Comey and McCabe to be arrested — eventually.
Some of my partisan Democratic friends, who hated Comey — now think Trump firing him — is a threat to American democracy.
If you believe that nonsense, you really should read the letter below from Senator Grassley to the FBI.
Grassley is a living legend and the questions he asks here lead me to believe Deputy Director Andrew McCabe will be fired next, and after he’s gone, both Comey and McCabe will probably be ARRESTED.
If you still think it’s Trump in trouble rather than the Democrats including Comey, well, that’s interesting, it means your bias is blocking full comprehension of what is written here by Grassley.
The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Rosenstein,
Now that you have been confirmed as Deputy Attorney General, it is vital that you begin to closely supervise and oversee the FBI’s handling of politically charged, high-profile and controversial investigations. In the past several months, the Committee has sought greater transparency regarding Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s role in those investigations and the appearance of political bias that his involvement creates.
Public reports of his meeting with a longtime Clinton and Democrat party fundraiser, Governor Terry McAuliffe, and his wife’s subsequent campaign for public office being substantially funded by McAuliffe’s organization raise serious questions about his ability to appear impartial. The FBI provided unsatisfactory answers to those questions.
On October 28, 2016, I wrote to the FBI about Deputy Director McCabe’s conflicts in the Clinton investigation and the reported FBI investigation into Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s potential violation of federal campaign laws. On December 14, 2016, the FBI responded but failed to provide the requested records of communications among FBI officials or answer important questions relating to the Clinton and McAuliffe investigations. Further, on March 28, 2017, I wrote to the FBI inquiring about Mr. McCabe’s level of involvement in the investigation into alleged collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia prior to the election. Recently, reports have indicated that the FBI may be setting up a special unit, overseen by Mr. McCabe, to investigate these allegations.
Mr. McCabe is already under investigation by the Department of Justice Office of
Inspector General, for failing to recuse himself from the Clinton investigation due to his meeting with McAuliffe. After that meeting, McAuliffe-aligned political groups donated about $700,000 to Mr. McCabe’s wife, Dr. McCabe, for her campaign to become a Democrat state Senator in Virginia. The Wall Street Journal has reported that 98% of the Gov. McAuliffe related donations to Dr. McCabe came after the FBI launched the investigation into Secretary Clinton.
2 As you are aware, Gov. McAuliffe has been a close associate of Secretary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton for many decades. Naturally, the financial and political links between Mr. McCabe and Gov. McAuliffe raise concerns about the appearance of impartiality in the course of not only the Clinton investigation, but the reported McAuliffe investigation, and the ongoing investigation of alleged ties between associates of Mr. Trump and Russia. In February 2016, three months after Dr. McCabe lost her election bid, Mr. McCabe became the FBI’s second in command and, according to the FBI, “assumed responsibility for the Clinton email investigation.”
The FBI merely asserted that with respect to the Clinton investigation, “[b]ased on these facts, it did not appear that there was a conflict of interest –actual or apparent – that required recusal or waiver.” However, according to the FBI ethics memorandum applicable to Mr. McCabe and provided in its December 14 response, there were other matters the FBI identified where Mr. McCabe’s “disassociation would be appropriate.”
Notably, Mr. McCabe was the approval authority for his own memorandum, so it is unclear who provided oversight of the recusal process outside the FBI itself, if anyone. The memo says: “[s]pecifically, all public corruption investigations arising out of or otherwise connected to the Commonwealth of Virginia present potential conflicts, as Dr. McCabe is running for state office and is supported by the Governor of Virginia. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the ADIC will be excluded from any involvement in all such cases.”
The scope of that recusal would include the reported investigation into Gov. McAuliffe. The memo also says, “[t]his protocol will be reassessed and adjusted as necessary and at the conclusion of Dr. McCabe’s campaign in November 2015.” The FBI did not explain whether the protocol was reassessed when Dr. McCabe lost her election bid in November 2015 or what the scope of any remaining recusal was, if any, after the end of her campaign. Thus, it is unclear whether Mr. McCabe is still recused from the reported McAuliffe investigation.
However, the FBI’s December 14 response made clear that Mr. McCabe’s “disassociation” from Virginia-related cases would merely be followed “for the remainder of [Dr. McCabe’s] campaign.” This implies that once the campaign ended, Mr. McCabe was free again to oversee any investigation related to the man who recruited his wife to run for office and the organizations that provided her approximately $700,000 to do so.
