<<< “ ... our excitement at the thought of a Utah indictment as there was a common sense that a DC grand jury would be loath to indict a Democrat and almost certain not to convict. “ >>>
That was HUBER, I believe. Huber was of UTAH residency and he was the single Sessions appointment, who was charged with investigating HRC, Clinton Foundation, Arkansas archives, Uranium 1, etc.
McCabe should soon fall victim to the Inspector General Horriwitz’ report, now completed on the results of the JD/FBI (insider) investigation. The jurisdiction of DC Grand Juries are implied in this case, I think.
Thankfully, the DC judges have been doing pretty fine work against the FBI in the Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort cases. At least and so far these DC judges have forced the FBI to have to reach a little, produce cause, justify it, or to otherwise give up on a charge, or an argument when they fail.
Bill Barr’s Test – U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu Punts McCabe Indictment Decision Back to Main Justice…
Everyone has been looking for a moment where we can determine the intents and motivation of U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr. Well, here is one…
According to reporting today from the New York Times, Washington DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu has punted the decision on whether to indict former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe back to Main Justice, via Deputy AG Jeffrey Rosen.
All of our prior research into the DC U.S. Attorney’s office, specifically toward Jessie Liu, has identified her as -essentially- Rod Rosenstein in a skirt. Attorney Liu’s DC office was responsible for not prosecuting the Awan Brothers; and also Liu’s office was responsible for covering up the leaking of the classified FISA application by SSCI Director of Security James Wolfe. Yes, covering it up – there is ZERO DOUBT.
Both cases were clear law-breaking, and both highly politically charged.
Today the Times is reporting on leaks from officials connected to the DC office of Ms. Liu, framing her deference of the McCabe indictment back to Main Justice.
Two former DC prosecutors who were involved in the McCabe decision are mentioned by name in the NYT reporting: former lead prosecutor Ms. Kamil Shields, and also former prosecutor David Kent. It would be interesting to see if Shields and/or Kent were also involved in the Awan case or the James Wolfe case.
Here’s the substance of the NYT article [emphasis and names added by me]:
WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors in Washington appear to be in the final stages of deciding whether to indict Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director and a frequent target of President Trump, on charges of lying to federal agents, according to interviews with people familiar with recent developments in the investigation.
In two meetings last week, Mr. McCabe’s lawyers met with the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, who is expected to be involved in the decision about whether to prosecute, and for more than an hour with the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie K. Liu, according to a person familiar with the meetings. The person would not detail the discussions, but defense lawyers typically meet with top law enforcement officials to try to persuade them not to indict their client if they failed to get line prosecutors to drop the case.
But prosecutors may face headwinds if a case were to go to trial. One prosecutor quit the case [Ms. Shields] and has expressed frustration with how it was being managed, according to person familiar with her departure, and a key witness [Ms. Lisa Page] provided testimony to the grand jury that could hurt the government’s case.
Additionally, Washington juries are typically liberal, and prosecutors could end up with jurors sympathetic to Mr. McCabe who believe that he, not the president, is the victim of a political witch hunt. Mr. McCabe’s lawyers would probably emphasize his long history at the F.B.I. and his role protecting the country.
[…] Though the meetings between Mr. McCabe’s lawyers and top law enforcement officials suggest that prosecutors seem intent on moving forward with the case, they could also decide to pass on an indictment. Spokeswomen for the Justice Department, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and for Mr. McCabe all declined to comment.
[…] what should have been a seemingly straightforward case with a limited number of witnesses and facts has dragged out amid internal deliberations. It has been under investigation for so long that the term expired for the grand jury hearing evidence. One of the lead prosecutors, Kamil Shields, was unhappy with the lengthy decision-making process and has since left the Justice Department for private practice. Ms. Shields declined to comment.
Another prosecutor, David Kent, also left the case recently. It is not clear why he departed but it would be an unusual move if prosecutors were indeed planning to charge Mr. McCabe. (read more)
CTH must point out – this scenario as described is exactly what our research identified when we posted the previously controversial outline of Jessie Liu. [SEE HERE]
The tiered justice system in/around Washington DC is based on politics, who you know, and who might possibly be collateral damage if the law was indeed enforced as written. This reality highlights the two-tiered justice system that has infuriated so many Americans as we have watched people in/around DC escape accountability. [More HERE]
As a reminder, here is the April 2018 Inspector General Report on Andrew McCabe which included a criminal referral for McCabe for lying to investigators:
https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/mccabe-1.jpg
Here’s the full report:
[See article]
….The problem for Attorney General Bill Barr is not investigating what we don’t know, but rather navigating through what ‘We The People’ are already aware of…. (more)
