Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe listens on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 11, 2017, while testifying before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on major threats facing the U.S. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe is in negotiations with the Senate Judiciary Committee to give testimony on the Hillary Clinton email investigation IN EXCHANGE FOR IMMUNITY. I hate to go all GatewayPundit on you, but this is somewhere between “incredible” and “obscene” on the Outrage-O-Meter. I mean for nearly a year and a half we’ve been assured that if you’ve done nothing wrong then there is no reason to avoid giving testimony under oath. Doesn’t McCabe wanting immunity imply lawbreaking at some point in the investigation?
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the Judiciary chairman, sought McCabe’s testimony at a hearing scheduled for next week about a much-anticipated probe by the Justice Department inspector general into the FBI’s conduct during its investigation of Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 election. But McCabe’s lawyer Michael Bromwich told Grassley on Monday that because the former FBI official is subject to a referral for criminal prosecution stemming from the inspector general’s conclusion that he had lied to investigators, immunity would be required in order to secure his testimony.
“Mr. McCabe is willing to testify, but because of the criminal referral, he must be afforded suitable legal protection,” Bromwich wrote to Grassley.
Bromwich cited several factors in explaining his request that a court order compel McCabe to testify with use immunity, including that McCabe “has a legitimate fear of criminal prosecution based on the criminal referral that has already been made, the irregularities in the process by which he was terminated, and the improper command influence that continues to be exercised by the President of the United States.”
Wouldn’t the best course of action here, as McCabe claims to have done nothing wrong, be to testify without immunity and set the record straight? I mean he’s the guy who has sworn to sue Trump for defamation and wrongful termination, right? He’s the guy who had a half-million dollars raised for his legal defense fund because he’s totally innocent, no?
Meaning he can lie to Senate without fear of prosecution? Well, Rosenstein is anyway not prosecuting lies to Senate; see Glenn Simpson. IN FACT, McCabe lies UNDER OATH to FEDS are not (yet) prosecuted! Meanwhile, Trumpers who cooperate still plead guilty to (non-Collusion) stuff. https://t.co/WraynwaQSa
— Yossi Gestetner (@YossiGestetner) June 6, 2018
The left told us that POTUS caused a constitutional crisis by firing a guy that now wants immunity in exchange for his testimony. https://t.co/vNox7hNV0T
— Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) June 5, 2018
Seriously, Grassley should give him what he wants. There is really no downside. McCabe is just being jerked around by DOJ right now in terms of the criminal referral. There is no way a former member of the FBI elite gets prosecuted for the simple reason that McCabe probably has “memorialized” enough meetings and conversations over the years to bring the whole house down. The whole thing is just for show, to entertain us rubes and to try to convince us about how impartial the administration of justice is. The Hillary Clinton email investigation was a political cover-up so blatant I’m not sure there is anyone still claiming that it was a good faith investigation. Letting McCabe grind his ax in a hearing might even be a good thing. He knows he’s been designated the fall guy, he’s not happy about it, and letting him vent might do some good. Winding him up on the way he’s been abused over the media leak (btw, if I have to choose between believing McCabe and Comey it is really a no-brainer) and then aiming him at the Trump investigation might make for some grand theater.
Before this is over, I’m willing to bet that James Comey asks for the same deal.
— Bryan Dean Wright (@BryanDeanWright) June 6, 2018
I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.