Feb 182019
 February 18, 2019  Posted by at 8:20 pm Primers Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

Johannes Vermeer The art of painting 1666-8


Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Director from February 2016 to January 2018 and former Acting Director of the FBI from May 9, 2017, to August 2, 2017, was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions Sessions on March 16, 2018, 26 hours before his scheduled retirement. On April 18 2018 it was reported that the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, sent a referral to the US attorney’s office in Washington for possible criminal charges against McCabe for lying to internal investigators.

When Sessions announced McCabe’s firing a month before the report came out, he said he based his decision on reports from the DOJ Inspector General and the FBI’s disciplinary office saying that McCabe had made unauthorized releases of information to the media (concerning disclosure of information to a Wall Street Journal reporter about an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation), and had “lacked candor” in talking about it (“had “lacked candor” in talking” means “lied”)

For a reason I don’t really understand -is it really just because he has a book coming out?- McCabe did an interview with 60 minutes that aired Sunday, but from which details leaked earlier in the week. In it McCabe suggests he was fired because he opened two investigations into US President Donald Trump 10 months before Sessions ousted him.

That seems peculiar for two reasons: one, why would he have been permitted to investigate Trump for 10 months, if the investigations were the reason to fire him? And two, is McCabe suggesting that at least some colleagues inside the FBI itself did not accuse him of lying? I haven’t seen that denied before. It would mean both the DOJ Inspector General and the FBI’s disciplinary office were dead wrong.

In the 60 Minutes piece, McCabe appears to throw Rod Rosenstein, US Deputy Attorney General since April 26, 2017, under the bus by claiming that -among other things- Rosenstein offered to wear a wire when meeting with Trump, something Rosenstein has always claimed he had said in jest. McCabe now insists he was serious.

Best friends? Maybe not anymore. Then again, the ‘official’ picture is still that of two of a group of ‘real patriots’ out to save the country. Somehow that makes me think of the Three Musketeers, a dashing and swashbuckling anything goes for the fatherland. McCabe actually appears to think he had to protect America from its newly elected president, and so, ostensibly, does Rosenstein. D’Artagnan had a whole different class of foes, I recall.

Also ostensibly, two Trump cabinet members were “ready to support” a Rosenstein/DOJ scheme to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump, according to testimony last fall to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees by James Baker, former FBI top lawyer. Who also mentioned for example Lisa Page was involved, love interest of Peter Strzok, both fired FBI officials well-known for their hate of Trump.

There’s a zillion more things to say about this, but it shouldn’t be me saying it, or any other writer or journalist. The reason I write this is to ask a very simple and obvious question: where is the Special Counsel who’s going to investigate this putrid quagmire? And when will (s)he finally be appointed? We know, we know, it’d be investigating the investigators, and who’s left for that job? Or are the investigators by now so corrupted that we might as well surrender?

Sure, Lindsey Graham wants the Senate Intelligence Committee to do an investigation, but is that the appropriate venue? Why a Special Counsel filled to the brim with FBI connected folk for Russiagate and ‘only’ a House Committee for FBI-gate? Or is that perhaps the wrong term? Does it matter?

And yes, a million voices will claim that a call for a Special Counsel investigation into the FBI and DOJ can only come from Trump supporters, but they really haven’t been paying attention.

William Barr is the new Attorney General, right, and Christopher Wray heads the FBI. Both organizations have to be very concerned about their credibility, because from the outside they look like cesspools. Rosenstein and McCabe’s swashbuckling should be enough reason, but we know much more went on and many more people were involved.

So let’s have it.



Home Forums What Comes After McCabe?

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
  • #45462

    Johannes Vermeer The art of painting 1666-8   Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Director from February 2016 to January 2018 and former Acting Director
    [See the full post at: What Comes After McCabe?]


    Oh man, that Vermeer may very well be my favorite painting ever. To think that 350 years ago someone had the knowledge to make the right colors (not an obvious thing in those days), and then sit down for numerous long sessions to put those blues and those shadows and that lovely girl’s face on the canvas.

    Click on the painting, then click on its thumbnail on the page, and click twice again to get a supersize version.

    So where do I go from here?


    “…. Lindsey Graham wants ….”
    anything that will be detrimental to Trump and the hell with any and all the collateral damages.

    Doc Robinson

    Thanks for that Vermeer. It gets some attention in this video:

    Doc Robinson

    I tried to post the link but it automatically embedded the video. To see the full screen on a PC, I suggest right-clicking the video’s start arrow to “Copy Video URL”, then paste it to another window or tab.


    V. Arnold

    I’d have to agree; that Vermeer is quite a study.
    Truly stunning on so many levels; colors, detail (I found the floor tiles just amazing), style, and just sheer mastery in portraying what his own eyes behold…
    A photograph would pale in comparison.

    Dr. D

    Ignoring the article because, who cares if nobody’s going to do anything? — I’ve been watching each Vermeer are the exact same place: the corner of the tiled room by the high window and the heavy table. The corner of his world. And a whole story there of a young maid, wooed by a buccaneer who goes off to seek his fortune, or perhaps the creator of this drama and the artist’s role.

    One of the things NOT done with a camera obscura, reaching a whole new level of artistry, but also sensitivity.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.