Media Leaks From The FBI

If this is true, he shouldn’t be “criticized,” McCabe should be indicted or prosecuted. They do this because they assume they can get away with it. A few vacations in Club Fed might put an end to that.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Oh, he’ll be not just “criticized,” but censured. That’ll learn him.

[Update a few minutes later]

The FBI may have violated criminal statutes in it application to the FISA court. Well, I’m sure they’ll be “censured.”

[Update a couple minutes later]

This seems related: Career civil servants illegitimately rule America. We really need an overhaul of civil service, including outlawing public-employee unions. It’s particularly horrible in California.

23 thoughts on “Media Leaks From The FBI”

  1. Am I reading this wrong, or is Mr. McCabe being accused of anti-Clinton actions (much as the official justification for firing Mr. Comey was that he was mean to Ms. Clinton), specifically revealing that he was fighting the DOJ to keep a Clinton Foundation investigation open (“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?”)? I only skimmed the DC article and won’t have a chance to read the WaPo & NYT articles it sources until this evening, so there might be more there.

  2. I don’t understand the WSJ paywall. Sometimes I will follow the same link from the same source twice, and once it will come through fine and once it will hit up against the paywall. The 30 October 2016 Wall Street Journal article in question is here:

    If that doesn’t work for you, you might have a better shot with the WSJ print edition PDFs, where the article appeared the next day:

    As with the WaPo & NYT articles, I won’t have a chance to peruse this article until this evening, but my first impression remains that Mr. McCabe is being criticized for taking an anti-Clinton stance.

  3. At a minimum, someone high up has to serve as an example to the rest. So far that hasn’t happened, everyone has not just gotten away with everything, but either been promoted or given cushy jobs in by Left leaning corporations. (See Lisa “Richard Saunders” Jackson at Apple, for example, or the nameless EPA clowns who poisoned the Las Animas River for years to come.)

    No conspiracy or co-ordination or collusion is needed when the bureaucrats at all levels know that no only will happen to them even if they get caught, but they’ll get rewarded and treated as heroes. Raise up the odds just a little, toss in some uncertainty, make them wonder if they’ll be the next example, and much of this will stop. “If they can make a Deputy Director, or Assistant Secretary serve time, they could do it to me, too.”

    Will never happen, unfortunately.

    1. Agree about the lack of conspiracy needed. It seems only a few people need to say the right thing, and everybody merrily agrees to commit what should be crimes. I say should be, only because no one is getting convicted.

  4. On the illegitimate rule of America by bureaucracy, it goes further than the WSJ article’s point that are made by officials not confirmed by the Senate. I think that the Administrative Procedure Act, which enables all federal regulatory activity, is itself unconstitutional. Through it, Congress delegated the power to issue rules having the force of law, the power to adjudicate violations, and the power to impose penalties to the Executive Branch. The Executive, of course, already has the power to impose penalties. Congress effectively delegated what can only be considered legislative powers to it. I can find no provision in the Constitution for one Branch delegating its own powers to another branch. It’s patently absurd that Congress delegated judicial powers, which aren’t Congress’s to delegate, to the Executive.

    In essence, Congress took the carefully crafted separation of powers built into the Constitution as a protection against tyranny, and demolished it with the passage of a single law. I know that some constitutional scholars are now debating the issue. It’s amazing to me that it took this long.

    1. Congress effectively delegated what can only be considered legislative powers to [the Executive Branch].

      I concur. It does seem to be the point in which the slope became slippery. Actually slippery is not as harsh a term that ought to be applied.

  5. Nunes’ letter to Sessions cites 18 USC 242 as one of thee criminal statutes. I don’t think he read the whole statute, which isn’t very long. It outlaws the violation of any protected rights of any person, or subjecting any person to an unlawful punishment, “on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;. I don’t see how that applies here.

    50 USC 1809 is applicable, and there is no question whatsoever that this law was broken numerous times.

  6. OK, I’ve read the three source articles, and it appears that in late October 2016 the WSJ was preparing a story based on leaks from agents with the FBI’s NY field office that their investigation into the Clinton Foundation was being stymied, and some of those agents believed that the resistance was originating with Deputy Director McCabe. The WSJ contacted his office for comment and the DD authorized the release of background information for the article, a standard and above board practice, as long as no confidential information is released.

    The WSJ was told that the resistance was actually coming from the DOJ, and that McCabe was continuing the Clinton Foundation investigation using those tools available which did not require DOJ approval. It is now suggested that by doing so, DD McCabe revealed confidential information by confirming that there was such an ongoing investigation — this despite the fact that the cat was out of the bag since the agents in the NY field office had already spoken to the WSJ reporter.

    Rand, do you want to see Andrew McCabe behind bars because he pushed against the Obama DOJ by continuing the Clinton Foundation investigation against their recommendations, or because he further stood up to them by revealing the conflict and thus correcting an article which was going to press anyway?

    1. I’m going to guess you have never been a government employee. “The cat was out of the bag” is not an excuse for disclosing information that is classified or otherwise not meant to be public.

      1. OK, I’ll rephrase. What about this report do you find troubling? I understand where the supporters of Ms. Clinton are coming from when they express their dissatisfaction, but I don’t understand what you have against Mr. McCabe standing up to the Obama DOJ. (Or am I misreading these articles?)

        1. And perhaps I should re-rephrase, as my intent is not to be establishing strawmen, and my first rephrasing may be read that way as well.

          Straight up: From reading the source articles, it appears to me that Mr. McCabe’s actions in question involved standing up to the Obama DOJ and it’s interference in what he felt was a proper investigation, and I would not normally assume that this is something which would trouble you. Did I miss something in those articles?

          Perhaps it was FC’s assertion that just because the existence of the active investigation was already revealed, it was still not Mr. McCabe’s place to confirm it. That would depend on the specifics of the regulations in place and Mr. McCabe’s specific authority, and I assume that the IG’s report will go into detail of possible interpretations of those regulations.

          1. If that’s what troubles FC, I’ll take him at his word. It just seems a strange thing to feel outrage over. The FBI DD isn’t just some random government employee. Media disclosures such as this were a standard, official practice of the Deputy Director’s office, as explained in these articles. “Background briefings with high-level government officials are common in Washington, particularly when reporters already have information and agencies hope to fill in the gaps on limited, and potentially misleading, facts. But law enforcement officials are generally instructed not to reveal ongoing criminal investigations.”

            So this could all come down to dueling interpretations of existing policy as to whether or not the DD had the authority in this particular instance to decide if the existence of the investigation had already been revealed and such a briefing was warranted without seeking DOJ guidance. It is plausible that the Deputy Director’s office would have such power, it appears that the IG has determined otherwise, and the situation is far from clear when all we have are leaks (where are they coming from?) concerning the IG’s report.

            The gist of the story for me is that Deputy Director McCabe stood up against the Obama administration’s DOJ in continuing this investigation and should be applauded for doing so and for making clear where the resistance to the investigation was originating.

          2. I disagree. McCabe is supposed to disclose such information through public channels. If he actually authorized leaks of such information about ongoing investigations, that would indeed be a felony IMHO.

            The gist of the story for me is that Deputy Director McCabe stood up against the Obama administration’s DOJ in continuing this investigation and should be applauded for doing so and for making clear where the resistance to the investigation was originating

            Unless, of course, that is historical revisionism. It wouldn’t be the first time someone has lied about such things. Someone blocked the FBI’s Clinton Foundation investigation and McCabe would have been well-positioned to enable that.

  7. “McCabe should be indicted or prosecuted.”

    Is it a crime to leak confidential information? It’s certainly a firing offense at the FBI, but that’s not really an issue any more, is it?

    Here’s USC § 1905:

    Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, any person acting on behalf of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or agent of the Department of Justice as defined in the Antitrust Civil Process Act (15 U.S.C. 1311–1314), or being an employee of a private sector organization who is or was assigned to an agency under chapter 37 of title 5, publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law any information coming to him in the course of his employment or official duties or by reason of any examination or investigation made by, or return, report or record made to or filed with, such department or agency or officer or employee thereof, which information concerns or relates to the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association; or permits any income return or copy thereof or any book containing any abstract or particulars thereof to be seen or examined by any person except as provided by law; shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and shall be removed from office or employment.

    This seems to be related to leaking information that’s confidential to the target of an investigation or some other kind of official business, but not the nature of the investigation itself.

    You could probably make this fit. I’m not sure you should.

        1. Fair enough. From a criminal statute; I think you are correct. I found several regulations regarding ethics, and even a few presentations that discussed “Duty of Confidentiality”.

          I refrained from joining this conversation, because I have personal beliefs that I know aren’t captured in the law. So whether I think McCabe should be held to account criminally is irrelevant to the methods available to do so.

          I think Karl may also be considering confidential information that was classified. And I think McCabe also may have some Conflict of Interest aspects, not specific to the OP regarding Media Leaks, that might have criminal aspects. Again, I can’t find criminal statutes for that, but can find ethical ones that are sufficient for him to be dismissed.

          1. No, the ethics violations would be slam-dunks. They’re also (mostly) moot, since McCabe resigned. I guess you could go after his pension and refer his conduct to his bar association.

            BTW: I’m pretty sure that confidential information about an investigation of the Clinton Foundation wouldn’t be covered under this definition:

            The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution…

Comments are closed.