A novel (and subsequent movie) about a military coup against the President of the United States was called “Seven Days in May.” It has now been confirmed we had a real “eight days in May” this year.
This appears to be a genuine attempt at a “velvet coup d’etat.”
Once upon a time, liberals would be terrified by the idea that an unelected national security state would collude to undo the will of the people and attempt to void a democratically elected President.
There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment.-Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes
Or, to put it another way, Former FBI Director McCabe, whose wife took a truckload of campaign cash from a top Clinton donor and confidant, colluded with Clinton campaign contractors and the foreign bagman of a sanctioned Russian oligarch to try and take down a duly elected U.S. president.
Trying to use the 25th Amendment to try and circumvent the Election is a despicable act of unconstitutional power grabbing…which happens in third world countries. You have to obey the law. This is an attack on our system & Constitution. Alan Dershowitz.
Paul Plante says
This of course is nothing new in our history, the idea of removing a president from office either by artifice, as this would be, or force.
In a HISTORY.net article entitled “Patriot’s Act by George McClellan” by Catherine Whittenburg on 7/6/2017, the author talks of the alleged coup attempt by Democrat “Little Mac” McClellan to remove “the original gorilla,” Abe Lincoln from office during the American Civil War.
That story reads as follows:
HEAVY SNOW had been pounding the Army of the Potomac for hours when Brig. Gen. Catharinus P. Buckingham’s train arrived in Salem, Va., on November 7, 1862.
Fierce as the blizzard was—particularly for that time of year—the orders Buckingham carried from the capital threatened to trigger an even more dangerous storm.
It had been two days since President Abraham Lincoln had signed the orders removing General George McClellan from command of the army, McClellan’s conflicts with the administration having finally come to a head.
“Little Mac,” as his troops fondly called him, was to depart for Trenton, N.J., and await further orders; Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside was to take control of the army.
It was not the first, nor would it be the last, change of command for the Army of the Potomac.
But Little Mac was not like other generals, and some of his superiors in Washington worried he would not go quietly.
What’s more, they feared that if McClellan resisted, his worshipful troops might fall right in line behind him.
McClellan, a Democrat, had long butted heads with the Republican administration over politics and policy, not to mention military strategy.
He and his supporters had even entertained notions of McClellan’s becoming some kind of a military “dictator,” and he would immediately declare his ouster to be a “great mistake.”
Would he concede the day nonetheless?
U.S. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, who had personally drafted Buckingham into the role of messenger, was among the most skeptical.
As Buckingham later recalled in an 1875 letter to the Chicago Tribune:
“The Secretary had not only no confidence in McClellan’s military skill, but he very much doubted his patriotism, and even loyalty….”
“He expressed to me some fear that McClellan would not give up the command, and he wished, therefore, that the order should be presented by an officer of high rank, direct from the War Department, so as to carry the full weight of the President’s authority.”
It would be another two years before McClellan would formally challenge Lincoln for the presidency.
But already he had willingly become an important voice and symbol of opposition to the administration.
Like many Democrats, McClellan favored reconciliation with the South, not its annihilation.
He virulently opposed the increasingly radical direction of Lincoln’s policies, particularly the impending emancipation of slaves, and often vented his complaints to Democratic political leaders and the newspapers they controlled.
This, as McClellan biographer Stephen Sears noted, was another, unstated reason for McClellan’s removal, and a cause for Stanton’s suspicion that McClellan might rebel against those who sought to oust him.
Stanton, also a Democrat, knew McClellan well.
Stanton had once been an ally and confidante of McClellan’s, but they had fallen out badly over the latter’s reluctance to engage the enemy on the battlefield.
Their former close acquaintance had taught Stanton about both the depths of McClellan’s contempt for Lincoln—a contempt Stanton had once shared—and the general’s hunger for supremacy within the Union chain of command.
McClellan had never hesitated to criticize his superiors in Washington—or as he described them to his wife, “men whom I know to be greatly my inferiors socially, intellectually & morally!”
He sneered at the president in letters, referring to him as “the original gorilla”—an insult Stanton had coined before his conversion to a Lincoln supporter.
By November 1862, McClellan had come to regard Stanton not only as a turncoat, but his main adversary in the Cabinet.
McClellan, in fact, clashed to such an extent with his civilian superiors, personally and professionally, that some of his letters read as if he were at war with Washington rather than the Confederacy.
“I am satisfied that the dolts in Washington are bent on my destruction if it is possible for them to accomplish it,” he railed to his wife on August 10, 1862.
“The more I hear of their wickedness the more I am surprised that such a wretched set are permitted to live much less to occupy the positions they do….”
“The next few days will probably be decisive,” McClellan continued.
“If I succeed in my coup everything will be changed in this country so far as we are concerned & my enemies will be at my feet.”
“It may go hard with some of them in that event, for I look upon them as the enemies of the country & of the human race….”
Presumably, McClellan referred here to a purely political “coup,” not a military one.
But as historian Richard Slotkin reflected in Antietam: How the Civil War Became a Revolution, “the real significance of these rants is their revelation that the commander of the nation’s largest army was in an extraordinarily dangerous state of mind.”
Rejecting allegations that McClellan had been too slow to fight, his supporters blamed politics for his downfall.
Some accused Lincoln of firing McClellan in retaliation for Democratic victories in the 1862 midterm elections—particularly in New York, the Union’s most populous and influential state, where the entire Republican ticket, including an incumbent governor, had been defeated.
Others took McClellan’s view that many in the administration conspired against him out of jealousy, fear or personal ambition.
Donaldson was quick to blame the “perfidious Stanton,” accusing him of fearing that “ambition might make McClellan dictator….I tell you frankly, had McClellan done this, had he placed himself at the head of the army and instead of marching onto Richmond turned against Washington, all would have followed….”
This was not the first talk of a military takeover, as Stanton well knew.
McClellan himself spoke and wrote of supporters—both inside and outside the army—encouraging him to wrestle control of the military away from Washington and establish a “dictatorship.”
At times, McClellan dismissed the notion; at others, he seemed ready to consider it.
Either way, it appeared to reinforce his belief that his rise to command was providential—that God had chosen him to be nothing short of a savior for his nation.
end quotes
So, have people in power in Washington, D.C. changed that much in the interim?
