In Stunning Rebuke Of Trump, Grand Jury Appears NOT To Indict Andrew McCabe

[applegrove]

BY JASON EASLEY at PoliticusUSA

In Stunning Rebuke Of Trump, Grand Jury Appears NOT To Indict Andrew McCabe

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/09/13/andrew-mccabe-indict.html

"SNIP.....


Harry Litman said a non-indictment would be a stunning rebuke of Trump:

Harry Litman

✔@harrylitman

A Grand Jury's refusal to return an indictment is something that happens maybe once every five years in a given office. If it occurred here, given the magnitude and visibility of the McCabe case, it is a stunning and humiliating rebuke for overreaching and playing politics.

6,237

1:04 PM - Sep 13, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,932 people are talking about this

If McCabe is not indicated, it is a sign that the DOJ never had sufficient evidence to prosecute the former acting director of the FBI and the pursuit of charges was always about building a political cover story to diminish Trump’s potential crimes and discredit witnesses who observed his obstruction of justice and abuse of power.

Any prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich, but William Barr and Donald Trump apparently couldn’t get an indictment against Andrew McCabe.


.....SNIP"

[poli-junkie]

1. cuz there's no there there! nt

[NCjack]

22. No ham in the 'wich. nt

[11cents]

2. As an Old, I can remember a similar occurence during Ken Starr's Whitewater persecution.

There was scuttlebutt put out for weeks that Bruce Reed, an important Bill Clinton aide, was a target of the investigation and about to be indicted (on patently bullshit charges). And then -- he wasn't. Oops. Grand jury was not impressed.

[StevieM]

9. Do you mean Bruce Lindsey?

I remember that. Starr had to settle for smearing him by naming him an unindicted co-conspirator.

[True Blue American]

49. What about Gregg Craig, just recently

Case dismissed. Craig has been a long admired Attorney.

[druidity33]

52. That was a trial. Grand Juries...

generally favor the prosecution. No defense attorneys present, if i understand correctly.

[True Blue American]

53. Was the case political?

Short 5 hours to dispose of the case. At least we still have some Justice. I believe Barr will eventually go down. He is in a much worse corruption than Iran/contra this time.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/04/greg-craig-trial-prosecution-political-obama-1481836

[unblock]

3. i still want to know what this ham sandwich is accused of.

everyone says it's easy to indict a ham sandwich, but no one ever has told me what the charges are.

[applegrove]

4. LOL!

[pnwmom]

6. He was involved with letting FBI officials leak about the Hillary email investigation.

But they're spinning it as if he was trying to help her.

[unblock]

7. no, that's mccabe!

i'm talking about the ham sandwich they keep saying the could easily get an indictment against!

[jmowreader]

13. The "ham sandwich" thing comes from Gerald Ford

He said you could impeach a ham sandwich for the crime of being a ham sandwich.

And now I want a ham sandwich. Thanks a heap!

[unblock]

14. apparently judge sol wachtler, in 1985.

https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2017/08/13/why-a-ham-sandwich/

i thought the expression was rather older than that....

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. That ham sandwich wore white tie and tails to a 4 pm wedding that had no evening reception!

Even the poorest of attorneys could indict for that.

[StevieM]

11. Exactly. They did the same thing with Comey.

He destroyed her campaign, and her reputation, and yet people think that he was looking out for her.

[Disaffected]

8. Bread was stale and

he skimped on the mustard.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

16. Skimped on the mustard ?

That's NO way to treat a ham sandwich !

[alfredo]

18. Mustard is the mortal enemy of white shirts r

[SunSeeker]

27. I'm pretty sure it's a felony to put mustard on a ham sandwich.

Or at least it should be.

[elleng]

30. Hell NO, that's exactly where mustard belongs!!!

[SunSeeker]

32. Sacrilege!

[elleng]

34. :7

[Disaffected]

36. Precisely

Dijon mustard is preferred.

[elleng]

37. GULDEN'S!!!

[True Blue American]

50. Grainy Brown Deli!

No Grey Poupon for me!

[klook]

35. He was in a pickle, but

when the chips were down, they had nothing on him, not even mayo. Or maybe the grand jury was just loafing.

[TomSlick]

31. First Degree Tref would be my guess.

While is extraordinarily rare for a grand jury to refuse to return a true bill, nevertheless the grand jury is a check on abuse by prosecutors.

