This is why I do not believe it

IIt became difficult, almost painful, to watch: the public decline of James Comey's FBI number 2, Andrew G. McCabe, who was strangely following the reputation of his former boss. McCabe's interview with "60 minutes" Sunday was presented as a show not to be missed. But for this retired agent whose career had been confused with McCabe's nearly 20 years ago, the figure on the screen that had already experienced a meteoric rise to the top of the office's food chain 39 is transformed into a pitiful figure. It was hard to believe that it was the same man that I had once forbidden.

The former FBI deputy director, sacked, has a book for sale: The threat: How the FBI protects America in the era of terror and Trump. A long-awaited television interview would certainly strengthen book sales.

The meeting with CBS's Scott Pelley took place in a much more comfortable setting than the McCabe Inspector General's Office did. In a blister of 35 pages report published last year, McCabe was sanctioned for lie three times under oath, in connection with an unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information (leaking in the media) on which is based, as claimed by the IG, to be made look good, and not the FBI, "l & rsquo; Looks good ". The IG recommended to the Attorney General at the time, Jeff Sessions, that McCabe be fired from the FBI for deliberately misleading the investigators general of the FBI and the Inspector General. The sessions sacked McCabe on March 16, 2018, just over 24 hours before his planned retirement.

McCabe claimed to have been "confused" by the questions and "distracted" by all the events that were going on around him at the time. It was "stressful," he laments. It's pitiful, coming from a man in this position. Many of his answers to Pelley were selfish and recalled the thoughtless director under whom he had served and admired so openly and falsely. To hear McCabe speak about Comey does not mean to show a respectful and professional appreciation, but something that borders on sycophany and idolatry.

He argued that there was sufficient time to authorize the opening of a counterintelligence investigation into a potential interference of Russia in the 2016 election. No one sensible can not find fault with this decision. But speaking of someone's stance from familiar with the FBI's executive decisions, his decision was apparently infected with a confirmation bias. The seventh floor of Comey at the FBI headquarters was not exactly Lincoln's "rival team". It was a group of many acolytes and activists promoted before the hour, idiots, too ambitious, like-minded.

The statement that he ordered the opening of an investigation into the obstruction of justice in Trump after the dismissal of Comey is laughable and deplorable. McCabe falsely asserts that he had become "very concerned that I could expose the case of Russia on an absolutely solid, indelible terrain," and that it "be quickly returned, or reallocated or returned, that the case be closed or disappear in the night without a trace ".

This sound you hear, it's the groans of countless FBI leaders who seem to seem to understand better than McCabe that the innumerable levels of surveillance exercised by career professionals within the FBI and the GM have always acted as a barrier to prevent political interference in investigations. On the other hand, it is extremely rich that it is McCabe, rightly criticized for his political influence in his own decisions, who would plead for this fear.

McCabe, who spent only a few years conducting field investigations, was forced to be re-elected to the position of senior official to be reinstated as deputy director after opening the investigation on the server unauthorized email from Hillary Clinton. He makes this point to Pelley. What he fails to mention, is that he waited far too long to recuse himself on his return. He acknowledges that "I was part of this team and these decisions". Pelley strangely refuses to insist on this point, gently reminding us that McCabe had recused himself a few months before the elections.

The question is: what kind of ethics, experience, maturity and sensitivity to the appearance of impropriety would have failed to rule out any perceived influence on a case? politically charged when his wife decided to accept the campaign financing of a governor with the control of a political action committee and deep political ties with the Clintons? Answer: McCabe.

To claim that his decision here was not obviously reckless, selfish, and stupid makes you a partisan. His claims that he acted "appropriately" further undermine his credibility, cast more doubt on his other leadership decisions, and irrevocably tarnish the FBI's legacy.

McCabe also showed a lack of judgment and a complete misunderstanding of his role as Acting Director, while also explaining that he had consulted with the Deputy Attorney General on the subject. invocation of the 25th ^th Amendment following the shooting of Comey. The FBI is not part of the decision-making process that the amendment provides for the vice president and cabinet. McCabe had at his disposal a multitude of FBI lawyers. None of them told him that it was not his call and that the sacking of a duly elected president, via ^th Amendment means: Should it be linked to death, resignation, dismissal or incapacity?

McCabe's televised interviewer did not ask any questions about his relationship with former assistant deputy director, Peter Strzok, and one of his FBI attorneys, Lisa Page, about private discussions in his office that Strzok and Page had discussed in private texting exchanges. . The discovery of partisan communications resulted in their dismissal from the Russian electoral interference team of the special prosecutor. It is difficult not to consider the personality of McCabe's victim as pathetic, when the explanations of the "insurance policy" in the case where Trump was elected all failed to pass the test of smell.

McCabe is still awaiting notification of any criminal referral to the Ministry of Justice on the findings of the IG, no denial could have denied being parjured by lying under oath – this is why he had to be fired. Trainee FBI agents are warned that remaining in an official position results in termination, since Giglio hardware will be generated. This information regarding the impeachment of witnesses should be forwarded to defense counsel in cases where the officer would normally testify, which would render him incapable of doing the work.

So how should we take everything McCabe now says is true?

Politicians often distort things. In reality, they lie. Trump (size of the crowd), Obama (keep your health plan) and Gillibrand / Klobuchar (serve my sentence). But for a senior FBI official, doing so is huge and intolerable. So when McCabe sharpens his ax to make second-hand claim an FBI official, in a meeting with Trump, heard him reject an assessment of US intelligence on North Korea's intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities and remarked that "I do not care about nothing. I think Putin "is not that we can not necessarily imagine Trump saying that – it's from McCabe.

His claims that Rosenstein offered wear a thread and record the president were categorically denied by the Deputy Attorney General and a spokesman for the department said that Rosenstein had "never authorized the registration of the documents mentioned by Mr. McCabe".

In a more salacious part of his book, McCabe claims that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made it disgusting remarks on the composition of the FBI. "In the old days," he confided, he confided in an openly racist session, "you only hire Irishmen. They were drunkards, but we could trust them.

I've been serving on various FBI protection details that required a close trip and association with four attorneys general – Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey. It is illogical that any modern AG never makes such blatant remarks about anyone – let alone the acting director of the FBI.

I do not believe Andy McCabe, especially since the main targets of his book are Trump, Sessions and Rosenstein; three men who had a direct impact on the end of his career at the FBI.

What I believe is that a president who is currently living under the sword of Damocles seems to have been targeted by a small group of allegedly apolitical officials who have panicked at a time when populism defies gravity and ignores the processes and time-tested protocols. and prohibitions on law enforcement at the intersection of the political process.

Andy McCabe only made me more convinced of this abomination.

James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) worked at the FBI for 25 years. He is a CNN Law Enforcement Analyst and Assistant Professor of Homeland Security and Criminal Justice at St. John's University.