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

Trump can't lose by making statements like these. If it comes down not to his liking Horowitz is an Obama guy. If it comes done on Trump's side it's despite Horowitz being an Obama guy, so it must be credible and serious. That's his Art of the Deal.

 

And they both end up winners when the IG report comes out and the second Special Counsel is appointed.

 

So McCabe IS real clear on the concept of not lying to investigators?

Such a filthy nest:

Rod Rosenstein Exonerated Hillary Clinton From Whitewater Scandal





Josh Caplan@joshdcaplan


Rush Limbaugh reminds us who Rod Rosenstein truly is: He exonerated Hillary Clinton from Whitewater scandal, then his wife represented Bill Clinton in little-known civil case

7:16 AM - Mar 22, 2018

Big League Politics reports:

Deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein’s wife Lisa Barsoomian represented then-President Bill Clinton in a 1998-99 civil case in federal court.

Rod Rosenstein worked as a Whitewater prosecutor. In this role, he was in charge of the “FBI Travel Office” case, in which it was found that the Clinton White House illegally seized FBI files from White House travel office employees, including the Clintons’ travel director.

Rosenstein interrogated Hillary Clinton on January 14, 1998, and was seen as responsible for clearing her of potential charges in the case. By that time, Rosenstein had already been picked to work for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Maryland in the Clinton administration.

LIMBAUGH: “Rod Rosenstein, his wife, represented Bill Clinton shortly after Rosenstein cleared Hillary as a prosecutor. Wait a minute. It turns out that Rosenstein worked as a Whitewater prosecutor. This guy was on the prosecution team of Whitewater, which of course found the Clintons had done nothing. Rosenstein’s wife then represented Bill Clinton shortly after Rod Rosenstein cleared Hillary from the Whitewater thing. Rosenstein’s wife is Lisa Barsoomian and she then represented then-President Bill Clinton in a 1998-1999 civil case in federal court.”

 

Deflecting to BO the peep doesn't help your case nor your credibility. Looks like McCabe has more problems now.


Wait, What? Andrew McCabe Launched an FBI Investigation Into Attorney General Sessions Because Dems Asked Him To?



It's been less than a week since former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions after a recommendation for termination from the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility.


The drama surrounding the lawful and justified firing hasn't stopped since and late Wednesday night, ABC News dropped a bombshell story alleging Sessions was under FBI investigation last year for perjury. The man leading the charge? Andrew McCabe.


Nearly a year before Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired senior FBI official Andrew McCabe for what Sessions called a "lack of candor," McCabe oversaw a federal criminal investigation into whether Sessions lacked candor when testifying before Congress about contacts with Russian operatives, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.


One source told ABC News that Sessions was not aware of the investigation when he decided to fire McCabe last Friday less than 48 hours before McCabe, a former FBI deputy director, was due to retire from government and obtain a full pension, but an attorney representing Sessions declined to confirm that.


According to the report, the investigation came after Democrat Senators requested the FBI look into contacts Sessions had with the Russians during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign and the White House transition between November 2016 and January 2017.


As Mollie Hemingway notes over at The Federalist, this story was likely leaked to ABC by team McCabe or McCabe himself in an effort to undermine Sessions in the wake of his firing. That strategy is backfiring and instead bolsters accusations the FBI is highly politicized and allowing Democrat Senators, with whom they agree, to drive criminal investigations......snip~


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ccabe-n2463651


Even you Natty should be able to figure out how the Demos politicized the FBI and DOJ. Now Team leftness will need to worry about that 2nd Special Counsel being appointed.

 

NO KIDDING! HE WAS EXPECTING SOFTBALLS LOBBED OVER THE PLATE: McCabe: I was ‘confused’ in interview with investigators.

I don'r recall McCabe showing any sympathy for Flynn.

 

DOJ Inspector General To Look At FISA Court Applications.

Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, announced he would be turning his attention to possible FISA court abuse. From Politico:

The Justice Department’s inspector general is investigating allegations that prosecutors and FBI agents misled a federal judge so they could track a Donald Trump campaign adviser with ties to Russia…

The IG announcement was prompted by allegations from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and other Republicans that federal investigators omitted key information from their October 2016 application for the warrant to monitor Page. Nunes wrote in a memo made public last month that officials failed to disclose that a private intelligence dossier they used to make their case was financed in part by Democrats.

McCarthy:

The dispute here is not about the failure to use the words “Hillary Clinton.” They could have referred to “Candidate #2.” To state that “Candidate #2” had commissioned Steele’s research would have been just as easy and every bit as appropriate as the DOJ’s reference to a “Candidate #1,” who might have “ties to Russia.” Had DOJ done the former, it would not have “unmasked” Hillary Clinton any more than Donald Trump was unmasked by DOJ’s description of him as “Candidate #1”; but it would have been being “transparent” with the FISA court. By omitting any reference to Clinton, the DOJ was being the opposite of transparent…

Schiff comically highlights this DOJ assertion as if it were his home run, when it is in fact damning: “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.” This is the vague reference that Democrats and Trump critics laughably say was adequate disclosure of the dossier’s political motivation. But why would the FBI “speculate” that a political motive was “likely” involved when, in reality, the FBI well knew that a very specific political motive was precisely involved?

There was no reason for supposition here. If the FBI had transparently disclosed that the dossier was a product of the Clinton campaign — oh, sorry, didn’t mean to unmask; if the FBI had transparently disclosed that the dossier was a product of “Candidate #2’s” campaign — then the court would have been informed about the apodictic certainty that the people behind the dossier were trying to discredit the campaign of Candidate #2’s opponent. It is disingenuous to tell a judge that something is “likely” when, in fact, it is beyond any doubt.

The bottom line here is that there is a difference between a vague indication that maybe this was politically motivated (but we’re not sure) and a forthright statement, i.e. this was oppo research paid for by the opposing candidate.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/28/doj-inspector-general-look-fisc-applications/