Results 1 to 30 of 31

Thread: Questions about McCabe's firing

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,906

    Default Questions about McCabe's firing

    So, Trump has gotten Sessions to fire McCabe just before he was set to retire, denying him a large chunk of his pension. Trump's many comments on the matter suggest that this act was retaliatory, a punishment for crossing the gangster-in-chief. It goes without saying that this was also an extremely petty thing to do, and hilariously hypocritical given that he was criticized for lack of candor by a man who's lied to congress, in a time when the WH's representatives--including the president--regularly lies to the public of this banana republic.

    Do you believe McCabe will sue for wrongful termination, and do you believe he'll be successful? The statement he released in response immediately after the announcement suggests he and possibly his lawyers were prepared for this eventuality but obv. hard to determine the merits of a lawsuit w/out knowing more about the IG's report.

    Someone suggested that if some congressman were to employ McCabe immediately and let him work for a while longer, he might be able to retain his pension. Is that accurate?

    McCabe is likely to be a witness in any obstruction of justice case that might be brought by Mueller & co. Would his firing be regarded as evidence against Trump in such a case?

    Given that McCabe is a potential witness in the Russia investigation, is it appropriate for Sessions--who has had to recuse himself from all matters relating to that investigation--to fire him?
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  2. #2
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,953
    Sacking someone two days before they retire in under to take away their pension is twisted, malicious and vindictive. Scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Sacking someone two days before they retire in under to take away their pension is twisted, malicious and vindictive. Scum.
    While I don't disagree that it was a less than pleasant move and almost certainly politically motivated in its timing, I want to be clear that they did not 'take away' his pension. His current pension, had he been able to work another few days, would have allowed him to collect his pension at age fifty. Now (assuming there is no redress or workaround), he will have to wait until somewhere between 57 and 62; certainly that's a lot of money (in the realm of $250-500k, probably), but I think McCabe is more than capable of finding gainful employment between the ages of 50 and 57. Government pensions are bullshit good and I find it a little hard to muster much concern for his financial future because of this move. There's a more subtle second-order effect as well having to do with some multiplier to his pension having to do with length of service, but it sounds like this is not a huge difference (the details seem to be employee specific and no precise information has been forthcoming). A more reasonable concern is provision of healthcare to him and his family, which may be curtailed because of eligibility issues.

    None of this changes the reality that this was a dick move at least, probably unwise, and possibly problematic from several legal perspectives. But let's not make this more than it is - McCabe still has a pension, it's just slightly smaller and starts at a slightly more reasonable time than would have been the case otherwise.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  4. #4
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,953
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    While I don't disagree that it was a less than pleasant move and almost certainly politically motivated in its timing, I want to be clear that they did not 'take away' his pension. His current pension, had he been able to work another few days, would have allowed him to collect his pension at age fifty. Now (assuming there is no redress or workaround), he will have to wait until somewhere between 57 and 62; certainly that's a lot of money (in the realm of $250-500k, probably), but I think McCabe is more than capable of finding gainful employment between the ages of 50 and 57. Government pensions are bullshit good and I find it a little hard to muster much concern for his financial future because of this move. There's a more subtle second-order effect as well having to do with some multiplier to his pension having to do with length of service, but it sounds like this is not a huge difference (the details seem to be employee specific and no precise information has been forthcoming). A more reasonable concern is provision of healthcare to him and his family, which may be curtailed because of eligibility issues.

    None of this changes the reality that this was a dick move at least, probably unwise, and possibly problematic from several legal perspectives. But let's not make this more than it is - McCabe still has a pension, it's just slightly smaller and starts at a slightly more reasonable time than would have been the case otherwise.
    You are conflating the general and the specific. Yes in general public sector pensions are ridiculously generous. Yes in general tightening them up would be better and more cost-effective for the taxpayer.

    However that's not what has happened here. What has happened is that an individual - after he was asked how he voted in a secret ballot - has been persecuted to be uniquely and punitively punished by taking away his entitlement while leaving others untouched. Not only that but it has been done in a high profile punitive fashion designed to intimidate others into acting in the way those abusing their power want. Pour encourager les autres.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,937
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    You are conflating the general and the specific. Yes in general public sector pensions are ridiculously generous. Yes in general tightening them up would be better and more cost-effective for the taxpayer.

    However that's not what has happened here. What has happened is that an individual - after he was asked how he voted in a secret ballot - has been persecuted to be uniquely and punitively punished by taking away his entitlement while leaving others untouched. Not only that but it has been done in a high profile punitive fashion designed to intimidate others into acting in the way those abusing their power want. Pour encourager les autres.
    One has to agree.

