"Insubordinate" is not the same thing as "illegal," but it does seem to confirm the recommendation (by Rosenstein) that Comey deserved to be fired. If it was right to fire him, then it can't have been improper to fire him, not even if he was working on something really important. It'll be interesting to see what else this report contains. That the Clinton investigation was improperly political is clear to all observers, but we will learn a lot about whether or not the FBI is capable of correcting itself through the Inspector General process.
This is the second of three highly awaited reports on the FBI lately. The third one will deal with the investigation into the Trump campaign, and whether it was done for political purposes.
6 comments:
we will learn a lot about whether or not the FBI is capable of correcting itself through the Inspector General process.
We're already learning a lot about the utility of this particular IG process by seeing the IG allow reviewers to slow-walk, if not outright stonewall, its report.
A common misconception about Inspectors General is their alleged independence. They are not, nor can they be: they work for the organization's MFWIC; they're not inspecting from outside. That's especially a problem when it's the MFWIC or his office/staff who are the part of the problem.
Without knowing the rules under which this IG facility must operate, it would seem to me that the IG report should be/should have been released a bit ago: "You reviewer guys blew through your suspenses for completing your reviews (which must have been limited to bald fact checking), and so you've forfeited your opportunities to comment.
We don't even know, at this point, what's in the report, much less any allegation of insubordination. All we have is ABC's rumors, based on what ABC claims its carefully unidentified sources say. Assuming those sources actually exist. And if they do, assuming their word can be trusted, given their demonstrated dishonesty with their leak.
Eric Hines
You seem to be reinforcing the idea of institutional failure discussed a couple of posts below. I was trying to hold out some hope here, but we'll see. McCabe was held pretty accountable by the previous IG report; on the other hand, I read (in the media you remind us all not to trust one little bit) that he may be negotiating an immunity deal in return for testimony.
The more the DC crowd washes each other clean, the dirtier becomes the water they're all sitting in.
My move in the Congress (and a Florida Representative says much the same thing) is to grant no immunity to McCabe. Let him take the 5th, on the record, for every question put to him. If he argues the matter, subpoena him, and bring him in to testify with no delay. He can dissent in public, in the hearing. That's what opening statements are for.
As for McCabe being held accountable, I've seen no evidence of that beyond his firing; I've seen only accusations. What have you seen?
And, yes, I have little trust in a collection of institutions whose incumbents, more than merely disdain dissent, actively and violently oppose it. Say what you will about the Republicans, but they at least don't shrink from dissent. Neither do Conservatives shy away from it.
The institutions haven't failed, yet; they yet can be recovered. But the edge is near.
Eric Hines
I've seen referrals for criminal prosecution. What I'm waiting to see is what is done with those. If he's granted immunity by Congress in return for testimony, then the IG system has ultimately failed to bring accountability in spite of its recommendations. The DC system will have proven too resilient in its corruption to hold an important player accountable. If he's prosecuted, and especially if he is convicted, it's another story.
Accusations--referrals for prosecution--aren't accountability. Convictions paired with suitable sanctions are.
As for immunity, I agree with you. Aside from the politics and accountability of the matter, what would McCabe know that's both so important and can't be found out through other sources that immunity would be worth the price? I can't think of anything.
Eric Hines
"That the Clinton investigation was improperly political is clear to all observers." Oh, I'm betting not all observers. I'd be thrilled if it were even a majority.
There you go being logical again. We've warned you about that.
Post a Comment