Seems not to me, anyway.
Shoreman says
Why hasn’t the Republican Party called for a Special Prosecutor to look into this? Maybe we need a third party.
Seasider says
Because modern america has been conditioned to care about Facebook, Food, Football, and Fornicating…in that order. Modern Americans are very submissive, bu design. It only took a few generations to get this way.
Paul Plante says
CBS News is just out with a story on this entitled “McCabe: Possible ‘inappropriate relationship’ between Trump, Russia prompted probe” by Emily Tillett on 17 February 2019, where we are informed and updated as follows:
Former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe said the possibility of an “inappropriate relationship” between President Trump and the government of Russia prompted his decision to launch obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations into the president.
end quotes
What a country we now live in, where everybody gets to determine what is “appropriate” for an American president, except the person who is actually the president himself.
As to the FBI, itself, according to its website, their Vision is “Ahead of the threat through leadership, agility, and integration,” so it seems that McCabe was being quite agile there, going after Trump for being a suspected “Russian agent.”
As to its Mission, its website, which seems quite droll (curious or unusual in a way that provokes dry amusement; humorous, amusing, chucklesome, and hilarious) to me, who has considerable experience with the FBI, states as follows: To protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Based on my own experience with that agency, I would classify that statement as pure BULL**** from front to back, because I am an American citizen, and that agency did not protect me, nor did it uphold the Constitution.
As to its Priorities, according to its website, they are as follows:
* Protect the United States from terrorist attack
* Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage
* Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes
* Combat public corruption at all levels
* Protect civil rights
* Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises
* Combat major white-collar crime
* Combat significant violent crime
And their Core Values are as follows:
* Rigorous obedience to the Constitution of the United States;
* Respect for the dignity of all those we protect;
* Compassion;
* Fairness;
* Uncompromising personal integrity and institutional integrity;
* Accountability by accepting responsibility for our actions and decisions and the consequences of our actions and decisions;
* Leadership, both personal and professional; and
* Diversity.
And their Motto: “Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity.”
So there is the framework that McCabe should have been working within when he decided that maybe, just maybe, there was the possibility of an “inappropriate relationship” between President Trump and the government of Russia.
Which particular head above that investigation fell under, whether “rigorous obedience to the Constitution of the United States,” or “respect for the dignity of all those we protect,” remains unknown.
Getting back to the CBS News article:
In a clip that aired on “Face the Nation” from McCabe’s “60 Minutes” interview, McCabe told correspondent Scott Pelley he launched the investigations shortly after speaking with Mr. Trump on details surrounding the dramatic 2017 firing of McCabe’s own boss, former FBI Director James Comey.
“It’s many of those same concerns that caused us to be concerned about a national security threat.”
“And the idea is, if the president committed obstruction of justice, fired the director of the FBI to negatively impact or to shut down our investigation of Russia’s malign activity and possibly in support of his campaign, as a counterintelligence investigator you have to ask yourself, ‘Why would a president of the United States do that?'” McCabe said.
He added, “So all those same sorts of facts cause us to wonder, is there an inappropriate relationship, a connection between this president and our most fearsome enemy, the government of Russia?”
end quotes
“OUR MOST FEARSOME ENEMY?”
HUH?
Are we at war with Russia?
Has there been a constitutional declaration of war against Russia?
What is it that I am missing here, given that American hotel chains Crowne Plaza, Hilton, Holiday Inn, Marriott, Park Hyatt, Radisson, Ritz-Carlton, and Sheraton all have hotels in Moscow, the capital of Russia, which is something you would think a real smart FBI dude like McCabe would be aware of.
Getting back to CBS News, we see McCabe doing his utmost to slither off the hook with regard to the 25th Amendment business, as follows:
In the interview, which will air on “60 Minutes” on Sunday, McCabe told Pelley he briefly discussed the 25th Amendment with then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
McCabe said Rosenstein “raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort.”
McCabe’s spokesperson, Melissa Schwartz, said in a statement to CBS News’ Paula Reid on Friday that “at no time did Mr. McCabe participate in any extended discussions about the use of the 25th Amendment, nor is he aware of any such discussions.”
end quotes
“HEY KIDS, SERIOUSLY, IT WASN’T ME, I WASN’T THERE, SO I DIDN’T DO NOTHING WRONG – IT WAS ALL ROSENSTEIN’S DOING!”
Paul Plante says
I just heard McCabe on NPR radio news calling Russia an “existential” threat, and I wasn’t sure if he meant to me, personally, or America as an idea, of exactly what.
And truthfully, having been in Ireland at the same time the place was chock-a-block with Russians who themselves love to go to Ireland for the craic, and to hoist a pint or two, I’m drawing a blank as to what kind of existential threat the Russians might be to me, or anyone else in the country for that matter.
Truth be told, according to the Irish, anyway, the Russians have treated them over time a lot better than the British have, by and large, so the Russians can’t be all that bad.
And they plied me with questions as to why people in such a big and mighty country as the United States of America should be so terrified of Russia, when the people in tiny Ireland weren’t, and truth be told again, I had no rational answer I could give them.
So, cutting to the chase here:
A: Should I be scared?
B: Exactly how scared should I be on a scale of one to ten, with on being more or less placid, which I am right now, to bat**** crazy, which I don’t waste time getting.
I hope McCabe doesn’t leave me hanging here, wondering.
That sure would be unfair of him if that were the case.
And to me, an American citizen, I would put forth that anyone who wants to speak of the words “FBI” and “integrity” and especially “protecting civil rights” in the same sentence should have first read the 2001 book “Black Mass: The True Story of an Unholy Alliance Between the FBI and the Irish Mob” by Dick Lehr and Gerard O’Neill just to get a feel for how the agency works, looking at it from the inside out.
Paul Plante says
So, okay, people, by way of review, above here in the CBS News story “McCabe: Possible ‘inappropriate relationship’ between Trump, Russia prompted probe” by Emily Tillett on 17 February 2019, we were told that McCabe’s spokesperson, Melissa Schwartz, said in a statement to CBS News’ Paula Reid on Friday that “at no time did Mr. McCabe participate in any extended discussions about the use of the 25th Amendment, nor is he aware of any such discussions.”
Then, today, NPR was out with an article entitled “Andrew McCabe, Ex-FBI Deputy, Describes ‘Remarkable’ Number Of Trump-Russia Contacts” Heard on Morning Edition on February 18, 2019, and this is what McCabe had to say today concerning that same subject, to wit:
McCabe confirmed that he opened counterintelligence and obstruction of justice investigations into Trump after Comey was fired but said he and Justice Department leaders ultimately rejected the idea of secretly recording the president.
FBI employees were crying in the hallways, McCabe writes in his book.
No one knew whether Trump — whose campaign was being investigated about conspiring with Russia — might have been trying to decapitate the leaders of the investigation aimed at trying to find out what might be beneath it all.
The atmosphere at the Justice Department was so panicked, McCabe said, that the new deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, proposed wearing a recording device to collect evidence about Trump’s intent in dismissing Comey.
“I was taken aback by the offer,” McCabe said in his NPR interview.
“I told him that I would consider it, I would discuss it with the investigative team, and I’d let him know.”
“I did talk to my attorneys back at FBI headquarters about it.”
When that story became public last year via a news report, Rosenstein was embarrassed and feared for his job.
He also sought to make clear that he never actually went ahead with a secret recording — which is correct, McCabe said, because no one involved ever tried to attempt it.
“We all agreed it was a horrible idea and it was not something that we would pursue,” McCabe said.
“So while the deputy attorney general says he never authorized anyone to wear a wire, that is true — he never authorized it because we never asked him for that authorization.”
end quotes
So, there were detailed discussion then, which McCabe clearly did know about, according to his own testimony today, so what is up with his spokesperson, Melissa Schwartz, blowing smoke up the *** of CBS News’ Paula Reid on Friday, telling her that “at no time did Mr. McCabe participate in any extended discussions about the use of the 25th Amendment, nor is he aware of any such discussions?”
Getting back to that NPR interview:
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe condemned what he called the “relentless attack” that President Trump has waged against the FBI even as it continues scrutinizing whether Americans in Trump’s campaign may have conspired with the Russians who attacked the 2016 election.
“I don’t know that we have ever seen in all of history an example of the number, the volume and the significance of the contacts between people in and around the president, his campaign, with our most serious, our existential international enemy: the government of Russia,” McCabe told NPR’s Morning Edition.
“That’s just remarkable to me.”
end quotes
Yes, people, if you are into farce, you just have got to appreciate such lines as that one right above here, about “all of history,” as if you would expect Trump’s name coming up over and over again in the history of the world for the last several thousand years ago now.
And what is this hyperbole (exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally” from McCabe in the NPR interview about “our most serious, our existential international enemy: the government of Russia?”
Who has made the determination that Russia is our “existential international enemy?”
Is that something Congress has to declare, or is that a determination left to the FBI by the Constitution?
Getting back to the NPR article:
McCabe left the FBI after 21 years last March, when he was dismissed for an alleged “lack of candor” in a media leak probe unrelated to the special counsel investigation.
end quotes
Lack of candor?
McCabe?
Wow, who’d a thought it of the dude!
And moving right along here on that note under the heading “McCabe says he was wrongly fired,” we have:
On his own firing, just 26 hours before his federal law enforcement pension was set to vest, McCabe said he intends to sue the Trump administration for wrongful termination and other issues.
A man who fell in love with the FBI is now the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation for alleged false statements.
A grand jury has been impaneled in the case but it isn’t clear whether prosecutors will bring criminal charges.
McCabe refused to engage in his NPR interview over findings by the Justice Department’s inspector general, calling that report a “selective presentation of evidence and conclusions designed to reach the result the president was clearly calling for.”
end quotes
So talk about a massive conspiracy out to get Andrew McCabe to send a message that if you stand up for what you think is right, and you do the right thing, and you honor your obligations to the FBI organization and the Constitution, that you too could be personally targeted and lose those things that you’ve been building towards your whole career, there it is right before our eyes.
That story is so sad, I’m starting to weep, so I better stop here, lest some teardrops land on the page and blur my writing.
Paul Plante says
It seems appropriate here to mention the fact that we are hearing so much about McCabe now, because he is out with a new book he is pitching and hawking on the talk show circuit titled “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump,” which tell-all book describes the challenges and frustrations McCabe had to face in interacting with the new president on sensitive national security matters.
Sounds like a real page-tuner, alright!
And while McCabe is out there making the rounds peddling the book, according to the NBC News article “McCabe says he told Congress ‘Gang of 8’ leaders about FBI probe into Trump, and they had no objection.” by Allan Smith on 19 February 2019, McCabe had this blockbuster revelation to reveal to the natkion today, to wit:
Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe told NBC’s “Today” show on Tuesday that he briefed congressional leaders about the counterintelligence investigation he had opened into President Donald Trump and that “no one objected.”
“That’s the important part here,” McCabe told Savannah Guthrie, who had asked if he had informed the “Gang of 8” bipartisan group of leaders on the Hill.
“No one objected.”
“Not on legal grounds, not on constitutional grounds and not based on the facts.”
end quotes
WOW, and then some, people!
There is an indication of just how much contempt the members of the legislative branch hold the Constitution in, that they would have no Constitutional objections to the FBI, which within the U.S. Department of Justice is responsible to the attorney general, while its intelligence activities are overseen by the Director of National Intelligence, which office leads the United States Intelligence Community (IC) and serves as the principal intelligence advisor to the President.
Getting back to the bombshell revelations by McCabe in the NBC News article, we have:
The purpose of the briefing in 2017 was to let the congressional leadership, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, then-House Speaker Paul Ryan and their Democratic counterparts, know what the FBI was doing in the probe into Russian election interference and possible collusion by the Trump campaign, McCabe said.
“Opening a case of this nature (is) not something that an FBI director, not something that an acting FBI director would do by yourself, right?” McCabe said on “Today.”
“This was a recommendation that came to me from my team.”
“I reviewed it with our lawyers.”
“I discussed it at length with the deputy attorney general, and I told Congress what we had done.”
end quotes
It is hard to read that and not think that the FBI was involved in plotting a soft coup here.