    It all smacks of an abuse of powers. I'm shocked Americans here see it as justified for the single reason than that they feel government pensions are too generous. I'm happy to live in a continent where the courts would not allow this kind of behaviour by an unhinged administration.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    You are conflating the general and the specific. Yes in general public sector pensions are ridiculously generous. Yes in general tightening them up would be better and more cost-effective for the taxpayer.

    However that's not what has happened here. What has happened is that an individual - after he was asked how he voted in a secret ballot - has been persecuted to be uniquely and punitively punished by taking away his entitlement while leaving others untouched. Not only that but it has been done in a high profile punitive fashion designed to intimidate others into acting in the way those abusing their power want. Pour encourager les autres.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    One has to agree.

    It all smacks of an abuse of powers. I'm shocked Americans here see it as justified for the single reason than that they feel government pensions are too generous. I'm happy to live in a continent where the courts would not allow this kind of behaviour by an unhinged administration.
    I want to be absolutely clear: I in no way condone the firing of McCabe (or anyone else) in a vindictive way that needlessly curtails their pensions. Furthermore, while I have not seen the substance of the investigation into McCabe's conduct and am not in a position to determine whether he had indeed engaged in problematic behavior, I am fairly certain that his firing was politically motivated and is all sorts of wrong. My only point was that people were specifically focusing on the pension question, when in reality McCabe's pension that had already vested was quite generous.

    I'm upset about the behavior towards McCabe mostly because of the ramifications for ongoing presidential interference in the Justice Department and other elements of the civil service. The pettiness associated with his pension is, well, petty, but does not appear on the face of it to be a crushing blow to McCabe's financial security. (The ramifications for healthcare for him and his family are less clear to me and may indeed be huge problems.) Let's keep our eyes on the ball here, yes?
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,797
    "Pursuant to Department Order 1202, and based on the report of the Inspector General, the findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the Department’s senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately" - Jeff Sessions.

    So who runs the FBI's OPR?

  8. #8
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,593
    If Sessions says something, it must be true.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    If Sessions says something, it must be true.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/14/u...T.nav=top-news

    Sessions didn't make up the OPR report.

  10. #10
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,906
    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.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  11. #11
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,593
    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.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  12. #12
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,906
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...mccabe/555869/

    Poor Frum. No-one ever pays any attention to his Cassandran warnings about trial balloons.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  13. #13
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,527
    Yeah, it's not really about his pension....but the timing of his firing. And it's not really about McCabe or even the FBI, but the Attorney General acting under pressure from Trump.

    If this kind of shit was happening during a Democrat's administration, Republicans would be screaming about executive over-reach or a politicized judicial branch. Their silence speaks volumes.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,797
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Yeah, it's not really about his pension....but the timing of his firing. And it's not really about McCabe or even the FBI, but the Attorney General acting under pressure from Trump.

    If this kind of shit was happening during a Democrat's administration, Republicans would be screaming about executive over-reach or a politicized judicial branch. Their silence speaks volumes.
    The FBI isn't part of the judicial branch.

  15. #15
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    The FBI isn't part of the judicial branch.
    Neither is the Department of Justice.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  16. #16
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,953
    Whether McCabe's pension as vested is generous or not is moot. The pension lost due to this action is significant and it was what he had earnt and was reasonably expecting. There will be others in similar positions looking at what has happened and the notion of a leadership saying "cross us and we will take away your expected pension" is a chilling one.

    This sets a precedent that is very unhealthy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  17. #17
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,953
    I simply can't think of any comparable precedent for taking away a career civil servant's personal pension entitlement for partisan political reasons because the head of government didn't like what they did in a professional capacity. Maybe this isn't unique but it seems so to me and is a disgusting precedent that is genuinely "banana republic" territory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Whether McCabe's pension as vested is generous or not is moot. The pension lost due to this action is significant and it was what he had earnt and was reasonably expecting. There will be others in similar positions looking at what has happened and the notion of a leadership saying "cross us and we will take away your expected pension" is a chilling one.

    This sets a precedent that is very unhealthy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    I don't see how the matter of it being a crushing blow or not is relevant in any way. As a part of the absolutely breathtaking behavior of the Trump administration it's not a lesser element; it is a violation of basic principles of government and rule of law on a par with the other elements of this unsavory affair.
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I simply can't think of any comparable precedent for taking away a career civil servant's personal pension entitlement for partisan political reasons because the head of government didn't like what they did in a professional capacity. Maybe this isn't unique but it seems so to me and is a disgusting precedent that is genuinely "banana republic" territory.
    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.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,937
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    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.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  20. #20
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,906
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    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.

    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  21. #21
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    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.

