Orange Garbage fires McCabe 2 days before he retires to mess w his pension

[Dill]

(03-19-2018, 02:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Trump didn’t force McCabe to lie or do what he did.  Trump on twitter is what it is..... the only people who get bothered about it are the leftists.    Either way it has nothing to do with what McCabe has done.

Well sure, it is simply a feature of US politics that "leftists" sympathize with Republican FBI agents. That has always been the case.

Leftists may be the only people now who still get bothered when Trump's twitter behavior pushes the nation closer to a Constitutional crisis. The Republican party thinks the impending crisis "is what it is."

And at the moment we, the public, don't know for sure what McCabe did. The "report" has not been released, the actual firing was not done by the FBI but by Sessions, who is hardly his own man.  So we do know that a potential witness against Trump has been publicly harassed by the first president in history to publicly and blatantly ignore the independence of the Justice Department--and to the cheers of supporters. That certainly is what it is.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 03:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or, just spitballing here, or we could wait for the report, see what McCabe even did and why the firing was the only choice.  And why it was 26 hours before his retirement.

You know, "wait and see" as they say.

Oh, I completely agree.  I don't think any decision should be made on the validity of this firing until the evidence is on the table.

Quote:Welp, that's a wonderful opinion you have.  I tried.  Thanks.

This is an odd statement.  On one hand you're saying that we should, "wait and see", which I completely agree with.  Then you take issue with my saying if you've already decided that McCabe is innocent, which is in direct opposition to your "wait and see" viewpoint, then you are, by default, stating the investigation that found him "guilty" is corrupt.  So which is it, should we wait and see or should we say McCabe is innocent?  You can't logically have it both ways.

[Millhouse]

(03-19-2018, 10:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Not commenting on the timing and pension, but it seems the FBI itself recommended the firing.  

The FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility recommended that McCabe be fired after an internal report by the Justice Department’s inspector general accused the FBI veteran of misleading investigators looking into how FBI and Justice Department officials handled an array of matters connected to the 2016 presidential campaign, a source briefed on the recommendation told ABC News.

Assuming their internal reports are true, I honestly can care less when he was fired. 

[Dill]

(03-19-2018, 03:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or, just spitballing here, or we could wait for the report, see what McCabe even did and why the firing was the only choice.  And why it was 26 hours before his retirement.

You know, "wait and see" as they say.

Welp, that's a wonderful opinion you have.  I tried.  Thanks.

You are not getting off the hook that easy, Dino.

I know how liberals think: Perhaps McCabe is lying or the FBI's OPR is--or both of them could be lying--or neither could be and there is a misconstrual of or missing piece of evidence or even an FBI mistake (after all, McCabe's case was separated from a larger investigation and expidited). So let's not rush to premature judgment.

But if you end all that "spitballing" and reduce choices to an either/or and a here and now, then it is clear that if you are not planting your flag with the Trump/Sessions/OPR--for whatever reason--then you certainly are planting your flag with McCabe. That is just logic. Once the field of options is reduced to two contradictory statements, then both cannot be true and both cannot be false. If you say no to one then you are necessarily saying yes to the other.

So enough with your third "we'll wait and see" option and refusing simple contradictories until you can better assess arguments, facts and players from both sides. 

I have seen you do this before and I am getting tired of it. 
 

[StLucieBengal]

(03-19-2018, 03:25 PM)Dill Wrote: Well sure, it is simply a feature of US politics that "leftists" sympathize with Republican FBI agents. That has always been the case.

Leftists may be the only people now who still get bothered when Trump's twitter behavior pushes the nation closer to a Constitutional crisis. The Republican party thinks the impending crisis "is what it is."

And at the moment we, the public, don't know for sure what McCabe did. The "report" has not been released, the actual firing was not done by the FBI but by Sessions, who is hardly his own man.  So we do know that a potential witness against Trump has been publicly harassed by the first president in history to publicly and blatantly ignore the independence of the Justice Department--and to the cheers of supporters. That certainly is what it is.

You forgot the obama justice department who tried to clear the path for Hillary and worked as a partisan with the blatant abuse of the fisa process.

[Dill]

(03-19-2018, 03:51 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You forgot the obama justice department who tried to clear the path for Hillary and worked as a partisan with the blatant abuse of the fisa process.

WhataboutObama?

What "blatant abuse" of the FISA process are you referring to?  The one's mentioned in Trump's unsubstantiated tweets?

[hollodero]

(03-19-2018, 03:51 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You forgot the obama justice department who tried to clear the path for Hillary and worked as a partisan with the blatant abuse of the fisa process.

That very phrase bugs me whenever I see it. There's really zero indication of "blatant abuse", and parroting that line is just playing for the right team by following the FOX et al. narrative. I actually read what Nunes had to say about the FISA abuse. In short, it's brööööh.

As for the topic at hand... I feel SSF is kinda right. One can't quite be certain of McCabe's innocence without blaming the internal FBI investigators of following Trump's orders. But what do I know, so I wish to be ignored on that one.

[Dill]

(03-19-2018, 04:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: That very phrase bugs me whenever I see it. There's really zero indication of "blatant abuse", and parroting that line is just playing for the right team by following the FOX et al. narrative. I actually read what Nunes had to say about the FISA abuse. In short, it's brööööh.

As for the topic at hand... I feel SSF is kinda right. One can't quite be certain of McCabe's innocence without blaming the internal FBI investigators of following Trump's orders. But what do I know, so I wish to be ignored on that one.

Unless I missed it, no poster on this thread has yet expressed certainty of McCAbe's innocence.  Questioning the process, as two posters have, does  not logically entail a claim for McCabe's innocence.  E.g., he could have lacked "candor" AND the Justice Department, under pressure, could have expedited/engineered his firing for political purposes.   

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 04:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Unless I missed it, no poster on this thread has yet expressed certainty of McCAbe's innocence.  Questioning the process, as one poster has, does  not logically entail a claim for McCabe's innocence.  E.g., he could have lacked "candor" AND the Justice Department, under pressure, could have expedited/engineered his firing for political purposes.   

With respect, the title of this thread is "Orange Garbage fires McCabe 2 days before he retires to mess w his pension".  Additionally, there are posters in this thread who claimed, "It "seems" like a report to justify a move already planned", which "seems" to intimate that the investigators acted inappropriately at best and were corrupt at worse.

Maybe I'm reading these statements wrong though.

[Dill]

(03-19-2018, 04:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: With respect, the title of this thread is "Orange Garbage fires McCabe 2 days before he retires to mess w his pension".  Additionally, there are posters in this thread who claimed, "It "seems" like a report to justify a move already planned", which "seems" to intimate that the investigators acted inappropriately at best and were corrupt at worse.

Maybe I'm reading these statements wrong though.

I think you got the statements right.  The question is, what can we infer from the facts given us as of now? Should we shoehorn them into apparent contradictories (McCabe is innocent or he is guilty; the process is not corrupt or it is) or leave them as logical contraries, in which both can be false at the same time?

I think the latter.

It is quite possible that McCabe is as bad as Trump claims, and we will see that right away when the final report is released this spring.

But it is also possible the that Prez influenced the investigation, crossed the line between the Justice Dept. and his office to intimidate his AG and others to artificially separate the McCabe investigation and set it upon a timeline which would deny his pension. Most would regard that as a corruption of process--even if the FBI's OPR office was impartially following procedure and unaware of their superiors' motives.  McCabe quit his job because of Trump harassment, and now he has lost his pension because of a decision to expedite his case. As one poster has already said, "the optics are bad." 

Therefore guilty McCabe AND corrupt process--that possible combination cannot be rejected yet. Affirming one side would not negate the other. "Wait and see" doesn't affirm the innocence of either.

In Russia, oligarchs who are guilty of violating the law are allowed to flourish until they cross Putin. Then they are brought into court where they are quickly jailed and quickly found guilty.  To say that the process is politicized and corrupt would not imply Mikhail Khodorovsky and Boris Berezhofsky were therefore necessarily innocent of charges against them.

[BmorePat87]

(03-19-2018, 04:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: With respect, the title of this thread is "Orange Garbage fires McCabe 2 days before he retires to mess w his pension".  Additionally, there are posters in this thread who claimed, "It "seems" like a report to justify a move already planned", which "seems" to intimate that the investigators acted inappropriately at best and were corrupt at worse.

Maybe I'm reading these statements wrong though.

I made sure to post this minutes before the board would be closed for the weekend so it could stew at the top of PnR untouched for then entire weekend as it dominated the news cycle. 

I still think Trump is shit, even if the inspector general recommended the move. It was unnecessary to **** with the retirement of a man who worked his whole life for this government and then brag about it on twitter. 

[*michaelsean*]

(03-19-2018, 05:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I made sure to post this minutes before the board would be closed for the weekend so it could stew at the top of PnR untouched for then entire weekend as it dominated the news cycle. 

I still think Trump is shit, even if the inspector general recommended the move. It was unnecessary to **** with the retirement of a man who worked his whole life for this government and then brag about it on twitter. 

Don't think we didn't notice your little Friday news dump.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-19-2018, 05:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I still think Trump is shit, even if the inspector general recommended the move. It was unnecessary to **** with the retirement of a man who worked his whole life for this government and then brag about it on twitter. 

That's right! Who cares if he broke the law or commited egregious offenses that warranted his termination? What matters is if the dude is going to get paid!

[NATI BENGALS]

Haha at Sessions firing a guy for lack of candor. And Trump praising the move.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 02:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No such statement is necessary as either one is true or the other.  I got immense enjoyment from the CNN thread in which I stated one or the other party was lying.  That statement of basic fact was lambasted as if I claimed some magical perception denied to others when in fact I was pointing out the obvious for the simple reason that it did not appear to be obvious to some.  This is the exact same type of scenario;


So, I'll reiterate, when you plant your flag with Team McCabe you are directly stating that the investigation conducted by the internal affairs team was corrupt. 

Surprised that you got so much joy from the other thread where you were proven wrong when you claimed CNN was the one lying.  Hope you enjoy this thread just as much.

What if the DOJ report was faulty.  then McCabe could be innocent and the internal affairs office of the FBI who recommended his firing based on the DOJ report could have been acting in good faith.

So instead of falling into the trap you did i.e. "Some one at the FBI has to be lying and corrupt"  I'll wait for the full story to come out.

[Belsnickel]

(03-19-2018, 06:06 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's right! Who cares if he broke the law or commited egregious offenses that warranted his termination? What matters is if the dude is going to get paid!

IIRC, Robert Hanssen was allowed to retire with his pension. Unless McCabe was worse than that, then the whole fiasco is petty and unnecessary with regard to the timing of the dismissal.

[*bfine32*]

(03-19-2018, 03:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or, just spitballing here, or we could wait for the report, see what McCabe even did and why the firing was the only choice.  And why it was 26 hours before his retirement.

You know, "wait and see" as they say.


Welp, that's a wonderful opinion you have.  I tried.  Thanks.

Why are you sharing this sentiment with SSF instead of the OP? 

[SunsetBengal]

(03-19-2018, 02:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Right now there is no way to say whether McCabe's firing was political or not. Sessions had the discretion to allow McCabe to retire with his pension (a courtesy afforded to people dismissed for criminal acts and not just lacking candor) and it was decided to fire him earlier. That decision appears vindictive and petty, but we don't have the information to really say one way or the other on the dismissal itself.

As I understand, he will still get his retirement benefits, only not allowed to start drawing them until between the ages of 57 and 62.  So, it seems the only thing that he's "lost out' on is the ability to start them early.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 05:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I made sure to post this minutes before the board would be closed for the weekend so it could stew at the top of PnR untouched for then entire weekend as it dominated the news cycle. 

I still think Trump is shit, even if the inspector general recommended the move. It was unnecessary to **** with the retirement of a man who worked his whole life for this government and then brag about it on twitter. 

I completely agree that denying the man his retirement is a brutal move.  Allow me to counter by simply saying, if he was guilty of egregious misconduct would allowing him to retire simply not be an incident of special treatment of law enforcement that so many on this board rail against?

(03-19-2018, 06:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Surprised that you got so much joy from the other thread where you were proven wrong when you claimed CNN was the one lying.  Hope you enjoy this thread just as much.

I never claimed CNN was the guilty party in that thread.  If you believe I am incorrect then simply provide the unedited post in which I did.

Quote:What if the DOJ report was faulty.  then McCabe could be innocent and the internal affairs office of the FBI who recommended his firing based on the DOJ report could have been acting in good faith.

Is there any indication that this is the case?

Quote:So instead of falling into the trap you did i.e. "Some one at the FBI has to be lying and corrupt"  I'll wait for the full story to come out.

Good, glad to see we're on the same page.

(03-19-2018, 07:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: IIRC, Robert Hanssen was allowed to retire with his pension. Unless McCabe was worse than that, then the whole fiasco is petty and unnecessary with regard to the timing of the dismissal.

I'll reiterate what I said above.  If McCabe was guilty of egregious misconduct would allowing him to retire after his 50th birthday (3% at 20 at 50 folks!) not be a gross example of special treatment for law enforcement?  If McCabe is innocent of these allegations then he absolutely deserves his retirement and then some.

[Belsnickel]

(03-19-2018, 07:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll reiterate what I said above.  If McCabe was guilty of egregious misconduct would allowing him to retire after his 50th birthday (3% at 20 at 50 folks!) not be a gross example of special treatment for law enforcement?  If McCabe is innocent of these allegations then he absolutely deserves his retirement and then some.

I would just reiterate that former agents actually guilty of crimes were afforded the ability to retire with their pensions. I know there was an agent that assisted Bulger, and I am fairly certain that Hanssen, who spied on behalf of the USSR and later Russia, was granted his pension. I have no objections to there being a line that we draw and say that it disqualifies you from a pension, I do have objections for that line being arbitrary based on politics.