[ad_1]
For months, federal prosecutors have used a grand jury to investigate former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe – an indication that he has misled officials exploring his role in a controversial revelation.
The grand jury summoned more than one witness, people said, and the case is ongoing. People refused to identify those who had been called to testify.
The presence of the grand jury shows that prosecutors treat the problem seriously, enclosing the accounts of witnesses who may have to testify later at a trial. But these panels are sometimes used only as investigative tools, and there is no guarantee that McCabe will eventually be charged.
A spokesman for the US Attorney's Office in D.C., who handles the investigation, declined to comment.
Michael Bromwich, a McCabe lawyer, said in a statement that the report had been posted online and that he was confident that McCabe would not be charged, in the absence of "inappropriate pressure from senior officials".
"Unfortunately, such pressure has continued, the President targeting Mr. McCabe in many additional tweets," Bromwich said. The lawyer also raised questions about the reporting schedule on the grand jury.
"Today's leak of a procedural step over a month ago – in the midst of a disastrous week for the president – is a sad and unveiled attempt to distract the American public," he said. Bromwich. "We remain convinced that a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances related to this case will demonstrate that there is no justification for criminal prosecution."
[Inspector general report faults Andrew McCabe for unauthorized disclosure of information, misleading investigators]
The McCabe investigation is as politicized as possible, and the decision to pursue it – or not – will spark significant criticism.
McCabe – who briefly took over the FBI after James B. Comey was fired last year – has often been criticized by President Trump. His comments, sometimes prompting Mr. McCabe to investigate, provided significant support for McCabe's argument that he is treated unfairly and the examination of him is tainted with partisanship.
However, the special council office accused several former Trump campaigners of allegedly misleading investigators investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. If the Justice Department refused to defend itself against the former FBI official could fuel the Conservatives' outrage that the federal police have been unfairly aggressive toward their party. The use of a grand jury could give federal prosecutors some political cover to tell them that they were pursuing the case using the most powerful tools available to them and that they always presented themselves empty-handed.
The allegations against McCabe come largely from the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Michael E. Horowitz, whose office concluded in a detailed report at least four times, of which three under oath, and approved disclosure by the media to promote his personal interests. the Ministry of Justice.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe from the FBI in March – just over 24 hours before McCabe's retirement. McCabe made fun of the decision, which cost him a significant portion of his retirement benefits, as he intended to slander him and undermine the inquiry of Special Adviser Robert S. Mueller III. McCabe has launched an online campaign to raise money for his legal defense, raising more than half a million dollars in less than a week.
[Andrew McCabe, Trump’s foil at the FBI, is fired hours before he could retire]
At that time, the public knew only the outline of what Horowitz had discovered. In mid-April, the Inspector General released his detrimental report. Horowitz referred his findings to the US Attorney's Office at D.C., who at one point opened his own investigation into the conduct of the former deputy director.
McCabe's lawyer has already stated that the standard for removal is "very low".
The Inspector General's investigation of McCabe focused on his interactions with other FBI officials with a Wall Street Journal reporter in October 2016, and what McCabe would later tell investigators about these incidents. interactions.
Journalist – Devlin Barrett, now working at The Washington Post – was writing an article about internal tensions within the FBI and the Justice Department about two Hillary Clinton-related investigations. McCabe, seemingly preoccupied with the story, would have judged him as trying to shut down one of the probes, authorized the FBI spokesperson and FBI lawyer Lisa Page to speak with the reporter for this story.
The page has since become more known for anti-Trump texts than it has traded with another FBI agent. In some of these texts, that the Inspector General has examined, she mentioned her conversation with Barrett.
Such interactions with the media, known as substantive conversations, are commonplace in Washington and McCabe had the power to accept them. But the Inspector General concluded that this was intended to promote his own interests, which was inappropriate.
Perhaps even more problematic, the Inspector General also concluded that McCabe had lied about his actions and the FBI's general investigators and inspectors who would later explore the issue. Sending to federal investigators is a crime that can result in a five-year sentence of imprisonment.
McCabe's legal team has already stated that he did not intentionally mislead anyone (a point that prosecutors had to prove if they pleaded) and that his statements to investigators "are better understood as the result of misunderstandings , on the whirlwind of events around him, statements that he subsequently corrected. "
They also challenged Comey's account of his interactions with McCabe, saying Comey knew McCabe was allowing engagement with reporters. Prosecutors questioned Comey in the case at the beginning of the year.
[ad_2]
Source link
