Questions about McCabe's firing

[Hazir]

You guys don't get my point. First off, they didn't 'take away' anything - every cent of his pension that had already vested will go to him. He hadn't earned the rest of the top up until he met the eligibility criteria. It violates no norms to fire someone with cause even if they were close to full vesting of their pension. One might even argue that it's the only way to make a firing mean anything if the person involved will see no other penalties and their misconduct was substantial.

Secondly, most of the media I've seen focuses on the pension but they're missing the point. The vast majority of the media I've seen is very vague about exactly what the ramifications are for McCabe, with the casual reader thinking that his entire pension is gone and that he's screwed financially. Neither is the case, and a careful reading of the rules (which were admittedly covered by a minority of publications) would indicate that the effect on McCabe will be significant but not ruinous. That doesn't mean it's not worth reporting - clearly the timing was meant to have this effect on his pension vesting schedule - but let's strive for some accuracy, yes?

Third, my real point is this: we're spending our time agonizing over the pension when we should be dealing with the real issue here. If McCabe had been fired with the accompanying vilification of him by the conservative media but there hadn't been any pension ramifications, would this be just as much of a problem? You bet it would be. The problem is the politicization of the Justice Department, the interference of POTUS in the inner workings of said department, etc. The whole pension thing is just rubbing salt in the wound. Absent truly ruining McCabe financially, the whole pension story is a red herring. Let's say Sessions had fired him but had allowed some sort of exemption just to let him get his pension at full vesting. Would that have made the firing any better? Nope! The optics might have been a little less petty but that's about it.

First of all let me congratulate you with achieving me agreeing with all of Rand's posts in a thread.

Second; something was taken away. It doesn't matter if 'every cent' 'will go to him' when firing him 2 days before reaching retirement means that he gets it years later. The simple fact that he doesn't get it now means that something is taken away from him. That is how annuities work. And if you don't believe me; go to your bank and tell them you have good reasons to stop paying your mortgage installments but have every intention to pay them what you're due in seven years from now. You think they are very open to your idea that it doesn't matter as they will be getting their 'every cent'? A person can reasonably expect to reach his pension age if he's still employed 2 days before the due date. Such a person will also plan his finances with the pension being part of that planning. Take away the pension and you create a significant hole in the plans. Probably necessitating a complete re-drawing.

Third; your president made it very obvious that he was going after McCabe's pension rights. That makes it not a side show in this affair, but part of the main show. If you allow for political appointments in a civil service you can't really complain about politicization of that service. That ship has sailed a long time ago so to say. However, such a blatant abuse of the rules is a new developement.

[Aimless]

Some notes:

"Lack of candor" is a term with a specific meaning at the FBI, and it is a violation that justifies dismissal, in large part because someone guilty of it can no longer be trusted eg. as a credible witness, thus jeopardizing everyone's work. If the investigation found compelling evidence that McCabe was guilty of this, his dismissal is not without merit in and of itself (although sice he was planning on retiring it is unlikely that his lack of candor would have any bearing on his future credibility at the FBI).

However, everything else about this is irregular: the issue of McCabe's testimony was broken out of the overall investigation and expedited in order to beat the deadline of his birthday and retirement, with the apparent intention of denying him a sizable chunk of his pension as well as denying his family future healthcare benefits; this was done at the repeated urging of a president who is the subject of an investigation in which McCabe is a witness; it is clear that he was pre-judged and the punishment pre-determined--both Trump and Sessions attempted to pressure officials into doing precisely this, in precisely this manner; the decision to dismiss him was made by a person who was arguably bound to stay out of the matter due to his recusal from everything having to do with the investigation into the election campaign. A number of former FBI & DoJ officials have commented that, while it isn't unheard of for FBI officials close to retiring age being under investigation, it is so rare for them to be fired a couple of days before retirement that it's practically unheard of. So this is a major departure from the norm, and arguably an unfair one as well, regardless of the merits of the dismissal.

If we analyze the various aspects of this event in isolation, sure, the issue of a corrupt executive successfully influencing officials into punishing career civil servants for political and likely criminal reasons, with no meaningful pushback, is def. the most significant problem. But if McCabe hadn't been fired, in this fashion, for these reasons, and with these consequences, the ethical & legal problems would be less concerning: the negative impact on McCabe and his family would be much smaller; the chilling effect on other employees would not be as great, because it would represent a less severe and malicious punishment; the corruption/failure of the DoJ would not appear to be as complete. I think any ethical and strategic calculus that assigns a value of zero to the consequences of the expedited decision for McCabe's pension & benefits is flawed.

First of all let me congratulate you with achieving me agreeing with all of Rand's posts in a thread.

With his coming are the dread fires born again.
The hills burn, and the land turns sere.
Hazir agrees with RandBlade, and Randblade isn't wrong.
The wall is pierced, and the veil of parting raised.
Storms rumble beyond the horizon, and the fires of heaven purge the earth.
There is no salvation without destruction, no hope this side of death.

[Dreadnaught]

The merits of the firing remain unknown. What is known is that this was an extraordinary--possibly unprecedented--departure from regular order. This particular issue was broken out of the rest of the investigation and rushed in order to be completed before McCabe's retirement. There are also due process concerns given that McCabe and his counsel have had very limited time to mount a defense, had incomplete or delayed access to important information etc. We also know the decision to fire McCabe was likely made long before the investigation was completed--Sessions was pressuring Wray about McCabe months ago. There's also the matter of inappropriate influence, eg. Trump calling for McCabe to be fired before he could retire. Legal experts are also suggesting that Sessions violated the terms of his recusal in firing McCabe. And, finally, there's the matter of obstruction of justice by retaliating against a witness in the investigation into Trump's shenanigans.

I am of course not surprised to see that Lewk is thrilled by the prospect of the US turning into an authoritarian banana republic. Just sad to see Republicans docilely falling into line. America's institutions are indeed a bulwark against the excesses of a corrupt executive.

You're missing the far bigger problem of Trump sending a clear signal to career bureaucrats that he has no intention of obeying federal laws and regulations dealing with termination of those workers. This undermines a century and a half of civil service reforms.

I haven't heard anywhere that this is somehow illegal. FBI officials are held to high standards because they have law enforcement responsibilities. If he truly lied on several occasions to internal investigators, that's a real issue. And it sounds like a court will either confirm or deny this finding.

I think calling our Fifth Estate of the unelected bureaucracy the product of civil service "reforms" is really a discussion about unintended consequences.