RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: What Is Justice For McCabe? - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

What Is Justice For McCabe? The former deputy director’s FBI coddled Clinton and addled Trump Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 51,434
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 30 August 2019 - 01:18 AM

What Is Justice For McCabe?

The former deputy director’s FBI coddled Clinton and addled Trump. Now he seeks clemency . . . even as he sues the Justice Department.

NRO
By Andrew C. McCarthy
August 29, 2019 6:30 AM

Excerpt:

Hillary Clinton checked every box for a violation of the Espionage Act. So much so that, in giving her a pass, the FBI figured it better couch her conduct as “extremely careless,” rather than “grossly negligent.” The latter description was stricken from an earlier draft of then-director James Comey’s remarks because it is, verbatim, the mental state the statute requires for a felony conviction. It wouldn’t do to have an “exoneration” statement read like a felony indictment.

In point of fact, the careless/negligent semantic game was a sideshow. Mrs. Clinton’s unlawful storage and transmission of classified information had been patently willful. In contemptuous violation of government standards, which she was bound not only to honor but to enforce as secretary of state, she systematically conducted her government business by private email, via a laughably unsecure homebrew server set-up. Her Obama administration allies stress that it was not her purpose to harm national security, but that was beside the point. The crime was mishandling classified information, and she committed it. And even if motive had mattered (it didn’t), her purpose was to conceal the interplay between her State Department and the Clinton Foundation, and to avoid generating a paper trail as she prepared to run for president. No, that’s not as bad as trying to do national-security harm, but it’s condemnable all the same.

While Clinton’s mishandling of classified information got all the attention, it was just the tip of the felony iceberg. Thousands of the 33,000 emails she withheld and undertook to “bleach bit” into oblivion related to State Department business. It is a felony to misappropriate even a single government record. The destruction of the emails, moreover, occurred after a House Committee investigating the Benghazi massacre issued subpoenas and preservation directives to Clinton’s State Department and Clinton herself. If Andrew Weissmann and the rest of the Mueller probe pit-bulls had half as solid an obstruction case against Donald Trump, the president would by now have been impeached, removed, and indicted.

And that dichotomy is the point, isn’t it?

In the Obama Justice Department — as extended by the Mueller investigation, staffed by Obama Justice Department officials and other Clinton-friendly Democrats — justice was dispensed with a partisan eye. If you were Hillary Clinton, you skated. If you were Donald Trump, they were determined to dig until they found something — and, even when they failed to make a case, the digging never stopped . . . it just shifted to Capitol Hill.

No one knows the skewed lay of the land better than Andrew McCabe.

The FBI’s former deputy director is in the Justice Department’s crosshairs. His lawyers are reportedly pleading with top officials not to indict him for lying to FBI agents who were probing a leak of investigative information, orchestrated by none other than McCabe.

McCabe is feeling the heat because the evidence that he made false statements is daunting. So daunting, in fact, that even he concedes he did not tell the truth to investigators. Listen carefully to what he says about the case — there being no shortage of public commentary on it from the newly minted CNN analyst. He never “deliberately misled anyone” he insists. Sure, he grudgingly admits, some of his statements “were not fully accurate,” or perhaps were “misunderstood” by his interrogators. But “at worst,” you see, “I was not clear in my responses, and because of what was going on around me may well have been confused and distracted.”

Uh-huh.

*snip*

Full Commentary
0

#2 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,285
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 30 August 2019 - 05:37 AM

Justice for McCabe in accordance with the law of the land is a free ride to another 1 Mil+ a year career calling everyone a racist. Justice for a Republican that did the same thing is 30 years in prison. So 3 tier justice system now, one for Dem's, 1 Republican's/Americans, 1 for illegals.
0

#3 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,191
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 30 August 2019 - 08:39 AM

13 coils of 1” rope.
0

#4 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,365
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 30 August 2019 - 09:30 AM

He should be treated even worse than Scooter Libby and General Flynn.
0

#5 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,073
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 30 August 2019 - 09:35 AM

sugar syrup with fire ants, bamboo under the nails, and being locked in a room with gangsta rap playing 24/7 while naked photos of Rosie O'Donnell are flashed up on a screen, and he can't shut his eyes because they're taped open (aka A Clockwork Orange)




not like I thought about this for a while or anything. :unsure:
0

#6 User is offline   AntonToo 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 15,435
  • Joined: 28-September 04

Posted 30 August 2019 - 10:57 AM

View PostLiz, on 30 August 2019 - 01:18 AM, said:

What Is Justice For McCabe?

The former deputy director’s FBI coddled Clinton and addled Trump. Now he seeks clemency . . . even as he sues the Justice Department.

NRO
By Andrew C. McCarthy
August 29, 2019 6:30 AM

Excerpt:

Hillary Clinton checked every box for a violation of the Espionage Act. So much so that, in giving her a pass, the FBI figured it better couch her conduct as “extremely careless,” rather than “grossly negligent.” The latter description was stricken from an earlier draft of then-director James Comey’s remarks because it is, verbatim, the mental state the statute requires for a felony conviction. It wouldn’t do to have an “exoneration” statement read like a felony indictment.