[spiderpig]

42. Actually, it was a grilled cheese

with a candlestick in the library.

[WinstonSmith4740]

56. Just lost my coffee!

[IronLionZion]

60. The ham sandwich was Parisien and a foreign agent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jambon-beurre

It's almost as indictable as being Cuban



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_sandwich

[Zambero]

5. Good to hear. His pension should be reinstated retroactively.

Hopefully and very soon there will be much more focus on the REAL criminals who have been subverting this country for their own benefit.

[cstanleytech]

19. That is assuming the Trump administration is smart enough to reinstate it without it being taken

to court because if they are not smart enough then they better have better lawyers than good ole Obstruction Barr on their side.
Why? Because McCabes lawyers might uncover some interesting and potentially criminal activity during their discovery phase.

[SunSeeker]

33. Yep. The depos would be a hoot. nt

[Hortensis]

47. Zambero, McCabe was IMMEDIATELY investigated for obvious

abuse of power by interfering with the 2016 election in a way that obviously benefited the Republicans.

As Deputy Director of the FBI, a man with enormous power and enormous duty to his nation, McCabe betrayed YOU, not just 330,000,000 other Americans. Sure, most on the right thank him, but that's because they're effectively too stupid and corrupted to care that "winning" now is losing.

McCabe IS a real criminal protected by the system and his own power. If punishment were proportional to the crime, he'd be in prison for far longer than if he'd just stolen $10,000 worth of whiskey from a liquor store.

What we should be wondering about is WHY McCabe put his career on the line. We know why the Trump admin didn't protect him from justice and is going after him now, effectively a falling out among thieves. But he's still be Deputy Director if he had done his job as he took an oath he would.

That said, we can't support the Trump admin also abusing the law to go after him for the wrong reasons. But, let's at least not worry about the poor criminal losing his pension. He's highly skilled, to put it mildly, and I'm sure those he allies with will make sure he makes more money in future than he ever did as a public servant.

[Zambero]

58. Are you confusing McCabe with James Comey?

Switch names and you get A+++ for description of Comey.

[Hortensis]

59. :) "Deputy Comey." McCabe stands on his own, though.

He knew what he was doing was very wrong, so wrong that lying to both FBI and OIG investigators, committing an automatic felony, was preferred to telling the truth. Which was? What was he protecting?

You know, both of them put the stellar careers they worked decades for on the line, the most risky actions of all taken right before the 2016 presidential election. Why? Whatever it was, it must have been considered worth the really grim risk.

Was either conspiring with others, and if so who?

And what else has each done? We know what they've done that's public information, but these were the Director and Deputy Director of the FBI. Pretty sure not everything their power might have been used for would have had to be conducted in full view of the nation. Only what could only be done that way.

And besides actions taken by McCabe himself, regarding Comey, and others, what does McCabe know and when did he know it?

[True Blue American]

51. I think that is a separate suit!

The main reason Barr went after him.

Wonder if Sessions will spill the beans? Trump treated him shamefully, then fired him.

Gave up a Senator position for 6 months of insults ,then fired.

[ffr]

10. McCabe, go full scorched Earth on tRump & Barr.

Burn them to the ground!

[NCjack]

23. Hope he makes them spend some of their personal money. nt

[malaise]

12. Resistance is everywhere

The Con will not be allowed to destroy the entire political system

[Sneederbunk]

17. It is called a Not True Bill.

[DIVINEprividence]

20. Love it

[Moral Compass]

21. Would love a confirmation

Wish GJs were more transparent.

Would love a an absolute verification.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

48. No you don't. Thousands of innocent people are never smeared when they are not indicted

Not smeared because the information is not made public. Further, a person might be indicted on one charge but not a dozen other trumped-up charges.

If it was made public, then there would be a lot more of this kind of bullshit prosecution of political foes.

[usaf-vet]

24. If this is true. Thanks to the GJ for not being led down the road of a vindictive POTUS who wants to

punish a government employee who was doing his job and not becoming a yes man to Trump. Let the man retire with his full benefits.

Impeach AG Barr along with Trump.

[Shrike47]

25. Maybe the GJ members read the internet and knew this was a Trump political attack. I

It’s more obstruction of justice. I will retaliate if you cross me.

[Glimmer of Hope]

26. The DC natives are not having any of this nonsense.

[Paladin]

28. Hope this is for real. (nt)

[elleng]

29. Andrew McCabe Hasn't Been Indicted, a Sign That Case May Be in Jeopardy.

'Lawyer for the former FBI official again asks prosecutors to drop the case.