  22. #22
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,953
    Sorry but that's nonsense. He was due to retire on Sunday with full benefits. On Friday he gets fired for politically motivated reasons costing him from your description immediately seven years of his pension. To describe that as "not vested" is pedantry. He wasn't fired due to normal due process or gross misconduct, he was fired on the day he was fired specifically to take away his pension. That was explicitly mocked by the POTUS with his "racing the clock" Tweet. To say he was fired to take away his pension is accurate.

    Had he been fired on a Friday when he was going to retire that Sunday without the pension issue then that would have been fairly moot. What made this so malicious was the pension issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Sorry but that's nonsense. He was due to retire on Sunday with full benefits. On Friday he gets fired for politically motivated reasons costing him from your description immediately seven years of his pension. To describe that as "not vested" is pedantry. He wasn't fired due to normal due process or gross misconduct, he was fired on the day he was fired specifically to take away his pension. That was explicitly mocked by the POTUS with his "racing the clock" Tweet. To say he was fired to take away his pension is accurate.

    Had he been fired on a Friday when he was going to retire that Sunday without the pension issue then that would have been fairly moot. What made this so malicious was the pension issue.
    Who cares if it was malicious? So it was a dick move. That's just more evidence that Donald Trump is a dick. But I'm not concerned with how much of an asshole Trump is, I'm concerned about democracy. And that leads me to being much more concerned with the fact and manner in which he was fired, not the timing of it.

    You're right, if he was fired without an appropriate process or without cause (I haven't seen the IG report but it seems likely), that's a problem. But it's a problem independent of the maliciousness of the timing wrt pension vesting.

    I work for a company that awards substantial stock options on a vesting schedule. If I get fired before they vest, I either get nothing or a pre-determined percentage of the original award. Sure, if I get fired the day before they vest, I'm going to look very carefully at their reasons for firing me (it might be at will employment, but they still need a reason for the timing). But assuming they fired me for a decent reason, I have no right to demand the unvested portion of my stock award.

    The crime here is not the pension issue - if indeed McCabe had done something fireable, he has no reason to demand the pension that hadn't vested yet. If he hadn't (as seems likely), the real problem is his termination and how it came about, not his pension.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  24. #24
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,953
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Who cares if it was malicious?
    I do as does almost everyone else it appears. The tied-in issue as well as a few of us have said is not just what this means for McCabe but more significantly the very loud and clear signal that is being sent to other federal employees that the executive is prepared to go after their personal finances and personal pension rights in such a manner if they act in a manner that upsets the partisans in office. That is without precedent and is worrying.

    You're making out as if the firing is the sole issue and the pension issue is a coincidental side-effect like an unintended consequence. It was instead of course the publicised motive behind the firing.

    LOL Hazir on agreement
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,797
    http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-deputy-a...093?yptr=yahoo

    "Fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe violated FBI policies in the way he once disclosed an ongoing investigation to a news outlet and later how he described that disclosure to authorities, the internal Department of Justice watchdog revealed in a report to Congress on Friday.

    “The [Office of the Inspector General] found that then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lacked candor, including under oath, on multiple occasions in connection with describing his role in connection with a disclosure to [The Wall Street Journal ],” the report said, adding that the conduct violated FBI policies. “The OIG also concluded that McCabe’s disclosure of the existence of an ongoing investigation in the manner described in this report violated the FBI’s and the Department’s media policy and constituted misconduct.”

    As of Friday evening, the Justice Department did not appear to have publicly released the report. Multiple news outlets published the report, dated February 2018.

    The Justice Department inspector general launched its review of the FBI’s handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server while secretary of state, in January 2017. The mandate of the review included whether former FBI Director James Comey’s public disclosures about the investigation were appropriate, and whether McCabe should have recused himself because of an alleged conflict of interest."

    More details. But I'm sure that doesn't matter to y'all.

  26. #26
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,906
    Please re-read the thread.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  27. #27
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,319
    How is what he posted not relevant?

  28. #28
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    How is what he posted not relevant?
    His post being relevant is not the issue, the issue is that it only speaks towards the merits of the case against McCabe rather than the question of whether or not the intervention into the investigation (by Trump and Sessions) and the deviations from standard practice were appropriate. Several posts in the thread acknowledge the possible merits of the complaint against McCabe, which Lewk would've known, had he
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,797
    If someone is guilty of gross misconduct the minimum expectation that any good steward of the people's treasury would get their ass canned prior to them collecting additional tax payer resources. This should be obvious, there are two possibilities.

    1. McCabe bad, fuck his pension right call.

    2. McCabe good, this was dirty, bad call he should get pension.

    Simple as that.

  30. #30
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,906
    McCabe bad, vigilante should kidnap him and hang him from a tree?
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •