Andrew McCabe Alludes to Possible Criminal Act by Trump

Andrew McCabe Alludes to Possible Criminal Act by Trump February 18, 2019

We can make a lot of assumptions about why the former deputy director for the FBI, Andrew McCabe is saying what he’s saying in his book, “The Threat.” At the top of the list, as I’ve pointed out previously, we could make the argument that this is sour grapes, the revenge of a man who was fired after over 20 years of service to the country, with only 2 days left until he could retire with full benefits.

He’s mad, and under the circumstances, I don’t know many who wouldn’t feel the same way.

Still, is it only a grudge, or is there a real reason for concern?

First, we have to remember the explanation given for McCabe’s firing.

He allegedly authorized FBI agents to talk to the media, then lied to investigators about it, afterwards.

McCabe could have been released immediately, but Trump let it linger, in order to deliver extra insult by firing him, just before he could have retired and collected his benefits for several decades of service.

Anyone who doesn’t think the timing of the firing was meant to cause extra pain have not paid attention to who Trump is.

McCabe is simply the latest in a long line of Trump casualties to write a tell-all about his experiences.

He won’t be the last.

Over the weekend, McCabe appeared on “60 Minutes” to talk about his experiences working under President Trump, and he voiced his belief that there was enough going on with the then-newly seated president to warrant an investigation, after the firing of FBI Director James Comey.

“And the idea is, if the president committed obstruction of justice, fired the director of the of the FBI to negatively impact or to shut down our investigation of Russia’s malign activity and possibly in support of his campaign, as a counterintelligence investigator you have to ask yourself, “Why would a president of the United States do that?” McCabe said.

He added: “So all those same sorts of facts cause us to wonder is there an inappropriate relationship, a connection between this president and our most fearsome enemy, the government of Russia?”

I have to remind everyone that while a new president doesn’t need a reason to fire or appoint whoever he wishes for those positions, he took to national television to say James Comey was fired because he wouldn’t stop the Russia investigation.

In May 2017, after Comey was fired, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to probe the connection between Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign.

According to McCabe, Rosenstein was equally convinced that a separate probe was necessary.

McCabe also revealed that when Trump told Rosenstein to put in writing his concerns with Comey — a document the White House initially held up as justification for his firing — the president explicitly asked the Justice Department official to reference Russia in the memo. Rosenstein did not want to, McCabe said, and the memo that was made public upon Comey’s dismissal did not mention Russia and focused instead on Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email server investigation.

“He explained to the president that he did not need Russia in his memo,” McCabe said. “And the president responded, “I understand that, I am asking you to put Russia in the memo anyway.”

President Trump didn’t realize how either insinuating or saying outright that a federal official was let go because of an investigation into a hostile foreign power interfering in a U.S. election made him look guilty as sin.

The reference to Russia was left out of the initial letters from Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, focusing only on Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton emails.

Trump just couldn’t let it go. Had he taken the advice of those around him and stuck to Clinton’s emails, the entire Russia debacle would likely be over, by now. Both the House and Senate committees investigating would have wrapped up, and we’d be on to other things.

And why was he so determined to get Michael Flynn, his first national security adviser, off the hook?

“Put together, these circumstances were articulable facts that indicated that a crime may have been committed,” McCabe said. “The president may have been engaged in obstruction of justice in the firing of Jim Comey.”

In McCabe’s wide ranging interview, he expressed his belief that he was fired for the investigation into Trump is what ultimately led to his dismissal, not talking to reporters.

So what about that 25th Amendment question?

According to McCabe, it was brought up between he and Rosenstein, with the deputy attorney general considering how many administration figures would sign on, should it come to that.

When questioned earlier, the Justice Department denied Rosenstein felt there was a call for a 25th Amendment fix.

But then, what was he supposed to say?

McCabe is getting a lot of attention for his book, right now.

How bad is it?

Bad enough that the president has been raging on social media for days about it. Earlier Monday, he lashed out again:


So if all of these people with similar stories are in the wrong, why does Trump get so manic and upset about it?