Updated Sept. 13, 2019 5:03 pm ET
Andrew McCabe hasn’t been indicted for allegedly lying to federal investigators, according to an email from his attorney asking prosecutors to drop the probe, a sign that the government’s case against the FBI’s former No. 2 official may be in jeopardy.

The email is the latest development in days of uncertainty about whether Mr. McCabe, who drew repeated criticism from President Trump during the U.S. criminal probe into Russian election interference, would face criminal charges for alleged false statements he made as part of an internal Justice Department probe into 2016 media leaks.

A federal grand jury met this week, according to people familiar with its deliberations. The days of closed-door drama without any sign of charges could indicate that prosecutors have encountered an unexpected snafu.

In an email dated Thursday, Mr. McCabe’s attorney, Michael Bromwich, asked the U.S. Attorney in Washington, Jessie Liu, to confirm Mr. McCabe’s status, saying he had spoken to the prosecutors involved in the case, Joseph Cooney and Molly Gaston, earlier Thursday.

“At a minimum, based on our discussion with Mr. Cooney and Ms. Gaston this afternoon, it is clear that no indictment has been returned,” Mr. Bromwich wrote.

A DOJ spokeswoman declined to comment. . .

Prosecutors had presented the case to a grand jury in Washington this past week, according to people familiar with the matter. At least 12 members of the jury—which can range from 16 to 23 people—must vote in favor of an indictment in order for it to be returned. It is extremely rare for a grand jury to decline an indictment sought by prosecutors because it only hears the government’s version of events and doesn’t require unanimity. A common joke in the legal profession is that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, if asked.

Mr. McCabe’s legal team argued that if a grand jury rejected the case, there is no way a trial jury, with a much higher burden of proof, would find the former Federal Bureau of Investigation deputy director guilty.

“If the grand jury voted not to approve charges, it did not find probable cause. Therefore, it is simply not reasonable to believe that a trial jury would find Mr. McCabe guilty of any charges employing a far more rigorous and exacting standard—beyond a reasonable doubt,” Mr. Bromwich wrote.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that the grand jury had been released Thursday with no immediate signs of an indictment.

The investigation centered on Mr. McCabe’s comments to FBI inspections division agents on May 9, 2017, and later interviews with the inspector general’s office. In those interviews, Mr. McCabe allegedly said he didn’t know who had told the Journal about a phone call he had with a senior Justice Department official in 2016 about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, even though he had authorized his lawyer to provide the information. Mr. McCabe has said he never deliberately misled investigators and cited the “chaos” of that day, which is when Mr. Trump fired James Comey as FBI director, making Mr. McCabe the bureau’s acting director.'>>>

https://www.wsj.com/articles/andrew-mccabes-lawyer-again-asks-prosecutors-to-drop-case-11568397719

[splunge63]

38. shameful that it even got to this point

Nevertheless, awesome comeuppance. Ham sammich is spot on.

[comradebillyboy]

39. McCabe was fired for lying about leaking information about FBI's

investigation of the Clinton Foundation to the Wall Street Journal. McCabe like Comey was fired for misconduct related to the FBI investigations of Hillary Clinton.

Just because he's the target of Trump's political vendetta doesn't make him the good guy any more than James Comey. Both McCabe and Comey used the FBI to interfere in the 2016 election.

These assholes helped elect Trump. It's a fine irony that Trump is now persecuting them.

[BigmanPigman]

40. Excellent point.

Thank you for reminding us who the real "good guys" are and Comey and McCabe are not on my list to receive kudos.

[Takket]

41. Grand Jury to drumpf's ham sandwich:

[czarjak]

43. Ya darned-tootin'...

He likes Vlad Putin!

[a kennedy]

44. but will he EVER get his pension??

[wishstar]

46. He will be able to get his pension at age 62 (he is only 51 now)

Even if he was convicted of a felony he would not lose his eventual pension since he would have to be convicted of improperly releasing highly classified info which he has not been accused of doing.

[LTG]

45. U.S. Attorney will probably just resubmit

The U.S. Attorney always has the option, when a grand jury returns no true bill, to simply resubmit the case to a new grand jury. Would be surprised if they didn’t just keep trying for the true bill.

[Mc Mike]

57. Grand Jury to tRump: Drop Dead.