Bombshell in McCabe IG Report No One Is Talking About [VIDEO]


The Department of Justice Inspector General report on Andrew McCabe is centered around the leaks and lies of Andrew McCabe. Ignored in all of this was the reason he leaked. And it’s a bombshell. He said a top Obama appointee, the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (PADAG), ordered him to “stand down” in the Clinton Foundation investigation. There were witnesses.

No one is talking about that.

Former DoJ official J. Christian Adams discussed it with Judge Jeanine on her Fox show April 14. The DoJ was a political operation during the Obama administration, he said.

A few weeks before the election, the PADAG, an unnamed top DoJ official, made a call to the Deputy Assistant General, Andrew McCabe. The PADAG told him to shut down the Clinton Foundation probe. That is the reason McCabe started to leak — “to throw the PADAG under the bus”.

According to the Inspector General’s conclusions, Andrew McCabe leaked through his friend Lisa Page. Allegedly he did it, not for the public interests, but for his own personal interests. Then he lied four times, twice under oath. McCabe gave a reason for indirectly leaking to the Wall Street Journal. He said one of Obama’s top guys at the DoJ told him to shut down the Clinton Foundation probe. It was shortly before the election.

Politicization of this sort is corruption. No one will pay for it, certainly not Barack Obama. Somehow, Donald Trump will pay for it.

The phone call by a top Obama DoJ official (PADAG) to exert pressure

As detailed below, we found that in late October 2016, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to discuss with Barrett issues related to the FBI’s Clinton Foundation investigation (CF Investigation). In particular, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to disclose to Barrett the contents of a telephone call that had occurred on August 12, 2016, between McCabe and the then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (“PADAG”). Among the purposes of the disclosure was to rebut a narrative that had been developing following a story in the WSJ on October 23, 2016, that questioned McCabe’s impartiality in overseeing FBI investigations involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and claimed that McCabe had ordered the termination of the CF Investigation due to Department of Justice pressure. The disclosure to the WSJ effectively confirmed the existence of the CF Investigation…

McCabe was told to “stand down” in the Clinton Foundation probe

. . [in] an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case.” Thereafter, the article highlighted the campaign donations to McCabe’s wife by PACs associated with McAuliffe, who was described as “a longtime ally of the Clintons and . . . a Clinton Foundation Board member.” The article identified McCabe as the FBI official who “sought to refocus the Clinton Foundation probe,” and reported that agents “further down the FBI chain of command” had been told to “[s]tand down” on the Clinton Foundation investigation with the understanding that “the order had come from the deputy director — Mr. McCabe.” The article stated that “[o]thers familiar with the matter deny Mr. McCabe or any other senior FBI official gave such a stand-down instruction.” The article recounted the August 12 conversation between McCabe and PADAG (identified as an unnamed “senior Justice Department Official”). It stated:

According to a person familiar with the probes, on Aug. 12, a senior Justice Department official [PADAG] called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe during the election season. Mr. McCabe said agents still had the authority to pursue the issue as long as they didn’t use overt methods requiring Justice Department approvals.

The Justice Department official was “very pissed off,” according to one person close to McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the department considered dormant. . . .

“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” Mr. McCabe asked, according to people familiar with the conversation. After a pause, the official replied “Of course not,” these people said.4

This is why McCabe leaked. According to the IG, he did it for his personal interests, not the public interests. 

…the sole purpose for authorizing Special Counsel’s and AD/OPA’s disclosure about the August 12 PADAG conversation was to make the point that McCabe had stood up to the Department so that the FBI could continue to pursue its “validly predicated” CF Investigation. The only possible conclusion that anyone could take from such a disclosure was confirmation that the FBI was conducting a CF Investigation, a fact Comey had pointedly refused to confirm in public testimony several months earlier. McCabe himself acknowledged in his OIG testimony that his authorization of the disclosure of the PADAG call “clearly creates” the effect of confirming the existence of the CF Investigation. We therefore concluded that FBI and Department policies were plainly applicable to the disclosure.

In our view, McCabe’s best argument that his decision to disclose the August 12 conversation was at least arguably consistent with the public interest exception in the FBI and Department policies is that it was in the public interest for the FBI to rebut the allegation, from unnamed sources, that FBI leadership had shut down or suppressed the CF Investigation because of improper pressure from the Department. This allegation was described by the WSJ reporter to Special Counsel and AD/OPA in the October 27 call and was ultimately reported in the October 30 WSJ article and in other press accounts.15 However, the manner in which McCabe addressed the anonymous allegations about the FBI’s and the Department’s handling of the CF Investigation reflected that McCabe was motivated to defend his integrity and objectivity in relation to the CF Investigation, which had been called into question, and not to advance any public interest.

Had McCabe’s primary concern actually been to reassure the public that the FBI was pursuing the CF Investigation despite the anonymous claims in the article, the way that the FBI and the Department would usually accomplish that goal is through a public statement reassuring the public that the FBI is investigating the matter. Of course, that would have required McCabe to alert Comey to the reporter’s inquiry and to defer to Comey’s and the Department’s judgment as to whether the “public interest” exception applied and, even if it did, whether any such statement would be appropriate within days of the election.16 McCabe did not follow that course. Instead, McCabe, without consulting Comey, authorized disclosure of the PADAG call on background to one news organization that was directed primarily at enhancing McCabe’s reputation at the expense of PADAG. Rather than reassuring the public, the disclosure led to further questions about leaks emanating from the FBI within days of an election was part of a WSJ story that was predictably headlined, “FBI, Justice Feud in Clinton Probe,” and resulted in another WSJ article on November 3.

15 See, e.g., FBI Agents Pressed Unsuccessfully for Probe of Clinton Foundation, Washington Post (Oct 30, 2016).

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments