Stop FBI Leaks! Fire the Leaker in Chief FBI Deputy Director McCabe

Hoover with Machine GunBoth NC and Bill (and others) take umbrage at some of my observations of D.Trump as is their right when they disagree. Their observations are fine and respected because in part they allow me to think of some things differently although not necessarily in the way they intended. Most recently NC pointed out that this blog has long condemned the FBI’s actions surrounding many matters in the Boston area of which I am aware. He then inquired why then do I complain when Trump goes after the FBI.

Bill on the other hand pointed to the statement from the White House stating that FBI Director McCabe was given inside information to Prince Preibus. Here is a report on the incident from TPM news:“Spicer said it was the FBI that first approached the White House about the veracity of a New York Times story asserting that Trump advisers had contacts with Russian intelligence officials during the presidential campaign. Spicer said Priebus then asked both FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe if they would condemn the story publicly, which they declined to do.” The chief of staff said, well, you’ve put us in a very difficult situation,” Spicer said. “You’ve told us that a story that made some fairly significant accusations was not true. And now you want us to just sit out there.”

As I understand it, if Preibus is to believed FBI Deputy Director McCabe told him the NY Times assertions in a story were not true. I assume Preibus inferred from that the FBI’s investigation did not back up the NY Times story. If so, he wanted the FBI to put that out and that’s why he contacted Comey.

In the meantime the Tweeter in Chief started tweeting about this. On February 24 at 7:31 AM D.Trump wrote: “The FBI is totally unable to stop the national security “leakers” that have permeated our government for a long time. They can’t even…… find the leakers within the FBI itself. Classified information is being given to media that could have a devastating effect on U.S. FIND NOW”

Do you see the irony in the whole affair?

Trump is complaining about leakers based upon a leak that went to his staff. He wants the FBI to find the leakers but I can give him a good hint as to who one of them might be: Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Didn’t he give Priebus the leak that caught the White House in a trap? Or, is it in Trump’s world that leakers to his staff are all right but leakers to others aren’t.

Which brings me back to NC’s initial point. This is another example of the FBI in action and why I suggest it needs a full cleaning out but to date, despite NC’s suggestions otherwise, Trump has done nothing but pontificate about it. Why not demand that the leaker in chief McCabe lose his position? Failing to do that it seems to me that Trump likes McCabe leaking to him but dislikes other FBI agents leaking to others.

A TV discussion about this matter took place. A 30-year FBI agent (retired) was on and he said if there was any leaks he could guarantee they did not come from the FBI because if an FBI agent leaked something it was a criminal offense. I had to laugh. The biggest leaker in U.S. history, Deep Throat, was second in command of the FBI and assisted in bringing down a president because he had a grudge against him. Mark Felt wanted the top job as director and when Nixon gave it to another he vowed vengeance and worked to destroy him. Right now I can guarantee there are some in the FBI leaking in the hope of bringing Trump down and there are others hoping to undermine any investigation that may topple him.

I have been critical of McCabe before. He oversaw the investigation of Hillary’s emails at the same time his wife was running for office and being aided by Hillary’s close friend to the tune of $675,000. I wrote about it here and here .

If Trump is on the level he will act to stop the leaks. The first step is to terminate the employment of the FBI’s leaker-in-chief Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. That will send the type of message that needs to be sent that leaks will not be tolerated. Failing to do that sends the message Trump is happy that the FBI leaks stuff to him and will tolerate and countenance the abysmal ongoing actions of that Bureau.

Draining the swap requires pulling out the stopper. Right now the initials emblazoned on it are FBI.

21 thoughts on “Stop FBI Leaks! Fire the Leaker in Chief FBI Deputy Director McCabe

  1. Matt:

    (Kudos to you too, because I learn a lot even when we disagree; I learn from everyone on this blog.)

    LEAKS: Leaks are unauthorized releases of information (confidential, sensitive) to the Media. McCabe did not “Leak.”

    McCabe told Priebus that the (NYT WAPO) stories were BS. Priebus asked if Comey would state that publicly. McCabe went back to Comey asked him if he would state that publicly, Comey said, “No” but tell Priebus he can say he’s received information that the Media stories were BS.
    Priebus did that.

    The LEAK came afterwards when someone inside the FBI leaked to the Media that McCabe had contacted Priebus, etc.

    2. I’ll post below a quote about the credibility of the NYT:

  2. Yesterday, (March 3, 2017) FBI Director James Comey met behind closed doors with several member of Congress.

    Here’s what Congressman Trey Gowdy (a former federal prosecutor and former district attorney)concluded from that meeting:

    “I will tell you this – to the extent people are relying on media reports, whether it’s the New York Times or the Washington Post, upon which to base their factual assertions, I would tell them to be very very careful. I’m not gonna say any more than that, other than to say that the person leading the investigation on behalf of the Untied States government, the head of the FBI, listen to what he has to say – don’t listen to anonymous sources who leak classified information which, oh by the way, is also against the law.”

    1. I cannot listen to anything out of Gowdy’s mouth until he pays us $7.8 million dollars for his waste on Benghazi

  3. Matt: Here’s areas where we agree:
    1. We should identify, stop and prosecute leakers.
    2. We should be wary of America becoming a Police State (whether from the Left or Right).
    3. Historically, many Presidents have lambasted the Press; and some in government have tried to suppress it.
    4. Historically Congress has enacted laws which have gone too far suppressing free speech.
    5. Historically Presidents have defied the Courts and one tried to stack the Courts.
    6. Nancy Pelosi thinks anyone who breathes air, drinks water, eats food, takes medicine, or interacts with the courts should fear Justice Neil Gorsuch.

  4. Comey’s got his hand well covered. We can’t see his cards. He could go either way on Glorious Leader’s fate. At the moment, he’s the most powerful player at the DC table. Trump’s flailing, today. He’s worried Comey won’t play ball. The Director’s choice is, whether, to be FBI chief forever, or, savior of the republic. He can’t be both.

    “It stands in the Comitium, plain for all folk to see;
    Horatius in his harness, halting upon one knee:
    And underneath is written, in letters all of gold,
    How valiantly he kept the bridge in the brave days of old.”

  5. I see the Crackpot-in-Chief is now accusing Obama of having tapped his phones at Trump Tower prior to the election. So sad.

  6. You are right about Deep Throat and McCabe. Comey and McCabe should both be canned for the Hillary investigation. The FBI, DEA, ATF and ICE should be abolished. There should be one Federal Agency dealing with law enforcement. Call it Gov. Law Enforcement. GLE. It could get rid of thousands of administrators, bureaucrats and bosses in the former agencies. It would be a step towards draining the swamp. 2. If any of these reports of the Trump campaign being wiretapped by NSA are true you have a massive scandal. To use signals intel to obtain dirt on a political campaign is much worse than Watergate. A constitutional crisis may be brewing. Wasn’t it Clapper who initiated the collection of Bulk Data which violated the 4th Amendment Constitutional Rights of millions of Americans. No one’s privacy was protected. Could it be the same Intel operatives running an illegal operation against a political campaign? Russia didn’t hack the election. Obama, Clapper and the NSA did. Did a FISA Court turn down the first attempt to intercept Trump Tower? Why? What did the affidavit say? Why was the 2nd effort permitted? What did that affidavit say? Based on the prior illegal activity of Clapper one has to be deeply suspicious of him and his affiliates. 3. You may be right about a totalitarian state being imposed. But it isn’t Trump. It is Obama, Clapper, the Deep State, the media and the Democrats. A grand Jury is required. The NSA and Clapper can’t shred the Constitution.

  7. If Dukakis were running for re election and he asked Delahunt to wiretap a political opponent everyone in your office would scoff at such a ludicrous suggestion. He would be told that wiretaps are used to collect information on crimes by drug dealers, bookies and organized crime. They are never used for political espionage. Was Obama doing that at Trump Tower?

    1. NC:

      “We have as president a man who is erratic, vindictive, volatile, obsessive, a chronic liar, and prone to believe in conspiracy theories,” said conservative commentator Peter Wehner, who was the top policy strategist in George W. Bush’s White House. “And you can count on the fact that there will be more to come, since when people like Donald Trump gain power they become less, not more, restrained.”

  8. Before we jump overboard, lets answer some simple questions.

    1. Did the Obama administration seek a FISA warrant against Trump (Trump Tower, his offices, or his computers, etc) in June 2016?
    2. Did the Obama administration seek a FISA warrant against Trump in October 2016?

    Once those simple questions are answered, we can then get into the details and debate the appropriateness.

    Lindsey Graham said this morning if such warrants were issued, it could be far worse than Watergate.

    Imagine, if true, using the power of the State to conduct surveillance on a political opponent; imagine then spreading information on that opponent throughout 17 government intelligence agencies. If true . . . if true . . .

  9. Here’s Obama’s spokesmen’s disingenuous statement. Note it does not deny that the Obama Justice Department sought warrants from FISA, nor does it deny that Obama O.K.’ed the Justice Department’s actions, or approved the actions. It merely says, Obama never “ordered surveillance.” As a matter of law, Obama cannot “order surveillance.” He must go to FISA to get the order for surveillance. The Court’s order surveillance. Obama’s Justice Department would seek the Order!

    “A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice,” Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis said in a statement Saturday. “As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”

    Now are third simple question:

    (3) Prior to seeking FISA warrants, did anyone in the Justice Department notify the White House.

  10. Where a FISA warrant targets a citizen of the United States, the Attorney General must certify “that the target may be involved in the commission of a crime.”

    Question 4. “What crime did Attorney General Lynch allege Trump or his associates committed?

    ““Warrant applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are drafted by attorneys in the General Counsel’s Office at the National Security Agency at the request of an officer of one of the federal intelligence agencies. Each application must contain the Attorney General’s certification that the target of the proposed surveillance is either a ‘foreign power’ or ‘the agent of a foreign power’ and, in the case of a U.S. citizen or resident alien, that the target may be involved in the commission of a crime.”

  11. Question 5. If the first FISA warrant in June 2016 was turned down, why was it turned down, who did Attorney General Lynch discuss that with, and how precisely was the second application in October amended?

  12. Question 6. If the FISA warrant was issued in October 2016, how long did it remain in effect? Is it still in effect?
    Question 7. How many other American politicians did Obama’s Attorney General certify were likely criminals and Obama’s Administration seek FISA warrants against? Was Trump the only one?

  13. How much “imagination” is required to believe that the power of the state would be deployed against a political opponent? That an “enemies list” would be established? That the CIA would be used against US citizens (after being rebuffed by the FBI.}?
    Amnesia all around.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *