against Trump, and as mentioned numerous times, they both did things that were detrimental to Clinton (Comey may have even cost her an election!).

Also, McCabe’s “leaks” were not what go him fired - reportedly it was his discussion about conversations he authorized and the lack of candor about those authorizations that got him fired. He wasn’t fire for leaking.

Now, bad optics are not what was done wrong/illegally.

They say you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

All of a sudden? You mean they were for him before they were against him? That would be a mystery. You know the best way to clear up a mystery, right? An investigation.

I think some of these people think the same way as the Resistance - he is unqualified, he will be/is a disaster, and therefore, get him out by any means possible. Why does that seem like a stretch to you, given the evidence we already have?

But a second witch hunt investigation will surely set things straight. McCabe, Page, et al will be vindicated and all will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom - as soon as we have a new President.

BTW, has a witch hunt ever failed to find witches? Therefore every single one of them was justified.

One thing I never understood is: who on earth thought it was proper to have, as one of the senior agents involved in investigating a top-ranking party politician, an agent whose spouse is a politician in the same party?

The FBI's motto used to be Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity. Among the senior ranks, it's not clear which of those terms, if any, still apply.

(03-18-2018 12:37 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  One thing I never understood is: who on earth thought it was proper to have, as one of the senior agents involved in investigating a top-ranking party politician, an agent whose spouse is a politician in the same party?

The FBI's motto used to be Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity. Among the senior ranks, it's not clear which of those terms, if any, still apply.

His wife wasn’t a politician - she was asked to run for the spot. When she was asked, McCabe recused himself from Virginia related cases and was not advised to recuse himself from the Clinton case.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.busines...ils-2018-1

On a side note, how far down the rabbit hole do we want to go about dictating what government employees can/can’t do based on the political leanings/activities of them or their spouses?

(03-18-2018 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 12:37 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  One thing I never understood is: who on earth thought it was proper to have, as one of the senior agents involved in investigating a top-ranking party politician, an agent whose spouse is a politician in the same party?
The FBI's motto used to be Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity. Among the senior ranks, it's not clear which of those terms, if any, still apply.

His wife wasn’t a politician - she was asked to run for the spot. When she was asked, McCabe recused himself from Virginia related cases and was not advised to recuse himself from the Clinton case.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.busines...ils-2018-1
On a side note, how far down the rabbit hole do we want to go about dictating what government employees can/can’t do based on the political leanings/activities of them or their spouses?

It seems to me that mere party affiliation is not sufficient to provoke recusal. Otherwise we would never have anybody able to investigate anything. I think when your spouse is an active candidate, that may be sufficient to provoke recusal. When your spouse's candidacy is being bankrolled by the object of the investigation, there would seem to be a clear duty to recuse. Since here the bankrolling went through intermediary McAuliffe, the waters are a bit muddier, but I would come down on the side of recusal.

(03-18-2018 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 12:37 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  One thing I never understood is: who on earth thought it was proper to have, as one of the senior agents involved in investigating a top-ranking party politician, an agent whose spouse is a politician in the same party?

The FBI's motto used to be Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity. Among the senior ranks, it's not clear which of those terms, if any, still apply.

His wife wasn’t a politician - she was asked to run for the spot. When she was asked, McCabe recused himself from Virginia related cases and was not advised to recuse himself from the Clinton case.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.busines...ils-2018-1

On a side note, how far down the rabbit hole do we want to go about dictating what government employees can/can’t do based on the political leanings/activities of them or their spouses?

I was asked to run once. I refused the honor. You can say "no". But had I accepted, at that point I would have been a politician(one reason I said no), and my wife would have been married to a politician(another reason).

It's pretty easy - don't use your post to help/hurt any faction. Just apply the law in an unbiased manner. Be apolitical in your professional life. Avoid the appearance of evil.

But it still is a whiff of smoke which, when added to all the other puffs, indicates a fire of some sort was happening. Let's face it, a $100 campaign contribution from Mrs. Joanne Harris is of no importance, but a half million from Terry McAuliffe? That's a horse of a very different color.

I am guessing she lost.

(03-18-2018 09:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 12:37 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  One thing I never understood is: who on earth thought it was proper to have, as one of the senior agents involved in investigating a top-ranking party politician, an agent whose spouse is a politician in the same party?
The FBI's motto used to be Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity. Among the senior ranks, it's not clear which of those terms, if any, still apply.

His wife wasn’t a politician - she was asked to run for the spot. When she was asked, McCabe recused himself from Virginia related cases and was not advised to recuse himself from the Clinton case.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.busines...ils-2018-1
On a side note, how far down the rabbit hole do we want to go about dictating what government employees can/can’t do based on the political leanings/activities of them or their spouses?

It seems to me that mere party affiliation is not sufficient to provoke recusal. Otherwise we would never have anybody able to investigate anything. I think when your spouse is an active candidate, that may be sufficient to provoke recusal. When your spouse's candidacy is being bankrolled by the object of the investigation, there would seem to be a clear duty to recuse. Since here the bankrolling went through intermediary McAuliffe, the waters are a bit muddier, but I would come down on the side of recusal.

She wasn’t an active candidate when he was assigned. She lost before he wasn’t put on the case.

(03-18-2018 09:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Since here the bankrolling went through intermediary McAuliffe, the waters are a bit muddier, but I would come down on the side of recusal.

Going through intermediaries to hide the source of the money? Isn't that the definition of money laundering?

It worked in the case of the dossier, too.

(03-18-2018 09:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  She wasn’t an active candidate when he was assigned. She lost before he wasn’t put on the case.

Neither of which would go to the substance of the recusal issue.

That's like saying, I know the judge represented me for 20 years before going to the bench, but that's no reason why he should have to recuse himself from this case.

A comment by a friend just caused me to think of an analogy. I've often said that I'm glad Todd Graham came to Rice for 12 months, and I'm glad he didn't stay for 13. And recently I've been saying that I liked Trump's first year, but I'm not so sure I'm going to like his second. Maybe Donald Trump and Todd Graham are similar in some respects. Both tend to be bulls in China shops. Sometimes you need that for a while, and I tend to think both situations needed that. But too much of that is not good.

The timing doesnt matter when someone pumps a fing half million into a campaign. McCabe should have flat out recused himself from the Clinton investigation of any fing sort when someone with those close ties to the Clintons had previously given that assistance. Doesn't matter that his wifes run had ended, would end, or contemporaneously ended.

But I do love the jig people are trying to dance around the timing.

At the very least the optics are ******. There is a reason why both lawyer, judge, and Feeb guidelines state that the standard is the *appearance* is paramount.

Had a talk with my US Attorney office friend. He stated that *anyone* in an investigation of his with this set of facts would be **** canned for that matter by him in a heartbeat.

(03-18-2018 09:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 09:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  She wasn’t an active candidate when he was assigned. She lost before he wasn’t put on the case.

Neither of which would go to the substance of the recusal issue.

That's like saying, I know the judge represented me for 20 years before going to the bench, but that's no reason why he should have to recuse himself from this case.

I commented on how active she was because you made the comment about being an actively candidate. Just wanted to State she wasn’t. As you said, the waters were muddier because of that.

I agree that, in hindsight especially, it would have been better to recuse himself. But McCabe went and did the right thing by immediately bringing up the issue as soon as his wife decided to run.