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • JASmius

    In retrospect, Trump not wanting to let Comey’s bungling of Emailgate be the pretext for firing the former FBI director has always been inexplicable, given how relentlessly he lashes out at Hillary Clinton and her scandals. Why wouldn’t that be not just a good enough justification for getting rid of Comey but one that Trump would enthusiastically want to play up? Why would he want to himself bring up and spotlight Russian election subversion and create this massive migraine headache that has bedeviled him for the past nearly two years? Yeah, in his deluded narcissism he really believed that canning Comey would end the Russia investigation, but why not avail himself of the opportunity to flog Hillary some more that Rosenstein gifted to him?

    The only logical explanation of which I can conceive is that he was grandstanding for Putin’s praise and approval. It explains why he invited Kislyak and Lavrov and Russian media into the Oval Office and threw out every last American official and reporter in order to give a veritable debriefing to his Kremlin handlers as to how he had covered for them and would continue to do so,

    That it backfired spectacularly by getting Robert Mueller appointed as Russiagate Special Counsel illustrates vividly why Trump is an asset, not an agent, because as master a spy as Czar Vlad is, there’s no way on Earth he’d ever put somebody on the FSB payroll so reckless, undisciplined, and lamebrained as Donald Ivanovich.

  • John225

    I remember reading about how Comey was manipulated or at least out maneuvered into his on again off again anouncements re Emailgate. He may well have been a useful idiot for the Russians. It was undoubtedly tremendously damaging to the Clinton campaign.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    I believe the reason Trump did NOT choose to use the Clinton “escape hatch” provided was that he was protecting the Clintons.

    Let’s not forget that Donald and the Clintons are VERY good friends and that the Clintons have never publicly spoken out against Trump (threfore they would not be on his public “enemie list”. Likewise Trump’s entire family is good friends with the Clintons, vacationing with them and (if memory serves), even attending weddings. To fire Comey over Clinton’s emails likely would have resulted in demands for a Clinton investigation which would have inevitably led to sufficient evidence being discovered to justify real jail-time – possibly even forfeiture of Clinton assets (including their Foundation) – not to mention a red-cap-mob-driven requirement to “lock her up”. There is at least as much (if not more) indication of real crimes (even treason and conspiracy to commit treason) committed by both Clintons as there is that Trump obstructed justice.

    Trump thinking that he could beat an obstruction charge easier than the Clintons (without the protections of the Oval Office) could beat treason charges or charges of intentional release of national security documents to unauthorized persons fits Trump’s ego-driven decision-making process perfectly, allows him to claim favors from the Clintons for “protecting them”, to play the hero in his own mind, and is consistent with Trump’s (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) orders to the DOJ not to pursue the Hillary email scandal (and I do NOT believe it was because of his belief that “she’s been punished enough”).

    It’s also possible that Trump received requests from his buddy Putin to protect the Clintons and not to pursue any investigation into their activities because the activities of the Clintons would likely tie back to Russia too closely – possibly even backfiring on Trump for blatantly trying to protect them if the investigation turns up Clinton ties to Trump while investigating Clinton ties to Russia….. Just how much money did the Clinton rake in for their Russian “speaking engagements” that Bill gave while Hillary was Sec State ?

  • John225

    They didn’t pursue the Clinton E-mail scandal further because they didn’t think they had enough evidence to prove intent. It’s in the Inspector General’s report which also finds that they didn’t act improperly. Just not enough evidence and no open leads to pursue. No executive interference, no deep state conspiracy. Just the FBI and the DOJ doing their jobs.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Intent is not a component of the law concerning safeguarding of classified information. They don’t have to prove intent to prove that Clinton & friends were negligent and failed to safeguard the classified national security information they were entrusted with. Such failure to actively safeguard classified information is grounds for loss of security clearance and prosecution of a felony (I forget which law us usually cited). This felony then makes it illegal to hold any public office for life.

    I remember that “intent” was the excuse cited to avoid actually prosecuting the law in the case of Clinton’s wanton negligence and disregard for the security of the information entrusted to her, but that’s all it was – an excuse not to prosecute. The real decision was political and made either by Lynch or by Obama as a political decision made by the Democrat “aristocracy” not to prosecute a fellow member of the “House of Lords”.

  • captcrisis

    Comey was trying to protect his agency. He knew that there wasn’t nearly enough evidence to refer Hillary for charges but was assuming that Hillary would win, in which case the Republican Congress would start up another round of its endless investigations of Hillary, this time dragging the FBI into it. By flouting his professional norms and gratuitously bashing Hillary in public he was hoping to head that off.

  • Ellen Elmore

    If you are not guilty then there is no reason to lash out in anger at the person accusing you. Trump’s ego has to make everyone feel small next to him. He has more anger and hatred than anyone in DC. The more he criticizes the FBI the more guilty he looks. But, in my opinion, Trump will never pay the price just like HiIlary never paid the price. Trump and Hillary are both guilty and both immune to any consequences.

  • Ronald Langdon

    HAHA!! what ever was McCabes reasons for writing his book —He is the one who will be charged!! Thank you stupid McCabe LOL

  • McCabe is an egomaniac who got outfoxed by another egomaniac. And now he’s spewing bitter grapes. He’ll have his 15 minutes of fame, then will likely end up facing prison time.

  • JASmius

    Comey was trying to protect the FBI in an unprecedented situation of an election year in which both major party presidential candidates were thoroughly corrupt and either were, in Mrs. Clinton’s case, or were highly likely to become, in Trump’s case, the subject of criminal investigations. If you’re the FBI director, how do you simultaneously do your independent, objective, investigatory job *and* stay out of and not influence the election? How do you keep your institution out of the political maelstrom? Answer: You can’t. Which is why Comey should have recommended indictment of Mrs. Clinton for gross negligence (the term from the relevant criminal statute) in the handling of classified information and let the Democrat worry about coming up with a replacement that was, in fact, right at hand in Weekend Bernie, who but for La Clinton Nostra rigging the Democrat nomination process, would have been their nominee anyway.

    In trying to shield the FBI, Comey landed the agency right in the middle of the fray, and did the Democrats no favors in the process, as well as damaging its political standing for the Russia investigation that had already started. You could say that the “DEEEEEP STAAAAATE!!!!!” actually got Trump elected, in essence. Curious how Redcaps never give them credit for that. Almost as much so as Democrats nominating Hillary anyway despite her criminality. It’s almost as if they were in on the scheme to elect Trump right alongside the Kremlin. And it’s the FBI which is left to clean up the entire mess, and get maligned and smeared by whoever the winner turns out to be. What a gig, huh?

  • JASmius

    Trump and La Clinton Nostra are fellow-travelers, perhaps, in the sense that two organized crime syndicates can ally on occasion when it’s in both their interests. But people like that don’t have “friends,” and certainly don’t see each other that way. Especially Trump, who isn’t interested in protecting or advancing the interests of anybody but himself. He dropped the “lock her up” crusade after the election was won because it was only an election gimmick to him. He brought it back up after the Mueller probe arose as a tool against that. As to Putin, he’d already gotten what he wanted by denying Mrs. Clinton the presidency and landing his asset in the White House. Any resumed investigation of her could have been limited to Emailgate without delving into affairs like Uranium One.

    The point is that it was clearly in Trump’s own interest to go with the “he bungled Emailgate” explanation for the Comey firing because it would have stayed away from his point of acute vulnerability – namely, the Russia probe – and encouraged the reopening of the investigation into Mrs. Clinton. Something that would have helped unify Republicans, put the Democrats on the defensive, redirected the FBI instead of undermining it, and been a distraction orders of magnitude better than his paranoid “attack the investigators” conspiracy tweets and rants, which have only served to make him look guilty as sin on a great many questions.

    Why didn’t he take the better fork in that road? Because his addled, malignant narcissism convinces him that he’s way more intelligent than he really is and causes him to never think anything through and thus overestimate the strength of his position in every situation. He thought that firing Comey would end the Russia investigation like checking off a box on a to-do list, and couldn’t help but brag about it, especially to the Russian ambassador and Russian foreign minister out of American earshot. He was spectacularly wrong, and only after that did he try to turn it all back over to going after Mrs. Clinton and Emailgate.

    Why? Because he’s incapable of grasping that anything can ever be his own fault. He screwed up, but his ego tells him that’s impossible, so it must be some deep, dark, sinister “them” who’s “out to get him,” and his imagination fills in the blanks from there.

  • captcrisis

    This is really funny.

    Nothing Hillary mishandled was marked classified.