Cashing In the Insurance Policy
McCabe may look better than Rosenstein by contrast at the moment, but we’ll fix that illusion in that order.
You may recall text messages between counterintelligence agent/investigator Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page regarding an “insurance policy in the off chance Trump wins.” You may further recall that those same texts noted that discussions regarding this so-called insurance policy took place in “Andy’s office.”
Welp, Andy followed through, or at least tried.
McCabe’s 60 Minutes interview also put on the record for the first time both confirmation of and details behind a more recent Failing New York Times story—this one about the opening of the counterintelligence and criminal investigations against PDT after James Comey’s firing.
McCabe’s account is, once again, highly consistent with the Times’s reporting. It’s also consistent with what I and others have been saying for a couple years now; that the firing of Comey would provide the bureau with a phony obstruction of justice charge on which to enact that “insurance policy.”
McCabe says that the Bureau opened the counterintelligence investigation—in addition to a criminal obstruction probe—because:
If the president committed obstruction of justice, fired the director of the of the FBI to negatively impact or to shut down our investigation of Russia’s malign activity and possibly in support of his campaign, as a counterintelligence investigator you have to ask yourself, “Why would a president of the United States do that?” So all those same sorts of facts cause us to wonder is there an inappropriate relationship, a connection between this president and our most fearsome enemy, the government of Russia?
What aspects of the president’s conduct concerned the bureau to such an extent that it opened the criminal investigation? McCabe walks through the FBI’s (supposed) thinking in detail:
There were a number of things that caused us to believe that we had adequate predication or adequate reason and facts, to open the investigation. The president had been speaking in a derogatory way about our investigative efforts for weeks, describing it as a witch hunt… publicly undermining the effort of the investigation. The president had gone to Jim Comey and specifically asked him to discontinue the investigation of Mike Flynn which was a part of our Russia case. The president, then, fired the director. In the firing of the director, the president specifically asked Rod Rosenstein to write the memo justifying the firing and told Rod to include Russia in the memo. Rod, of course, did not do that. That was on the president’s mind. Then, the president made those public comments that you’ve referenced both on NBC and to the Russians which was captured in the Oval Office. Put together, these circumstances were articulable facts that indicated that a crime may have been committed. The president may have been engaged in obstruction of justice in the firing of Jim Comey.
Wheeeeeeeeewww boy. So much to unpack here. Roll up your sleeves, folks.
Let’s first qualify a key term. McCabe’s description of “articulable facts” is a reference to the standard for opening a full FBI investigation as set out in the Attorney General’s Guidelines, which require “an articulable factual basis … that reasonable indicates” that an “activity constituting a federal crime or a threat to the national security has or may have occurred, is or may be occurring, or will or may occur,” and that the investigation “may obtain information relating to the activity or the involvement or role of an individual, group, or organization in such activity.”
It’s not a particularly stringent standard, and the FBI leadership took full advantage of that fact. Let’s explore how the McCabe and his crew bastardized the facts to give themselves justification to push the witch-hunt further:
McCabe notes the president’s “derogatory speaking” as one of the reasons for the probe. This is patently absurd. First off, he’s the POTUS, aka the top justice official in the United States, aka McCabe’s boss, aka he’ll talk about them however the hell he wants. Secondly, the “witch hunt” sentiment was shared by many people then and still is today. Details of the corrupt dossier were making their way to the public more and more by the day and it was becoming readily apparent just how corrupt the FBI/DOJ has become. That McCabe viewed a president’s reaction to the corruption that had been exposed as reasoning to investigate that very president shows just how corrupt he and his cohorts had become. Who the hell does this guy think he is?
McCabe is lying here (shocker). PDT didn’t specifically ask Comey to axe the Flynn probe (although he could have ordered him to do so, technically). He did make a statement along the lines of (paraphrasing here): “Flynn is a good guy. Try to go easy on him.” Comey himself doesn’t even claim that PDT specifically asked him to axe the probe.
RUSSIA IN THE FIRING MEMO:
This is another blatant misrepresentation of the facts. The main issue at hand was Comey’s refusal to inform the public that the president wasn’t under investigation, which would have removed the cloud of suspicion from around him as it related to the American people. This is a completely reasonable request and one that any of us would make. Think about this — Comey gave a detailed press conference in relation to Hillary, her crimes and why he was refusing to prosecute, yet he couldn’t even bring himself to let the American people know that their newly-elected POTUS wasn’t even under investigation? Comey deserved to be fired for that alone. But now we know why he refused to deny the investigation — there was one up their sleeve waiting to be unleashed. The fact that Rosenstein also refused to mention it in the firing memo further demonstrates that fact. Fraud should have been fired on the spot, too.
MCCABE FORGETS THE TIMELINE FOR HIS OWN LIES:
The last item which supposedly served as justification to open up the investigation into PDT’s Russian dealings was his Oval Office meeting with the Russian ambassador and foreign minister—in which he supposedly bragged that he had “taken off” the pressure of the Russia investigation by firing Comey. This would actually be the one thing that would serve as a good excuse to look into things. The problem is, PDT didn’t bring those men into the Oval Office until after the counterintelligence probe was launched. Unless those thick glasses of McCabe’s can see into the future, he was lying through his teeth to bolster his case. If one wasn’t already convinced that the FBI crew were lunging for anything and everything as an excuse to unleash their investigative powers against PDT, that little ‘discrepancy’ should do it.
Despite the only semi-valid reason to suspect collusion with Russia being debunked by the timeline of events, McCabe makes clear that Rosenstein was specifically involved in the decision to open the counterintelligence and criminal investigations and was completely supportive of it. “When you decided to launch these two investigations,” he is asked, “was the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, onboard with that?”
“Absolutely,” responded McCabe.
Yes, they were all in on it; they all knew what they were doing, and they were all determined. If you’re still not convinced, perhaps this will do the trick.
I submit for your reading pleasure this exchange in which McCabe notes Rosenstein’s inexplicable need for Comey’s advice on appointing a special counsel despite Comey having just been fired:
ANDREW MCCABE: He mentioned to me how highly he thought of Jim Comey. And he mentioned that he would like to speak to Jim Comey about it.
SCOTT PELLEY: After Comey was fired?
ANDREW MCCABE: That’s correct.
SCOTT PELLEY: Rosenstein had been the one who wrote the memo that got Comey fired. And now, he wants to reach out and ask him for advice?
ANDREW MCCABE: He did. He did. He raised the issue with me twice.
Okay common sense warriors, time to draw your swords.
Really think about what McCabe is saying here. Jim Comey was fired by the president, which was the event that sparked the appointment of Bob Mueller as special counsel to investigate the president. Now, if you’re Fraud Rosenstein and you’re wondering whether to appoint a special counsel to investigate the president, which is a really big deal, would it be sound practice to take under advisement the opinion of a man who had just been fired (and humiliated) by that very president?
Imagine learning that your spouse cheated with your wife, then immediately after you find out, a mid-level manager walks up and says, “I’m contemplating whether to sign up the boss for face-punching therapy. It’s where a giant dude comes in and punches the boss in the face until he stops sleeping with people’s wives. Do you think he would be a good candidate for such a thing?”
Yes, this is exactly that absurd. That Comey would even be involved in such conversations immediately after being fired shows that Rosenstein is either: 1) the dumbest human being on Earth, or 2) part of a group at the FBI that had their own thing going on; something decidedly not in the interest of the president.
There is, of course, always the possibility that McCabe is simply lying here. But given how the rest of the interview has checked out, I’ve no reason to make that assumption.
We’re almost home. And you’re looking better than ever. But I need you to turn that page one more time.