Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, June 05, 2018

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has requested the Senate Judiciary Committee provide him with immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying at an upcoming congressional hearing focused on how senior officials at the FBI and Justice Department handled the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server, according to a letter obtained by CNN. "Under the terms of such a grant of use immunity, no testimony or other information provided by Mr. McCabe could be used against him in a criminal case," wrote Michael Bromwich, a lawyer for McCabe, to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, who has requested McCabe testify next week.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Grassley has quietly requested that several former officials appear in front of the Judiciary Committee to discuss the long-awaited internal Justice Department report, which sources say will detail a series of missteps surrounding the Justice Department and FBI's investigation into Clinton's handling of classified information while secretary of state.

The inspector general's report has not yet been released, but Grassley has invited former FBI Director James Comey and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch to testify as well, according to those familiar with the plans. No word yet on whether Comey and Lynch will also seek immunity.

The stakes for McCabe's appearance, however, are particularly high. The former No. 2 at the FBI is entangled in a separate criminal investigation stemming from an earlier report from the inspector general's office that concluded he lied to internal investigators. McCabe has steadfastly denied wrongdoing, but any congressional testimony he provides could have serious implications for his criminal case.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Only guilty people seek immunity for testifying in front of Congress."

-The DR Left

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-05 07:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He IS a republican after all.

#2 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-06-05 08:00 PM | Reply

Wow! That forthcoming IG report must be pretty hot.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 08:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@2

LOL

@3

It will be interesting to see what Comey and Lynch do, if anyone needed to lawyer up for immunity it will be Lynch.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-05 08:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The issue will be that the DOJ totally screwed Hillary by the way they publicized her investigation. The anti-Hillary faction within particularly the NY office pressured Washington into continuing the investigation of allegations tied to the Breitbart-published screed about the Clinton Foundation as unfounded and false leaks kept the issue alive in the right wing fever swamps. If there is one sentient person who truly believes that what Hillary did with her private server and the CF is within light years of the Trump Team's coordination/cooperation with Russia and connected entities that subverted our electoral process, then they must have been asleep during 2016.

McCabe may very well have violated procedural laws during the investigation but based on what is already publicly known, his actions harmed Hillary, not Trump or any pursuit of justice. There is no way in hell the report can claim that the DOJ actually helped Clinton in the ways and means her investigation was conducted. ZERO.

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-06-05 08:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

t will be interesting to see what Comey and Lynch do, if anyone needed to lawyer up for immunity it will be Lynch.

#4 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

They are in this potential bind in no small part due to the fact that they never believed, in a million years, that Trump would beat Clinton. Had Hillary won this all would have likely been buried.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 08:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Lynch didn't do anything. If that's prosecutable, then so be it.

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-06-05 08:22 PM | Reply

You two are delusional, and I'll constantly remind you of that when all the dust has settled.

#8 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-06-05 08:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

McCabe may very well have violated procedural laws during the investigation but based on what is already publicly known, his actions harmed Hillary, not Trump or any pursuit of justice. There is no way in hell the report can claim that the DOJ actually helped Clinton in the ways and means her investigation was conducted. ZERO.

#5 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

I can cite countless publicly known examples, starting with Obama's public exoneration of her while the investigation was ongoing. Keep in mind this was a criminal investigation, not a counter-intelligence probe. Oops, I'm sorry - it wasn't an investigation, it was a matter.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 08:24 PM | Reply

Lynch didn't do anything. If that's prosecutable, then so be it.

#7 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

You are hilarious. I guess that secret tarmac meeting really was all about sharing cookie recipes.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 08:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Tony,

The IG recommended a criminal investigation against McCabe.

www.nbcnews.com

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 08:29 PM | Reply

#5

Huh. I re-read the article and the word "Trump" doesn't appear anywhere. I wonder what affliction caused Talking Points Tony to try to make that comparison?

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-05 08:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You are hilarious. I guess that secret tarmac meeting really was all about sharing cookie recipes.

It certainly wasn't about Hillary's investigation, that's for sure. I've watched Lynch interviewed about it and I do not see someone lying. As dumb as Bill was for getting caught up with Monica, Loretta Lynch has no history of poor judgment and questionable decisions unlike the gang that can't collude straight.

Gentleman's wager: A donation to your favorite charity IF the report implicates Lynch in lying about her conversation with Clinton on the tarmac. You do realize there were other people present, don't you? And you really think that if something untoward was talked about it wouldn't have become public long ago?

And more to the point, what would Clinton have to gain by speaking to Lynch about Hillary's case? Did he try to sneak on her plane in disguise? She immediately recused herself from the investigation so what exactly was gained by Bill? We all agree that Comey tacitly blew up Hillary's campaign by almost everything he did or said in public, so how exactly was Hillary helped?