With respect to the Russia investigation, during the week of March 20, 2017, Director Comey publicly testified that in late July of 2016, the FBI began investigating the Russian government’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including alleged collusion between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The inquiry appears to have arisen during the same time that there was intense public controversy over the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.
On April 17, 2017, the FBI responded to my March 28, 2017, letter regarding Mr. McCabe’s involvement in the investigation into the Russian Government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. In that response, the FBI said, “the FBI has assessed that there is no basis in law or in fact for such a recusal,” without providing any reasoning, rationale, or documentation to support this conclusory statement.
Further, according to public reports, the FBI agreed to pay Christopher Steele, the author of the unsubstantiated dossier alleging a conspiracy between Trump associates and the Russians. Clinton associates also reportedly paid Mr. Steele to create the dossier against Mr. Trump. The FBI has failed to publicly reply to my March 6, 2017, letter asking about those reports.
That leaves serious questions about the FBI’s independence from politics unanswered. Mr. McCabe’s appearance of a partisan conflict of interest relating to Clinton associates only magnifies the importance of the Committee’s unanswered questions. This is particularly true if Mr. McCabe was involved in approving or establishing the FBI’s reported arrangement with Mr. Steele, or if Mr. McCabe vouched for or otherwise relied on the politically-funded dossier in the course of the investigation.
Simply put, the American people should know if the FBI’s second-in-command relied on Democrat-funded opposition research to justify an investigation of the Republican presidential campaign. Full disclosure is especially important since he is already under investigation by the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General for failing to recuse himself from the Clinton matter due to his partisan Democrat ties.
These same conflict of interest concerns exist with Mr. McCabe’s involvement in any potential investigation into what appear to be multiple politically motivated leaks of classified information related to the Russia controversy. As a general matter, all government employees must avoid situations that create even the appearance of impropriety and impartiality so as to not affect the public perception of the integrity of an investigation.
Importantly, the FBI Ethics and Integrity Program Guide cites 28C.F.R. § 45.2 which states that, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation if he has a personal or political relationship with […] [a]ny person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or [a]ny person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
As applied to Mr. McCabe’s role in the Clinton, McAuliffe, Trump associates investigation, and leak investigation, these rules demand that he and the FBI take steps to ensure that no appearance of a loss of impartiality undermines public confidence in the work of the Bureau. The FBI has failed to show the Committee that it has taken those necessary steps.
Accordingly, a significant cloud of doubt has been cast over the FBI’s work.
Due to the FBI’s continued failure to adequately respond to the Committee, please answer the following questions:
1. What steps do you plan to take to ensure that the publicly acknowledged investigation into alleged collusion with Russian efforts to influence the elections is not tainted with the appearance of political bias due to the information outlined above?
2. What steps do you plan to take to ensure that the apparent leaks of classified information related to contacts between Trump associates and Russians are fully and impartially investigated, given that several senior FBI officials, including Mr. McCabe, are potential suspects with access to the leaked information?
3. What steps do you plan to take to ensure that the reported investigation related to Gov. McAuliffe was or is being fully and impartially investigated given that Deputy Director McCabe’s recusal appears to have ended at the time that his wife was no longer a candidate for elected office?
In addition, due to the FBI’s failure to answer any McAuliffe related questions, I am attaching the Committee’s October 28, 2016, letter for your reference with a request that the Justice Department answer questions 11 and 12(a)-(g). In addition, I am attaching the March 6, 2017,and March 28, 2017, letters to the FBI for your review.
I anticipate that your written reply and any responsive documents will be unclassified. Please send all unclassified material directly to the Committee. In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13526, if any of the responsive documents do contain classified information, please segregate all unclassified material within the classified documents, provide all unclassified information directly to the Committee, and provide a classified addendum to the Office of Senate Security.
Although the Committee complies with all laws and regulations governing the handling of classified information, it is not bound, absent its prior agreement, by any handling restrictions or instructions on unclassified information unilaterally asserted by the Executive Branch. Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this request. Please respond no later than May 16, 2017 and number your answers according to their corresponding questions. If you have questions, contact Josh Flynn-Brown or Patrick Davis of my Judiciary Committee staff at(202) 224-5225.
Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary