Rick Wilson offers a valid and sickening observation on the "No Indictment for McCabe" premise.

[Miles Archer]

Rick Wilson
@TheRickWilson

I doubt this is over.

Barr has orders, and he'll run McCabe to ground if it breaks every law, precedent, and DOJ procedure.

They need a scalp for the Trump/Fox/QAnon crowd.

Link to tweet

[irisblue]

1. I think Wilson is right

McCabe needs a convoy of lawyers and a bevy of counterclaim lawsuits to hold off the 2 bloated bastards

[COLGATE4]

2. Like him or not, Wilson has his finger on the pulse of

the Wingnuts who are in charge of our government now. And he's right. Barr wiil pursue McCabe to the ends pf the earth in order to give a scalp to all the RW crazies who Trump has fired up and he doesn't care how he does it. Barr, like all the other lickspittles in the government only has one client.

[dewsgirl]

3. His book has been the best book on Trump I have

read so far. He definitely has his number.

[Control-Z]

7. What's the name of his book?

Thanks in advance!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Everything Trump Touches Dies.

[Control-Z]

10. That's right!

I've heard about the book but had forgotten with so many other new books about the WH squatter coming out monthly, it seems.

Thank you!

[albacore]

4. I don't understand...

If McCabe is indicted, and tried, won't there be some kind of "discovery" for the defense? Won't McCabe - and witnesses he calls - have to tell the WHOLE truth?
Is trump so stupid that he doesn't understand all that?
EVERYthing could come slithering out.

[FBaggins]

9. Not in the way you assume

You're thinking of a civil court process.

As a counter-example... note that Gen. Flynn has been trying to get information that he claims is relevant to his defense and the court has so far mostly refused.

McCabe would have little opportunity to turn the case into something that would expose unrelated information about Trump (particularly since any charges in this current scenario would be related to the Clinton investigation). He might be able to get more if there were later charges re: "FISA abuse"... but that too would be nothing like civil discovery.

[albacore]

13. Damn! But...but.... Couldn't McCabe get information related to his case?

I'm grasping at straws of hope here.
NewJeff probably has the right of it, too. The indictment is the big thing...it'll keep the suckers drooling in hopes of jail for McCabe. And Clinton, too.
The DOJ will just let the case slide into the memory hole.

Shit.

[FBaggins]

14. Sure. Anything used by the prosecution or that would be potentially exculpatory

The problem is that his case is mostly unrelated to Trump

[NewJeffCT]

12. They really don't care if the case falls apart after McCabe is indicted

The Headlines will be McCABE INDICTED and LOCK HIM UP and CLINTON ALLY INDICTED - as will the chyrons scrolling along the bottoms of all those news channels.

The case goes to court 3/6/9 months later and falls apart.

And, these same places that ran shrieking headlines will have a small story on Page 3 stating that the McCabe case was dismissed due to lack of evidence. Nobody will remember that and McCabe still has the stain on his reputation, likely for life.

[montanacowboy]

5. I believe they will dismiss this GJ

and bring in another one until they get the result they want

there is no stopping the evil dump has unleashed with his toady fat assed Barr

[spanone]

6. Political persecution. A well-worn trait of tin-pot dictators.

[ScratchCat]

11. I'm not sure if they will get a different result

For starters, from what I have read and can surmise, McCabe leaked to a source his knowledge of the existence of an investigation. From my understanding, this is a violation of DOJ policy, not federal statutes. In addition, they claim he did not act "with complete candor" or something to that affect in his interview with the IG. Now, if he had "lied" or "mislead" the IG to obstruct the investigation, they would have certainly said so. But they phrased it completely differently, which probably means he didn't tell the complete truth but didn't "lie to obstruct" either. If this is the case - and I am just theorizing based upon various articles - then there is no "crime" or violation of Federal Statutes thus they will never get an indictment.

And note what his attorney states in the letter: If you can't get the first GJ to indict on the same set of facts you present to the second GJ, you would never get a conviction under a MUCH greater standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" with a trial jury.

[wishstar]

15. Right, also McCabe said he was authorized to release the info to correct misinformation in media

As I recall McCabe's job involved providing info to the media and in this case media had previously falsely reported allegation that McCabe had dropped investigating Clinton Foundation because of pressure from Obama Admin so he was merely correcting false reports and I believe he said he ran it by Comey and thought he was given a go-ahead.

[Miles Archer]

19. The intent is to break McCabe, either financially, through stress, or both

If they keep him in a never-ending cycle of this, with the bottomless resources of the government fueling it, they "win" either way.

[Hekate]

16. KnR

[Lonestarblue]

17. Is there any way to impeach Barr?

He is certainly guilty of malfeasance in office. I know the Senate won’t do squat, but impeachment proceedings might keep him busy instead of holding Trump’s hand all the time.

[TeamPooka]

18. Let them. It just keeps the story of the "FBI opened an investigation on Trump/Russia" before

the election, alive til Nov. 2020.