For two people constantly deriding me for being a conspiratorial, you've managed to work yourselves into a tizzy with an illogical conclusion that stretches credulity. No one who supported Hillary believed that her server issue should have risen to a criminal matter other than her partisan detractors with the black and white reading of cold law, with no recognition that there wasn't criminal intent (she wasn't trying to disseminate or hide classified material illegally) and that the previous two Republican SecStates had done similarly before her.

Trumpers meet with numerous Russians seeking damning info on Hillary from an email-announced foreign government, then lied about the subject matter, contradicting the emails, and then never report any meetings to the FBI. But we have to wait to form any conclusions, right? What a joke.

#13 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-06-05 09:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I guess that secret tarmac meeting really was all about sharing cookie recipes.

#10 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Would this be the same secret meeting that was photographed by reporters?

Here, I'll get this out of the way for you:

www.snopes.com

Nope. Didn't happen.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-05 11:27 PM | Reply

www.snopes.com
Nope. Didn't happen.

#14 | POSTED BY JPW

And that proves, what?

That they were unlucky that a local reporter spotted their meeting and photographed it?

What if said reporter hadn't been there? Was this a publicized meeting? Was it intended to be known about?

C'mon, man. You are usually far more rational than this.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 11:36 PM | Reply

"Was it intended to be known about?"

They were planning to SWAT David Hogg.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 11:38 PM | Reply

C'mon, man. You are usually far more rational than this.

#15 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I was pointing out the absurdity of calling it a secret.

Based on your coulda shoulda wouldas does that mean that every single meeting of every single official that we don't know about (because we haven't seen a picture or their itinerary) is "secret"?

Or are you carefully picking your words to make this sound nefarious and underhanded because, you know, that's how the Boyz on the Fence hang?

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-05 11:42 PM | Reply

I was pointing out the absurdity of calling it a secret.

Do you honestly believe that the meeting was purely coincidental and that they really just swapped recipes?

They didn't invite the local reporter to photograph their meeting. Christ almighty - even some Democrats and liberals acknowledge(d) that meeting for what it was.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 11:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do you honestly believe that the meeting was purely coincidental and that they really just swapped recipes?

Reductio ad absurdum.

You lose. Nice try.

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-05 11:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Are you truly that naive?

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 11:58 PM | Reply

Are you truly that naive?

#20 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I prefer to rely on evidence, not conjecture.

Particularly not conjecture from "news" organizations that have an abysmal track record to calling these things correctly.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-06 12:01 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The husband (and former POTUS) has an unscheduled meeting on a tarmac with the AG who is in charge of a criminal investigation of his wife, just days before she was "exonerated" in a criminal investigation...sorry...a matter...and that looks completely normal to you???

Seriously, what do you think the purpose of that meeting was?

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-06 12:08 AM | Reply

Seriously, what do you think the purpose of that meeting was?

Bubba wanted a little Brown Sugar.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-06 12:16 AM | Reply

"Seriously, what do you think the purpose of that meeting was?"

Seriously, what do you think the purpose of that meeting was?

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-06 12:20 AM | Reply

Seriously, what do you think the purpose of that meeting was?

#24 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that question.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-06 12:22 AM | Reply

@24

Move to strike that answer as non-responsive, as usual.

#26 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-06 12:31 AM | Reply

If there is one sentient person who truly believes that what Hillary did with her private server and the CF is within light years of the Trump Team's coordination/cooperation with Russia and connected entities that subverted our electoral process, then they must have been asleep during 2016. - #5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-06-05 08:21 PM

Wow, you're right. Anyone who believes those are within light years of each other must have been asleep in 2016 when we had evidence that one existed, since we still haven't seen evidence that the other did.

#27 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-06 08:44 AM | Reply

Are you truly that naive?

#20 | Posted by JeffJ

Yes he is, most of the far left is.

#28 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-06-06 10:48 AM | Reply

Benghaaaaaaaaziiiiiii!!!!!!!

Shiny object over there, don't look at Trump, look at Hillary!

#29 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-06 10:55 AM | Reply

Yes he is, most of the far left is.

#28 | POSTED BY SNIPER

If you think I'm "far left" you have a highly skewed vision of American politics.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-06 11:04 AM | Reply

Goes around yammering "derangement" for critique of sitting executive, but creates broken dick thread about the executive over 16 years after the fact

Now that is a display of Derangement if ther ever was one

#31 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-06-06 11:43 AM | Reply

"I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that question.
#25 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

I'm pretty sure you don't, so I find it strange that you are pretty sure I do.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-06 01:30 PM | Reply

For a party that is jumping all over Trump with no evidence it amazes me how you stand by Hillary when there is a mountain of evidence against her including her smashing hard drives and wiping others clean. If Hillary had an R as her party affiliation she would be in jail.

#33 | Posted by WTFIGO at 2018-06-06 07:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort