Is there a reason to deny McCabe his pension?
Re McCabe's pension: Had he been allowed to retire today, on his 50th birthday, he would have retired with full benefits which he could have started collecting immediately, plus full medical coverage. Since he was fired before his 50th birthday, he will have to wait until he is 57 to collect full pension benefits and will not receive any medical coverage.
cramer said:
Andrew McCabe - Republican
James Comey - Republican
Robert Muelller - Republican
Rod Rosenstein - Republican
All of these Republicans are not part of some liberal FBI scheme.
5:35 am March 18 -
"Why does the Mueller team have 13 hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans? Another Dem recently added...does anyone think this is fair? And yet, there is NO COLLUSION!"
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/975350027169206273
BCC said:
When someone is too dense to realize he is being ignored you are left with no other choice but to alert him to the fact.
much more likely is that the first person probably needs someone to define the word "ignore" for him because he's got a pretty peculiar way of doing it.
tjohn said:
You know, BCC, without a detailed analysis of similar cases over, say, the last 50 years, we really can't draw any conclusions about the McCabe firing. I would guess that in most cases, he would have been allowed to go quietly into the night. But the Trump Administration is attacking the institutions of the U.S. Government and is, in fact, attacking the foundations of democracy - that whole free press thing. But you seem to be OK with that.
That whole free press thing? The press continues to savage Trump and the Storm Troopers have yet to shut them down.
Harvard recently published a review of negative reporting on Trump. CNN was at 93%..
Wapo posted an article that Comey called almost entirely wrong.
The NYT posted an aarticle the day before Comey was to testify saying he would trash Trumps claim that he, Comey, had said 3 times Trump was not under investigation. The following day Comey testified, - he had said on 3 occasions trump was not under investigation.
Is Trump frequently FOS with his remarks? Of course he is and I have called him on it, in fact just recently. However, contrary to the MOL bible he is not always wrong
Stoughton said:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-firing-andrew-mccabe
I thought this was a good summary of the issues. We honestly don't know exactly what McCabe did and key decisions that went against him were made by people who are seemingly independent of the president. However, we do know that the process was rushed in a way that is very rare if not completely unique.
Of course, there's no precedent for a president relentlessly goading, in public and private, for the firing of a top FBI official because he's investigating the president. When the IG report comes out, maybe it will show that McCabe violated some of the FBI's strict rules, but even if the end result is appropriate, that doesn't excuse a perverted process.
What do you expect the IG report to say about MCCabe?
It was the IG who called for his firing
When the IG and OPR find grounds for firing, what do you suggest they do? Look the other way?
BCC said:
Do you know who the IG and OPR are and can I now count on you to dismiss them as Trump stooges.
Good question.
Stoughton said:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-firing-andrew-mccabe
Good answer.
You miss the point. The extraordinary thing is for the U.S. President to be attacking the free press the way Trump is attacking and criticizing.
BCC said:
tjohn said:
You know, BCC, without a detailed analysis of similar cases over, say, the last 50 years, we really can't draw any conclusions about the McCabe firing. I would guess that in most cases, he would have been allowed to go quietly into the night. But the Trump Administration is attacking the institutions of the U.S. Government and is, in fact, attacking the foundations of democracy - that whole free press thing. But you seem to be OK with that.
That whole free press thing? The press continues to savage Trump and the Storm Troopers have yet to shut them down.
Harvard recently published a review of negative reporting on Trump. CNN was at 93%..
Wapo posted an article that Comey called almost entirely wrong.
The NYT posted an aarticle the day before Comey was to testify saying he would trash Trumps claim that he, Comey, had said 3 times Trump was not under investigation. The following day Comey testified, - he had said on 3 occasions trump was not under investigation.
Is Trump frequently FOS with his remarks? Of course he is and I have called him on it, in fact just recently. However, contrary to the MOL bible he is not always wrong
You can't lie to the FBI. Ask Martha Stewart. Ask General Flynn. Im sorry he has to wait until he is 57 to collect his full pension. I would be willing to take his punishment for him.
you're becoming tiresome.
you don't know what was in the report.
hence you know NOTHING other than what that paragon of virtue Sessions has said.
yet you will ignore this obvious fact, and keep on posting as if you know something everyone else does not.