In point of fact, the careless/negligent semantic game was a sideshow. Mrs. Clinton’s unlawful storage and transmission of classified information had been patently willful. In contemptuous violation of government standards, which she was bound not only to honor but to enforce as secretary of state, she systematically conducted her government business by private email, via a laughably unsecure homebrew server set-up. Her Obama administration allies stress that it was not her purpose to harm national security, but that was beside the point. The crime was mishandling classified information, and she committed it. And even if motive had mattered (it didn’t), her purpose was to conceal the interplay between her State Department and the Clinton Foundation, and to avoid generating a paper trail as she prepared to run for president. No, that’s not as bad as trying to do national-security harm, but it’s condemnable all the same.

While Clinton’s mishandling of classified information got all the attention, it was just the tip of the felony iceberg. Thousands of the 33,000 emails she withheld and undertook to “bleach bit” into oblivion related to State Department business. It is a felony to misappropriate even a single government record. The destruction of the emails, moreover, occurred after a House Committee investigating the Benghazi massacre issued subpoenas and preservation directives to Clinton’s State Department and Clinton herself. If Andrew Weissmann and the rest of the Mueller probe pit-bulls had half as solid an obstruction case against Donald Trump, the president would by now have been impeached, removed, and indicted.

And that dichotomy is the point, isn’t it?

In the Obama Justice Department — as extended by the Mueller investigation, staffed by Obama Justice Department officials and other Clinton-friendly Democrats — justice was dispensed with a partisan eye. If you were Hillary Clinton, you skated. If you were Donald Trump, they were determined to dig until they found something — and, even when they failed to make a case, the digging never stopped . . . it just shifted to Capitol Hill.

No one knows the skewed lay of the land better than Andrew McCabe.

The FBI’s former deputy director is in the Justice Department’s crosshairs. His lawyers are reportedly pleading with top officials not to indict him for lying to FBI agents who were probing a leak of investigative information, orchestrated by none other than McCabe.

McCabe is feeling the heat because the evidence that he made false statements is daunting. So daunting, in fact, that even he concedes he did not tell the truth to investigators. Listen carefully to what he says about the case — there being no shortage of public commentary on it from the newly minted CNN analyst. He never “deliberately misled anyone” he insists. Sure, he grudgingly admits, some of his statements “were not fully accurate,” or perhaps were “misunderstood” by his interrogators. But “at worst,” you see, “I was not clear in my responses, and because of what was going on around me may well have been confused and distracted.”

Uh-huh.

*snip*

Full Commentary



If only we had Trump's Inspector General Horowitz review the email case carefully. Surely he would find that Hillary was cleared inaproprately....

Oh wait, we did and he didn't:

the [Trump IG's] report also rejects Trump’s claims that the FBI went easy on Clinton. Investigators found no evidence that the FBI avoided charges because of political bias—ultimately concluding the decisions made during the investigation were reasonable.

https://www.theatlan...the-fbi/562796/


Alternate reality rightwing lives in is ever facinating.

This post has been edited by AntonToo: 30 August 2019 - 10:58 AM

0

#7 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,720
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 30 August 2019 - 11:17 AM

Justice for McCabe...A trip to the guillotine.

View PostAntonToo, on 30 August 2019 - 10:57 AM, said:

If only we had Trump's Inspector General Horowitz review the email case carefully. Surely he would find that Hillary was cleared inaproprately....

Oh wait, we did and he didn't:

the [Trump IG's] report also rejects Trump’s claims that the FBI went easy on Clinton. Investigators found no evidence that the FBI avoided charges because of political bias—ultimately concluding the decisions made during the investigation were reasonable.

https://www.theatlan...the-fbi/562796/


Alternate reality rightwing lives in is ever facinating.


:yawn:

:bs:

Another nothingburger, freeloader.

This post has been edited by RedSoloCup: 30 August 2019 - 11:21 AM

0

#8 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,073
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 30 August 2019 - 11:44 AM

View PostAntonToo, on 30 August 2019 - 10:57 AM, said:

If only we had Trump's Inspector General Horowitz review the email case carefully. Surely he would find that Hillary was cleared inaproprately....

Oh wait, we did and he didn't:

the [Trump IG's] report also rejects Trump’s claims that the FBI went easy on Clinton. Investigators found no evidence that the FBI avoided charges because of political bias—ultimately concluding the decisions made during the investigation were reasonable.

https://www.theatlan...the-fbi/562796/


Alternate reality rightwing lives in is ever facinating.

do you really believe your own bull<censored>? :scratch:

the Atlantic? seriously?

This post has been edited by Howsithangin: 30 August 2019 - 11:45 AM

0

#9 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 58,149
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 30 August 2019 - 01:25 PM

View PostHowsithangin, on 30 August 2019 - 11:44 AM, said:

do you really believe your own bull<censored>? :scratch:

the Atlantic? seriously?


That's the sad part: Yes, he really believes that crap. It's scary that anybody could be that mindless.

:nuts:
0

#10 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,720
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 30 August 2019 - 03:22 PM

View PostHowsithangin, on 30 August 2019 - 11:44 AM, said:

do you really believe your own bull<censored>? :scratch:

the Atlantic? seriously?


Yes, yes he most certainly does.

View PostMontyPython, on 30 August 2019 - 01:25 PM, said:

That's the sad part: Yes, he really believes that crap. It's scary that anybody could be that mindless.

:nuts:


:yes:
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users