And getting back to this bizarre twist in the McCabe story as outlined in the the NBC News article, we have:
In that CBS interview, which aired in full on Sunday, McCabe said he ordered obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations into Trump after he fired Comey and said Rosenstein had discussed the possibility of removing Trump through the 25th Amendment in addition to wearing a wire during a future conversation with the president.
In a statement Thursday, the Justice Department disputed McCabe’s assertions in the interview, calling his recollections “inaccurate and factually incorrect.”
McCabe disputed the DOJ pushback in his Tuesday interview with NBC.
end quotes
McCabe and the Justice Department are turning on each other here and look to be set to throw some hands, what with McCabe now publicly disputing the DOJ’s pushback on his prior statements, which has McCabe calling the DOJ a liar for calling him a liar, which is an interesting plot twist in what is already a quite bizarre story, even by Washington. D.C. standards.
Getting back to that bizarre story:
McCabe was ousted from the bureau last March following Comey’s firing in May 2017.
McCabe was fired just prior to a planned retirement following a Justice Department inspector general’s report that said he misled investigators regarding a leak about the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation, which he denies.
The inspector general referred its findings to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia last year for possible prosecution, and prosecutors reportedly have convened a grand jury on the matter.
McCabe told CBS and NBC that he believed he was ousted because he further probed Trump.
“I was fired because I opened a case against the president of the United States,” McCabe told NBC.
He added that the inspector general’s report “was not like anything I have ever read before.”
“An investigative report includes all of the evidence,” he continued.
“It includes all of the information, not just those facts that support the conclusion that you’d like to draw.”
“So I have big problems with that report.”
“I disagree with the conclusions they drew, and that is something that I’ll be raising in a civil lawsuit that I’ll be bringing against the Department of Justice.”
McCabe’s book, “The Threat,” is out on Tuesday.
Look for it on the New York Times best sellers list!
Chas Cornweller says
Or…or…or…here’s an interesting and new take on McCabe’s team’s reasoning on looking into the affairs of one Donald J. Trump. Perhaps it was the years of money laundering, illicit business dealings with nefarious foreign interests and the taint of insider political dirty tricks that alerted the FBI and the NSA and other intelligent agencies that maybe, just maybe there may be some blow back once this character was firmly ensconced in office. But, what do I know? McCabe did his leg work and even you, writes that he informed the Congress (constitutional) and its leaders that the FBI was probing into the Russian interference (if there is no collusion as DJT says…then, what? No problem, right?). He INFORMED them.
Un, Paul, this is how it works. It’s called checks and balances. But, you already knew that didn’t you?
Note: We love Chas, but this is probably the worst take ever. We watched the McCabe intv. Every American, regardless of party, should be concerned that a couple of people were able to start an investigation on a feeling, not evidence. Really, where were the checks and balances? These are the things that happen in other countries, not the US. What’s next, “We believe Jussie!”
Seasider says
The disgust I feel from reading your diatribes is profound.
Mike Kuzma, Jr. says
To me, Chas the best evidence of the necessity of an investigation into the President’s Russian collusion came when he said to the Russian ambassador on live microphone….”Tell Vlad after the election I’ll have more flexibility”.
You agree, right? That statement alone should have predicated an investigation, correct?
Seasider says
There is still time…
Paul Plante says
Somehow this reminds me of that Roman senator explaining why he stabbed Julius Caesar by answering that he went to Gaius Cassius Longinus, Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus, and Marcus Junius Brutus and no one objected, not on legal grounds, not on constitutional grounds and not based on the facts.
Paul Plante says
Dear Chas Cornweller, you are hand’s down my all-time favorite person to have to respond to, because you make things so very exciting when you come into these discussions as you have just down right above here, to my absolute delight, I might add.
Question I for you to answer, dear friend Chas, is why would the McCabe of the FBI be seeking the permission of the “gang of eight,” the colloquial term for the set of eight leaders within the United States Congress who are briefed on classified intelligence matters by the executive branch, specifically, the leaders of each of the two parties from both the Senate and House of Representatives, and the chairs and ranking minority members of both the Senate Committee and House Committee for intelligence as set forth by 50 U.S.C. § 3093(c)(2) to open up a criminal investigation of the executive branch head?
And while we wait for dear friend Chas to vigorously expostulate on that subject, let’s go to the CNN article “McCabe: ‘I think it’s possible’ Trump is a Russian asset” by Kate Sullivan and Laura Jarrett updated 7:00 AM ET, Wed February 20, 2019, for a further update on this drama, as follows:
(CNN) — Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe said Tuesday it is possible President Donald Trump is a Russian asset.
“Do you still believe the President could be a Russian asset?” asked CNN’s Anderson Cooper during an interview with McCabe on “Anderson Cooper 360.”
“I think it’s possible.:
“I think that’s why we started our investigation, and I’m really anxious to see where (special counsel Robert) Mueller concludes that,” McCabe said.
end quotes
HOLY ****, people, you know what I am saying?
Should we be scared?
Or what?
But wait a minute, people, what about this: “I think that’s why we started our investigation, and I’m really anxious to see where (special counsel Robert) Mueller concludes that,” McCabe said.
“I think that’s why we started our investigation?”
HUH?
Doesn’t he know why he started the investigation?
Is he just guessing now?
Didn’t he take notes?
Or was it too top-secret for that?
Getting back to the CNN story:
It’s another bombshell comment from McCabe, which comes days after he outlined on Sunday to CBS the reasons top US officials decided to open a counterintelligence probe and obstruction of justice investigation into the President.
end quotes
Look at that, people – bombshell comment after bombshell comment from McCabe, and why now?
And we find that answer in the CNN article, as follows:
McCabe is promoting his new book, “The Threat,” which paints a stark portrait of his time at the bureau under Trump, describing in vivid detail his version of interactions with top officials at the White House and Justice Department.
The book was released Tuesday and became an instant best-seller.
end quotes
Face-time with the different media hosts when you are pitching a new book like McCabe is, is very important, and it looks like McCabe literary agents got him some real good PR talent on his side in his effort to be the man who brings down Trump as a Russian sleeper agent.
With respect to recording Trump, the CNN article continued as follows:
The former acting FBI director went on the record in that “60 Minutes” interview confirming some previous reports about Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein: That he raised the idea of wiring himself to surreptitiously record interactions with the President, and mused about which Cabinet officials might support an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment to oust Trump from office.
Rosenstein has previously said that comment was mischaracterized.
When asked whether he thought someone should wire up to record conversations with the President, McCabe said, “Absolutely not.”
He added that it was “an incredibly invasive and potentially precedent-setting thing to do,” and also said he didn’t think it was necessary.
He said it would only be necessary to capture evidence of intent, and “we didn’t need to do that in this case, we knew what the President intended.”
end quotes
“WE KNEW WHAT THE PRESIDENT INTENDED!”
So it wasn’t necessary then, to actually record Trump, because the FBI already had enough evidence on him to prove his guilty of being president instead of Hillary Clinton, which takes us back to the CNN story, as follows, to wit:
In the interview, McCabe described the events leading up to the decision to open a counterintelligence investigation into the President, saying he’s not sure if there are things not yet made public.
He said that, following the President’s firing of Comey and his mention of Russia as part of the rationale, the FBI was “obligated to open the case” as there was an “articulable basis” to believe a “federal crime has been committed.”
As to why he didn’t speak out earlier, McCabe said he felt he had to make an argument in a thoughtful way about how the President is undermining the justice system.
“It was an incredible time, the simple fact that the deputy attorney general and the acting director of the FBI were trying to figure out how to navigate a situation in which we thought the President of the United States might be involved in obstruction of justice and might be doing that to cover up some sort of inappropriate relationship with the Russians,” McCabe said.
“It was a head-spinning moment,” he added.
end quotes
And back to you, Chas Cornweller!
And people, it’s called checks and balances, and this is how it works because checks and balances begin with us, the American people.
But, you already knew that, didn’t you, and of course you did, or you wouldn’t be here reading the Cape Charles Mirror.
Chas Cornweller says
From my perspective, I cannot tell if you folks really know just how far this president has taken this country down the rabbit hole or if you just refuse to know what the obvious facts are. If a presidency has a multitude of indictments and a multitude of sentences handed out on those that 1. Supported this presidency. 2. Worked to get this president elected. 3. Aided and abetted in numerous (proven/no longer alleged) campaign schemes to hide or deny past allegations against the president to keep the American public from knowing during that campaign. 4. Clear and obvious obstruction of that investigation from the sitting president and his staff, then I think you must conclude that which is true. This presidency is one of the most corrupt, morally ill, non-transparent presidencies to have ever inhabited the White House. But, if you can’t see that and you still feel vindicated by this presidency and the tom-foolery that he creates. AND… you STILL believe this clown is a saint and your personal savior… Well, god help you. Nixon went out on a rail on much, much less. But, then again, Congress was much less partisan and much more cooperative and beholden to the American people in 1973. Things have changed.
With all the stupidity and hate and misdirection by false reporting and outright lies from the top on down, I have very little faith in anything red, white and blue anymore. And if you want to invoke the Constitution, please, don’t. Because you would be so far out of bounds on this, it just wouldn’t register as the same ball park. You would be telling me you know nothing of what that document stands for. I’ll tell you this. This country is driving its big golden Cadillac down in the ditch, careening toward that walled drainage culvert. And as for me, I am cinching up my seat belt. Because when we hit that wall…well, god help us all.
Mike Kuzma, Jr. says
And that is where Chas has shown his absolute partisanship, lack of a grasp on reality and pure, patent America hatred.
Chas, YANLMCM.
Now go join the rest of the TWANLOC’s.
Your hatred and ignorance are appalling.
Bob Truitt says
I thought he was talking about Bath House Barry.
Julie Bard says
His diatribes are disgusting.
Ray otton says
True and thank God for the 1st amendment. Without it we wouldn’t know who the idiots were.
Paul Plante says
In a word, dear friend and fellow American patriot, Chas Cornweller, that in the spirit of the word “patriot” as used by Benjamin Rush in his “Address to the People of the United States” in January 1787 where he cried out to those such as you in the land back then, “PATRIOTS of 1774, 1775, 1778—HEROES of 1778, 1779, 1780! come forward! your country demands your services,” when you say above here @ FEBRUARY 22, 2019 AT 12:16 PM that Trump’s presidency “is one of the most corrupt, morally ill, non-transparent presidencies to have ever inhabited the White House,” so what on the one hand, given there is no Constitutional requirement that an American president not be corrupt, nor morally ill, nor does being corrupt and morally ill serve as a bar to running for president in America?
And on the other, by what yardstick are you measuring that, other than the yardstick of your feelings?
And dear friend Chas Cornweller, you are both erudite and astute enough to know that when you hold somebody like Trump out to be the worst of something, then you are obligated to tell us in comparison to whom?
Who is the best, Chas Cornweller?
James Buchanan?
You remember Jimmy, don’t you, Chas?
Jimmy is the dude remembered for notoriously failing to act at the onset of the Civil War, and his inaction in the face of escalating tensions only helped the efforts of his corrupt Cabinet, which included Secretary of the Treasury Howell Cobb, who “abandoned his faith in the Union,” and then assisted in the formation of the Confederate States of America, taking up arms against the United States.
Another member of Buchanan’s Cabinet, Secretary of War John B. Floyd, weakened the military by scattering the U.S. Army to leave it vulnerable to capture if hostilities broke out.
And Secretary of the Interior Jacob Thompson participated in a conspiracy to set fire to New York.
According to Ulysses S. Grant, “The president did not prevent his cabinet preparing for war upon their government.”
Where is he on your list, Chas?
And what about Andrew Jackson who started the ‘spoils system’ that led to more corruption in our national government?
Surely you have not forgotten Andy Jackson, dear friend Chas.
He’s the dude who failed to keep federal offices nonpartisan, giving lucrative jobs to his donors, friends, business associates, and even newspaper editors who had written in his support.
And what about Ulysses S. Grant, who had a reputation for honesty, while his administration, including his Cabinet, numbered among the most corrupt of the 19th century.
It is reported that a near-ceaseless flow of money from speculation and western expansion led to an epidemic of corruption in his administration, but Grant didn’t acknowledge the problem, responding instead by stubbornly protecting those accused of graft.
More than 100 officials under Grant conspired to steal tax revenue from whiskey sales while the secretaries of the Navy, War, and the Treasury faced allegations of bribery.
Congress passed an act to retroactively grant huge pay raises to congressmen.
And in the Crédit Mobilier scandal, a construction company massively overcharged the Union Pacific Railroad by paying millions in bribes to the vice president, secretary of the Treasury, and congressmen.
And then we have Warren G. Harding, whose Cabinet was plagued by scandals.
Warren was a dude who had a very short presidency before his death, but notwithstanding, in that short space of time, Harding’s presidency and his Cabinet became remembered for rampant corruption and numerous scandals, with Harding’s Cabinet having the dubious distinction of being the first to have a member convicted of a crime, that being Harding’s Secretary of the Interior Albert Fell who went to prison as part of the Teapot Dome scandal.
Fell accepted bribes to lease the Navy’s oil reserves at Teapot Dome, Wyoming, to private companies.
The same scandal claimed Harding’s secretary of the Navy.
The attorney general resigned over a “bootlegging kickback scheme.”
And two other department heads faced convictions of bribery and fraud.
Chas Cornweller says
Ray, I would agree with you. And truth seems to be the trigger. The name of this blog is appropriate for those that wish to see themselves as they truly are. You know, just a little fact checking on the “idiots’” part, would denote just to the depths the corruption runs with this administration. And the reading of a few of the ten to twenty year’s past newspapers from the articles in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times would enlighten you as to the scope of Herr Gropenfuher’s past bankruptcies, money scams and shady real estate dealings that are out there. But, you folks don’t want to know about that, do you? You want to believe the big orange Con Man and really believe his snake oil is good. Good luck with that. Just watch what your taxes do this year and the next. The fleecing of middle America has already begun, but “idiots” know better, don’t they? Good luck fellows, with your remedial lifestyle.
And Mike K. I don’t hate America. I just hate sad/angry old guys who think they’re so hip, they’ve got to use acronyms to sting somebody. I’m a big boy, chump. Feed me the whole spoonful next time, will ya?
Paul Plante says
Let us cut to the chase here, Chas Cornweller – let us assume that everything you say about Trump and all his bankruptcies and such is true.
What exactly is it that you expect us to do about it?
Paul Plante says
And seriously, dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller, you are going after Trump @ FEBRUARY 22, 2019 AT 9:19 PM after the reading of a few of the ten to twenty year’s past newspapers from the articles in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times because of what you are calling “the scope of Herr Gropenfuher’s past bankruptcies, money scams and shady real estate dealings that are out there?”
Am I hearing you correctly?
You’re going after Trump for going bankrupt, which I can understand greatly offends your sense of sensibilities?
Should having actually used the nation’s bankruptcy laws serve as a bar to someone serving as U.S. president?
What about Democrat Harry S. Truman then, Chas?
A few months after his wedding on June 28, 1919, Harry S. and his war buddy Eddie Jacobson opened a haberdashery, a store that sold men’s clothing and accessories, in Kansas City, and Truman and Jacobson took out a number of loans to get the store up and running.
The enterprise, however, could not survive the nation’s acute economic downturn of the early 1920s, so that the clothing shop closed its doors in September 1922, leaving Truman nearly bankrupt and heavily in debt.
Should that be held against Truman do you think, Chas?
Now, I don’t know about the money scams, but since you appear to be possessed of evidence concerning them, I would have to wonder why Trump wasn’t prosecuted long before this, or why Hillary Clinton did not make an issue of them during the campaign, although I can believe that rumor that they had an agreement between them that if Trump stayed mum about any money scams Hillary might be associated with she would stay mum about his.
That is the way politics works at the level, Chas Cornweller, as you well know, which takes us to “shady real estate dealings.”
And again I say, seriously, Chas?
Shady real estate dealings?
On that subject let me take you to an article in THE ATLANTIC entitled “Why Didn’t Trump Build Anything in Russia? – The art of the deal runs into the reality of ‘a really scary place.’” by Julia Ioffe updated on September 25, 2017, where we have as follows:
The American president has often bragged about his ability to cut deals and about how well he gets along with the Russians.
The press and investigators have speculated about the extent of his connections to the Russian business and political elite.
And yet, Trump never actually built anything in Moscow.
When the president said, shortly after his inauguration, “I don’t have any deals in Russia,” he wasn’t wrong.
The question is why.
When just about every other major hotel chain in the world was able to build in Moscow and beyond, why didn’t Trump close a deal in Russia?
The absence of Trump real estate in Russia, it turns out, is a revealing reflection of the disconnect between the image Trump projects and the reputation he and his surrogates have established in Russia.
In part it was because, as Donald Trump Jr. once said himself, Russia “really is a scary place.”
In a 2008 interview with a small trade publication, Trump Jr. said that he had taken “half a dozen trips to Russia in the last 18 months” and that “several buyers have been attracted to our projects there.”
But there was something getting in the way of those trips adding up to a Trump Tower Moscow.
“It is definitely not an issue of being able to find a deal,” Trump Jr. said, “but an issue of ‘Will I ever see my money back out of that deal or can I actually trust the person I am doing the deal with?’”
“As much as we want to take our business over there, Russia is just a different world.”
“… It is a question of who knows who, whose brother is paying off who, etc.”
“Moscow is like New York in many ways, just way more corrupt,” says a Western real-estate developer in Russia, who asked for anonymity in order not to jeopardize local partners and ongoing business deals.
“To pull a building out of the ground, you need so many permits, so many authorizations—the mind reels.”
“And all of it is so corrupt, it’s insane.”
end quotes
Now, dear friend Chas, there is the playing field Trump was playing on in New York, and as you well know, all of it is so corrupt, it truly is insane.
So how is it that you are singling out Trump here for playing by the same shady and corrupt rules as everyone else?
You’re certainly not asking us to believe that Trump is the only shady real estate dude out there, are you?
Or that Trump is responsible for all the corruption?
Consider, Chas Cornweller, that in a pay-to-play states, Democrat State Gov. Young Andy Cuomo has $64000 in “campaign donations” in his pocket from Trump, and then ask yourself, Chas, why, in a corrupt ****hole of a state with its notoriously corrupt real estate market, did Trump stuff that money down Young Andy’s pocket, and more to the point, what services did Trump purchase from Young Andy for that money?
You say, “But, you folks don’t want to know about that, do you,” when in fact, it is all OLD NEWS not worth wasting emotional energy on, since we are all powerless to do anything about that corruption, and as you know from my thread on Sonia Sotomayor Should Resign http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o … ment-77384 I speak from first-hand experience.
And then you say this: You want to believe the big orange Con Man and really believe his snake oil is good.
To whom do you address that, Chas?
Certainly not to me, anyway.
Ray Otton says
Chas, you wouldn’t know a fact if it hit you in the ass.
Paul Plante says
And bringing this thread back on topic after our dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller valiantly but vainly tried to protect Clinton Democrat and disgraced FBI agent Andrew McCabe by making this about Trump instead, I would refer us to a Fox News article entitled “Gowdy challenges McCabe’s claim congressional leaders didn’t object to Russia counterintelligence probe” by Victor Garcia on 20 February 2019, where we have as follows concerning McCabe allegedly getting permission from the “Gang of Eight” to bring criminal charges against Trump to aid the Democrats in embarrassing Trump in a bid to beat him in 2020, to wit:
Former congressman and Fox News contributor Trey Gowdy disputed former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe’s claim Tuesday that congressional leaders didn’t object to the bureau’s counterintelligence investigation over President Trump’s Russia ties.
“The reason he’s doing it this way is that [Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif.] and [former House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.] are not allowed to discuss anything that’s said in a ‘Gang of Eight’ meeting and McCabe knows that,” Gowdy said on “The Story with Martha MacCallum.”
“So he can level the accusation and Devin and Paul cannot refute him.”
end quotes
Yes, people, it is basic high school civics knowledge that anything brought before the “Gang of Eight” remains secret, so that if McCabe really did go before the “Gang of Eight,” instead of just Nancy Pelosi and Charley “Chuck” Schumer, who would have given him their permission in a heartbeat, then McCabe appears to be committing a federal crime here by violating confidentiality, but hey, the dude is a Clinton Democrat, so it is alright for him to do so, since Clinton Democrats are immune from the law in America.
That the Democrats are hell-bent on embarrassing Trump for political reasons is made clear in the New York Times article “Michael Cohen Agrees to Testify Next Week, Setting Stage for a High-Stakes Hearing” by Nicholas Fandos on 21 February 2019, as follows:
WASHINGTON — Michael D. Cohen has agreed to testify in public next Wednesday before Congress about his work as President Trump’s personal lawyer and longtime fixer, but lawmakers said they would limit the scope of their questioning in deference to the special counsel.
“Congress has an obligation under the Constitution to conduct independent and robust oversight of the executive branch, and this hearing is one step in that process,” the chairman, Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, said in a statement announcing the rescheduled hearing.
In a two-page memo released late Wednesday, Mr. Cummings outlined 10 topics that he said would be addressed, including “the president’s debts and payments relating to efforts to influence the 2016 election” and his compliance with federal tax and campaign finance laws.
Other topics were more open-ended, including Mr. Trump’s business practices and possible conflicts of interest, as well as the “accuracy of the president’s public statements.”
Lanny J. Davis, one of Mr. Cohen’s lawyers, told ABC News that his client intended to share “personal, front-line experiences of memories, and incidents, and conduct, and comments that Donald Trump said over that 10-year time period behind closed doors.”
On Twitter on Wednesday, Mr. Cohen said he was “Looking forward to the #American people hearing my story in my voice!”
He included a link to a GoFundMe page raising money for the “Michael Cohen Truth Fund.”
If Democrats are hoping that Mr. Cohen’s testimony will damage Mr. Trump’s public image, Republicans have been laying the groundwork to try to undercut Mr. Cohen’s credibility first.
end quotes
There it is in that last sentence, people – the Democrats are on a vendetta to get Trump because he is president as opposed to Hillary Clinton, the woman scorned, and as we have learned since November 2016, hell hath no fury like Hillary Clinton scorned.
And as an aside, whoever dreamed up that GoFundMe page to raise money for the “Michael Cohen Truth Fund” sure does have a droll sense of humor, as if Michael Cohen will finally tell the truth about anything if only the right amount of money can be raised first.
What horse****!
Getting back to the Fox News article, we have:
McCabe, in an appearance on NBC’s “Today” show Tuesday morning, said no members of the “Gang of Eight,” a bipartisan group of House and Senate leaders, including Nunes and Ryan, objected to the investigation.
“I told Congress what we had done,” McCabe told Savannah Guthrie.
“Did anyone object?” Guthrie asked.
“That’s the important part here, Savannah,” McCabe replied.
“No one objected.”
“Not on legal grounds, not on constitutional grounds and not based on the facts.”
end quotes
Now, if this Savannah Clark Guthrie, born December 27, 1971, who is an American broadcast journalist and attorney and the main co-anchor of the NBC News morning show Today, a position she has held since July 2012, having joined NBC News in September 2007 as a legal analyst and correspondent, regularly reporting on trials throughout the country, and after having served as a White House correspondent between 2008 and 2011 and as co-anchor of the MSNBC program The Daily Rundown in 2010 and 2011, was announced as the co-host of Today’s third hour alongside Natalie Morales and Al Roker, in that role, substituting as a news anchor and main co-host and appearing as the chief legal analyst across all NBC platforms, had been less partisan, and swifter on the uptake, she would have known that McCabe was violating confidentiality there, as well as making a claim that could not be corroborated, she woulod have stopp0ed McCabe right there to jack him up on that, but she didn’t.
She stayed silent instead.
Why?
Could it be because she once worked for the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, where she served as a litigation associate, specializing in white-collar criminal defense, and she was using her knowledge from that stint to protect McCabe?
Getting back to Trey Gowdy and Fox News and Andrew McCabe, we have:
Gowdy, formerly a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said he believed McCabe wasn’t telling the truth and that Nunes and Ryan did not know about a second investigation.
“I listened to Devin and Paul quiz the [Justice Department] and the FBI for hours on multiple occasions about the one counterintelligence investigation, we all knew about it.”
“I find it stunning that they would know about a second one and not say a single solitary word.”
Gowdy also addressed former FBI Director James Comey’s May 2017 firing and McCabe’s belief that the president was trying to shut down the Russia investigation.
“If thinking that Jim Comey is not a good FBI director is tantamount to being an agent of Russia then just list all the people that are agents of Russia.”
“[Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer, [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi, [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein…,” Gowdy said.
end quotes
What a sick show this is, people, at least from my perspective as an American citizen.
And now, back to you, Chas Cornweller!
Jack Trump says
Patience is a virtue. ‘Tis why I have been waiting to get in on this thread. This is all such a masterminded problem, and conspiracy, and smokescreen, it is very hard to even think about where to begin. I have been hoping the final report would come out, but no need to any longer. We all know that if Mueller had found ANYTHING, it would have been leaked to the press and Trump’s liver would have been laid bare.
I’ll start by saying something many will dislike, but it helps to jumpstart my opinion. I’ll go back to our very beginnings and say ” let’s all remember where Adam got the first bite of the apple from”. Huh ?
My point is…….and the menu for the layout of the story ?…….it all starts with Hillary Clinton. It’s been plain as day as the noses on our faces for so long we should be embarrassed to state/admit it now. Our only defense is that the government is so far removed from the will of the people that we can no longer affect it. We could do nothing about the runway train that is our federal gov.
In my not so humble opinion this entire Russia/Trump/collusion/25th amendment question is all the same story/smokescreen. Before Ms. Clinton accepted the job as Sec. of State she told Obama she would fold up The Clinton Foundation because it had the appearance of too many quid pro quos in too many dealings with businesses/foreign nations. Immediately after taking the oath of office Ms. Clinton walked off with the nation’s top security people and she was schooled in how to handle top security info, state secrets, and any and all confidential national information. She signed a contract with our federal gov. that she knew and understood all her limitations and responsibilities in those capacities.
She knew she could not comingle personal and gov. communications, or phones, e-mails etc. She signed the contract that stated such. Computers ? Servers ? phones ? She knew she could only communicate natl. info on those set up by the natl. security people. Everyone in the gov, including the president, knew the rules and knew what to do and how to communicate w/her.
Surprise of all surprises Ms. Clinton actually lied ( first one ever ? ) about the Clinton Foundation. She and husband Bill were just getting started with using the foundation as a money train. Bill signed on all around the world to “perform” speeches to foreign businesses and governments for 7 figure deals. Hillary provided access and information for any and all business deals. The uranium 1 deal being one of the most reported and newsworthy. She talked Obama into allowing a RUSSIAN CORP. to buy a % of our county’s uranium. Previously against the law. Who cares since it’s also against the law to sell uranium to Russia and some other countries, right ? HA Hillary snickered with her friend Vlad, so they sell it to Canada, who sells it to Russia, who sells it to Obama’s other buddies of the $150 billion deal in the middle east. What a tangled web we weave, eh ? Our tax dollars are helping us deal uranium to the killers of our soldiers.
So our former Sec. of State is the mastermind behind the availability of yellow cake nuclear weapons grade uranium to our enemies in the middle east, who have sworn to kill us, and have killed many of us and our soldiers already.
Yes it gets worse. Much worse. Those that were working with her, and knew what she was doing, also signed the same rules and regs. contract with our natl. security people. They all knew what Ms. Clinton can’t and shouldn’t do, and they said nothing. They all knew, via responses and initiated e mails, that they were conversing with her on illegal equipment. I’m talking right up to, and including, then President Obama. Each e mail sent or received was a felony. 30K destroyed. How many sent ? Anyone conversing w/her was committing a felony. WHOOPS !? Remember the name Uma Abadeen ? Sorry if I misspelled. Hillary aide. Heavily involved. Remember ? Forwarded so many e mails to disgraced sex criminal husband who just got out of jail ?
The Clinton Foundation closed up shop shortly after she lost the election. Is it possible ’twas because she couldn’t sell access anymore, or favors ? Naaaahh. Ms. Clinton would never do that. Or would she ? Oh, and where are the hundreds of millions that The Clintons took into the foundation ? Charities did not get it as advertised.
Well we do know she used about $5 million for the phony dossier about Trump she bought and paid for from the 2nd grade ex-spy and was falsely and vaguely presented to FISA judges 4 TIMES to get warrants to surveil and waste millions of $ on an investigation that has done nothing but falsely smear The Office of The President.
The ex A.G. that met with Pres. Clinton in the plane on the tarmac , and so many other people that have ignored all the laws the Clintons broke. You don’t think t’s at all possible they were all paid off with the millions now gone from The Clinton Foundation, do you ? The Clintons ain’t no Jussie Smollette and didn’t pay with a check, that’s for sure. But why else would all these top FBI/Justice Dept folks help create this entire b.s. story AND waste all our money ?
The democrats will continue with this nonsense to their graves. Why ? Compare it to the Jussie deal in Chicago. The police there want to fry him (figuratively) for wasting their assets in a 2 week investigation. Trump/Russia is 2 years, and how much bigger ? Smollette has incited a virtual emotional race riot, and it pales in comparison to the conspiracy to defraud The Presidency, Congress, and every single person in The United States of America.
Folks, I could go on and on and on about what this entire conspiracy is/has been. I’m telling you, Gregg Jarrett does a much better job than I with his book ” The Russia Hoax”. I’ve been saying it for years now. He says the same, but he says it with all the times, dates, memos, laws, and statutes of law that have been ignored, abused, mocked and destroyed.
How long will we all be dealing with the repercussions of the Clinton crimes ? How many Americans will spend years trying to unravel it all ? How deep do we have to go to investigate it all ?
Adam Sciff is blowing a lot of smoke for the Clintons, as is Ms. Pelosi and the Senators from our Commonwealth. One is a best friend, the other was the v.p. candidate ! Of course they want us to be concerned with blackface, hoods and sex crimes instead. Gee, what a surprise ? More smokescreen ? Naaaah………they could/would never do THAAAAT !!!
Heaven help us all………..