BCC said:
drummerboy said:
that's nice that you take Sessions at his word.
Kind of cute actually.
To repeat, you don't have a damn clue if his firing was warranted. Why do you pretend otherwise?
BCC said:
...
McCabe was accused of more than 'lack of candor' he was accused of unauthorized disclosure and misleading. The OPR and the IG would hardly recommend firing for some trivial offense and it would not surprise me if they are now buried in BS.
This was Sessions comment
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/andrew-mccabe-fired-fbi_us_5aa9af61e4b0004c04070d10
Pursuant to Department Order 1202, and based on the report of the Inspector General, the findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the Department’s senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately.
The grounds for firing were there. Vindictiveness is another story.
The one who hasn't a clue is you.
You're so busy being insulting you don't seem to understand it was the IG and the OPR who said he should be fired. Sessions was acting on their advice and their advice was based on MCCabe' releasing unauthorized information and then lying to the FBI.
Do you know who the IG and OPR are and can I now count on you to dismiss them as Trump stooges.
Have you actually paid any attention to what is going on?
Please continue your comments. They act as comic relief in a serious discussion.
Stoughton said:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-firing-andrew-mccabe
I thought this was a good summary of the issues. We honestly don't know exactly what McCabe did and key decisions that went against him were made by people who are seemingly independent of the president. However, we do know that the process was rushed in a way that is very rare if not completely unique.
It is a very good summary and I recommend that everyone read it.
BCC said:
What do you expect the IG report to say about MCCabe?
It was the IG who called for his firing
When the IG and OPR find grounds for firing, what do you suggest they do? Look the other way?
The IG and OPR did what they deemed correct and appropriate. They "recommended" that McCabe be fired. The decision was Session's to make. The main issue is the timing. McCabe's lawyer claims that Sessions should have given them more time to respond. Is it normal procedure to allow the employee to respond? If so how much time is usually allowed? I do not know the answers.
Apparently Sessions did not fire McCabe the instance he received the recommendation from the OPR. If that is correct then Sessions saw his job as more then just automatically following the recommendation. How much time elapsed between the receipt of the OPR report and the decision?
I am editing the foregoing on March 19th at 10:37 AM because I had forgotten that Sessions recused himself from anything to do with the Russia investigation. If McCabe's conduct that led to the IG's recommendation had anything to do with Russia, Sessions should have handed off the decision making to Rosenstein.
do you have a link to that article?
not that I don't trust you...
BCC said:
The NYT posted an aarticle the day before Comey was to testify saying he would trash Trumps claim that he, Comey, had said 3 times Trump was not under investigation. The following day Comey testified, - he had said on 3 occasions trump was not under investigation.
Lindsay Graham wants the Senate to investigate.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/18/lindsey-graham-cnn-sessions-mccabe-470061
drummerboy said:
do you have a link to that article?
not that I don't trust you...
BCC said:
The NYT posted an aarticle the day before Comey was to testify saying he would trash Trumps claim that he, Comey, had said 3 times Trump was not under investigation. The following day Comey testified, - he had said on 3 occasions trump was not under investigation.
Comey testified on June 8. The day before, on June 7, the Times posted an article, based on his prepared testimony, that said, “Mr. Comey confirmed that he told the president three times that he was not personally under investigation.”
On June 6, two days before the testimony, the Times posted an article that said:
Current and former law enforcement officials said that when the investigation was handed over last month to a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Mr. Trump was not a target. But it is not clear what, if anything, Mr. Comey told the president about whether he was being investigated.
While Justice Department policy allows officials to tell people whether they are the target of an investigation, prosecutors — not F.B.I. agents — handle such discussions. “We typically do not answer that question,” Mr. McCabe testified recently.
Former officials say Mr. Comey anticipated that the president might ask whether he was being investigated, and consulted his advisers on how to delicately sidestep the question. The officials were not aware of how Mr. Comey decided to answer.
Here it is: It was CNN, two days before his testimony.
CNN Issues Correction After Comey Statement Contradicts Reporting (The Hill)
Dave,
Thanks for the research.
But the point, of course, is that BCC is blowing smoke by mis-characterizing the article. (above and beyond getting the source wrong). An article that is retracted is not much of anything.
re-reading BCC's post, I'm not now even sure what his point was. That the media made a mistake? That Trump is some noble truth-teller?
BCC said:The NYT posted an aarticle the day before Comey was to testify saying he would trash Trumps claim that he, Comey, had said 3 times Trump was not under investigation. The following day Comey testified, - he had said on 3 occasions trump was not under investigation.
DaveSchmidt said:
Here it is: It was CNN, two days before his testimony.
CNN Issues Correction After Comey Statement Contradicts Reporting (The Hill)
drummerboy said:
An article that is retracted is not much of anything.
It’s at least two things: an egregious blunder that should never happen and, following that, a reaffirmation of a commitment to set the record straight.
Well he is getting quite a few job offers which will enable him to save his pension.
right - so it nets out to nothing. It's a wash. 
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
An article that is retracted is not much of anything.
It’s at least two things: an egregious blunder that should never happen and, following that, a reaffirmation of a commitment to set the record straight.
drummerboy said:
re-reading BCC's post, I'm not now even sure what his point was. That the media made a mistake? That Trump is some noble truth-teller?
In addition to puzzling my way through the occasional crossword, I sometimes take a crack at understanding other people’s points. BCC can speak for himself, but I took his meaning to be that threats to its freedom can’t be all that dire if the press still manages to attack Trump and make mistakes with impunity.
ok, then I would say that that is a naive consideration of the effects of Trump's criticisms.
Most times, when Trump is attacking the media, he is neither speaking to that media, nor to you nor I nor BCC nor most normal Americans. (is that too many nors?)
He is speaking to his base in order to make them more and more distrustful of the mainstream media, so that they will turn more and more to the alternate reality media of Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting and Breitbart and etc. The more that his base divorces themselves from reality (and they're pretty effing divorced already) the greater is Trump's power over them.
What the effects of having that power over his base means - well, that's still to be determined, other than to say it's unlikely to be pleasant or otherwise good for humanity.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
re-reading BCC's post, I'm not now even sure what his point was. That the media made a mistake? That Trump is some noble truth-teller?
In addition to puzzling my way through the occasional crossword, I sometimes take a crack at understanding other people’s points. BCC can speak for himself, but I took his meaning to be that threats to its freedom can’t be all that dire if the press still manages to attack Trump and make mistakes with impunity.
How did his approval ratings go up among his base last week?
This was reported by CNN. I saw it reported on MTP Sunday as well. It was taken before McCabe's firing but apparently after Tillerson's.
"President Donald Trump's approval rating has improved slightly but is still underwater, according to a NBC/WSJ poll released Sunday.
The new poll found that 43% of Americans say they approve of the President's performance in office -- a four-point increase from their poll in January 2018. However, a majority of respondents -- 53% -- say they disapprove of Trump's performance, a drop of three points from January.
The bump in the President's approval came from white male, Republican and independent respondents, according to the poll, which was conducted from March 10-14."
I find it astounding that 43% could approve of him. Simply mind-boggling.
conandrob240 said:
I find it astounding that 43% could approve of him. Simply mind-boggling.
his floor appears to be roughly 40%. Those are the people who will stick with him even if he murders someone on live TV.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo
conandrob240 said:
I find it astounding that 43% could approve of him. Simply mind-boggling.
Its disturbing. The polls have stayed in the 30s and I have been disgusted that they never go below that, but this is bewildering. Did something positive happen before the poll that sparked this? I'd be thrilled to hear some good news.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:It’s at least two things: an egregious blunder that should never happen and, following that, a reaffirmation of a commitment to set the record straight.
An article that is retracted is not much of anything.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:In addition to puzzling my way through the occasional crossword, I sometimes take a crack at understanding other people’s points. BCC can speak for himself, but I took his meaning to be that threats to its freedom can’t be all that dire if the press still manages to attack Trump and make mistakes with impunity.
re-reading BCC's post, I'm not now even sure what his point was. That the media made a mistake? That Trump is some noble truth-teller?
To me, if a press outlet was to "make mistakes with impunity", that would mean that they didn't provide retractions and corrections when they make a mistake. If they retract and correct, it's not "with impunity".
In light of the sloppiness and faulty "reporting" that comes out when they're in too much of a rush to be first with a "big story", I have given up hoping for no mistakes. I have not given up hoping for retractions and corrections. Well, at least with respect to news outlets that don't parrot Trump's talking points.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
do you have a link to that article?
not that I don't trust you...
BCC said:
The NYT posted an aarticle the day before Comey was to testify saying he would trash Trumps claim that he, Comey, had said 3 times Trump was not under investigation. The following day Comey testified, - he had said on 3 occasions trump was not under investigation.
Comey testified on June 8. The day before, on June 7, the Times posted an article, based on his prepared testimony, that said, “Mr. Comey confirmed that he told the president three times that he was not personally under investigation.”
On June 6, two days before the testimony, the Times posted an article that said:
Current and former law enforcement officials said that when the investigation was handed over last month to a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Mr. Trump was not a target. But it is not clear what, if anything, Mr. Comey told the president about whether he was being investigated.
While Justice Department policy allows officials to tell people whether they are the target of an investigation, prosecutors — not F.B.I. agents — handle such discussions. “We typically do not answer that question,” Mr. McCabe testified recently.
Former officials say Mr. Comey anticipated that the president might ask whether he was being investigated, and consulted his advisers on how to delicately sidestep the question. The officials were not aware of how Mr. Comey decided to answer.
So the NYT was to some extent involved in this after all.
MY basic claim was accurate, the media including CNN and HuffPo made a blunder -and for my own blunder I apologize.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/comey-assured-trump-three-times-not-personally-investigated/
Mainstream news outlets have repeatedly shed doubt on Trump's account that the former FBI director was not investigating Trump personally. '
Morganna said:
How did his approval ratings go up among his base last week?
Public opinion polls, unlike, say, odometers, do not measure changes with precision. Even the highest and lowest disapproval rates that NBC/WSJ has found in the last year fall within the margin of error of each other: The highest, 43 percent (this month and September), was just as likely to be as low as 40 if every American adult were asked, and the lowest, 38 percent, was just as likely to be as high as 41. As long as they stay within a six-point range, I wouldn’t read too much into the incremental fluctuations.
Morganna said:
conandrob240 said:
I find it astounding that 43% could approve of him. Simply mind-boggling.
Its disturbing. The polls have stayed in the 30s and I have been disgusted that they never go below that, but this is bewildering. Did something positive happen before the poll that sparked this? I'd be thrilled to hear some good news.
Perhaps he is getting credit for agreeing to meet with Kim.
Please note my edit. Thank you.
LOST said:The IG and OPR did what they deemed correct and appropriate. They "recommended" that McCabe be fired. The decision was Session's to make. The main issue is the timing. McCabe's lawyer claims that Sessions should have given them more time to respond. Is it normal procedure to allow the employee to respond? If so how much time is usually allowed? I do not know the answers.
Apparently Sessions did not fire McCabe the instance he received the recommendation from the OPR. If that is correct then Sessions saw his job as more then just automatically following the recommendation. How much time elapsed between the receipt of the OPR report and the decision?
I am editing the foregoing on March 19th at 10:37 AM because I had forgotten that Sessions recused himself from anything to do with the Russia investigation. If McCabe's conduct that led to the IG's recommendation had anything to do with Russia, Sessions should have handed off the decision making to Rosenstein.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-firing-andrew-mccabe
I thought this was a good summary of the issues. We honestly don't know exactly what McCabe did and key decisions that went against him were made by people who are seemingly independent of the president. However, we do know that the process was rushed in a way that is very rare if not completely unique.
Of course, there's no precedent for a president relentlessly goading, in public and private, for the firing of a top FBI official because he's investigating the president. When the IG report comes out, maybe it will show that McCabe violated some of the FBI's strict rules, but even if the end result is appropriate, that doesn't excuse a perverted process.