Discussion: Lawsuit: Justice Dept. Failed To Give McCabe Information On Firing

I can think of possible legitimate reasons not to divulge information, but admitting that the purpose is to forestall future lawsuits just screams malfeasance.


The complaint also says the FBI and Justice Department failed to disclose a series of requested FBI documents, preventing McCabe and his lawyers from knowing whether appropriate procedures were followed before the firing.

Now why would they do a thing like that?

Rookie mistakes are made by rookies, these aren’t rookies, and these aren’t mistakes.


I may be mis-reading this, but isn’t this the same argument we’re hearing in the Manafort case? Why can Manafort know who his accusers are, but McCabe can’t? Why are McCabe’s accusers any more in danger than Manafort’s, if revealed?


That’s being charitable, possibly even excessively so.


In one sense, yes, but this goes way beyond that.

You can’t fire a career civil servant because of an unfavorable report by the agency’s inspector general. There are standard procedures for terminating a career person, laid out in regulations that have the force of law. And if an agency has added its own procedures on top of the ones required by law, they can’t be a secret.

If an agency doesn’t follow the established procedures, the terminated employee has them dead to rights.


If this were a normal time, my next question would be why they seem to be wanting to force a lawsuit. But with this bunch, it’s hard to say. They may just be taking a page from T’s playbook and saying “take us to court; we have deeper pockets than you do.” Doesn’t seem that it would be as effective.


Well, if DOJ defends this firing, more career people may quit. That could be a goal.


Wish they could check the phone record between Trump and Sessions. The timing - is classic asshole/aggressive cruelty that fits with Trump.


Hmm something, something about a public agency paid for by public funds not turning over materials that were created by public officials who were paid with public funds. Naw nothing sounds fishy or underhanded.


DoJ was hoping that McCabe would have enough of a hangover from 20 years of loyalty and omerta not to make a big public lawsuit stink. Apparently, they were wrong.


I think it’s a bit deeper than that. In the case of Manafort there are two dimensions. His request is that Muller, performing an ongoing investigations of him, release the names of people that are mentioned but remain unknown in the criminal proceedings against him. Those people are anonymous witnesses that until revealed can not be deposed by his defense. McCabe is pursuing a quixotic effort at clearing his name by forcing into the open that facts that were used to sully it. His crime was rubbing against the President and that President is still in office and running the show. I doubt he gets squat. I think Manafort will get the names he seeks but in a sequestrated format that will keep them secret to avoid jeopardizing Muller’s investigation.

1 Like

Do we know that’s the reason? McCabe’s lawyers are the ones saying (alleging) that, right? What has the DOJ said?


McCabe should give it up. I don’t think he did anything to deserve his treatment but he’s been raked over the coals in the media in such a way that most people don’t really know what’s involved in his case and so support his falling out. His did not perform partisan favors for HRC. But he didn’t jump on board Comey’s partisan attack on her which is being portrayed, with considerable media help, as taking a partisan position in her favor. Trump ratcheted that up and got what he wanted. A clean out of the FBI’s top floor so he could fill it up with cronies. That’s the America we live in.

1 Like

The article says (or apparently says) that McCabe’s seeking HR records (what policies and procedures did the DOJ follow in firing him). Sounds like his case is based around the claim that he was fired on an excuse, not according to an established procedure.

I don’t think that’s equivalent to Manafort’s case in which he’s seeking to expose the names of state witnesses.


Good question that answers itself.

I think that Manafort and McCabe are both right here. I think that Manafort is a scoundrel and a crook, but he deserves the right to mount a defense. Likewise for McCabe.

McCabe, if I understand this episode correctly, disagreed with Lynch. In the midst of campaign season, and I assume with different interpretations of how to stay neutral during that season, Lynch wanted to NOT reveal that the Clinton Foundation was under investigation and he instead wanted the world to know that it was still under investigation. I still don’t understand where he may have lied when investigators questioned him about it, but his actions clearly benefited Trump in his campaign. What don’t I understand here?

1 Like

the WH has completely cooped the DOJ. The IG report is going to lay the means to the end that the WH and DOJ has claimed all along…

1 Like

Wouldn’t these materials be available in a FOIA request?

Obligatory IANAL.

He certainly has a right to mount a defense, once Mueller wraps up the investigation and actually brings charges. At that point all evidence Mueller has gathered to support charges must be given to Manafort’s legal team so they can prepare to defend him in court. I don’t know of any requirement that an ongoing investigation share evidence with the target of the investigation BEFORE actual charges are brought.

edit - remove extraneous word

1 Like