Posted on 10/01/2019 12:25:33 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
A judge told federal prosecutors on Monday that they needed to charge former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe or stop investigating whether he lied to authorities.
Judge Reggie B. Walton said at a hearing that if prosecutors don't make a decision by Nov. 15, he would order the Justice Department to release internal FBI documents connected to McCabe's ouster, The Washington Post reported, citing a court transcript.
“I would send this message to those in positions of authority in the U.S. Attorney’s office and the Justice Department ... that I will not condone further delay,” he reportedly said, adding that the case “is just dragging too long.”
“You all have got to cut and make your decision. It’s not a hard decision, and I think it needs to be made. If it’s not made, I’m going to start ordering the release of information because I think our society, our public does have a right to know what’s going on," said Walton, a George W. Bush appointee who once presided over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Don’t think the Judge should tell investigators that time is up.
It is a reasonable order.
And yet Mueller got all the time he wanted to go after Trump.
I’m pretty sure this is another affirmative action nincompoop.
15 months since McCabe was referred for prosecution. Or maybe 16 now. I’m not sure.
Time for DOJ to do its business or get off the pot so to speak.
Judges don’t have this authority. It is interference and the judge can be charged for it.
One way street in the just-us world.
CHARGE HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!
The “Trump” DOJ has been playing hot potato with McCabe’s potential indictment for 15 months. It’s reasonable to wrap this up.
I think he must see info that the public must be informed about. Not sure if that’s good for McCabe or bad for him though.
It may be info like Comey is the real liar and rat. McCabe a willing pawn.
Does a GJ have to indict before being charged? Yes?
I’m confused. If he hasn’t yet been indicted, why is a judge involved? Does this imply a grand jury was impaneled? Maybe I am forgetting something about this?
Agree.
This comes closer to my understanding.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3782848/posts?page=6#6
The judge is doing the right thing. If you were under indefinite investigation you’d want a judge to push for something.
It’s not hard to charge someone with lying to the FBI. As seen in the Flynn case.
I’m not sure if this is a threat on McCabe or a threat on Trump.
Is the judge insinuating that McCabes actions were bad and need to be known or that the justice department acted in bad faith and politically?
Im confused but I am thinking the way you are thinking. Why is a judge involved if no indictment has been handed down? Not that I don’t want to see one soon.
I think the DOJ is trying to find out how to get the Grand Jury NOT to indict him. So they can blame the grand jury.
But the judge is pushing them to make their call. Maybe they want a different grand jury so they can present a weaker case to it. DOJ doesn’t want to charge him though—that’s clear.
justice department acted in bad faith and politically
Actually there is one of those Constitution thingys that mandates a speedy trial. The government should not be filing charges that they are not ready to prosecute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.