Mark Levin source: McCabe turns down Durham plea agreement

Twitter mark levin ^

[bantam]

Good f’n question that DEMANDS an answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RetiredTexasVet]

He just needs some encouragement ... a grand jury indictment and a 2:00 am FBI SWAT raid on his house.

[bantam]

I pray that happens!!
For what they tried to do to this country and to good people they better see the time behind bars or better yet swinging from a rope

[bantam]

Why does the name Rosenberg come to mind when I hear McCabe, Clapper, Comey, Clinton, Odumbo,...

[rx]

I find significance here (assuming the report is true) in that a plea deal was offered, despite our elsewhere having heard the adamant claim there would be “no deals.” If it is nonetheless true that McCabe was given a deal, I would likely see it primarily as an indication that this is Barr and Durham’s “ballgame” as opposed to one micromanaged from the president’s chair. Fine.

But what I find to be one of the bigger implications is that if a plea deal was offered to McCabe, that Durham may have implicitly indicated that it is McCabe’s level of “fish” that is being used to start the domino-falling progress as this “review” has turned into a “criminal investigation.”

I suspect, however, it wasn’t a plea deal as much as an exposed declination of the idea of a plea deal. Durham may well have sought whether McCabe could be interested in a hypothetical plea deal. If McCabe could possibly be interested in a deal, he would likely have nuance his position toward the outlines of what a full-fledged deal would need to contain, or at least indicate there mighty be a deal somewhere in which he could become be interested. Apparently the indication of whatever that was came back as a “no.”

Durham could have—despite appearances—applied a feint, even while respecting the President’s wishes. Durham was perhaps more interested to gain information about McCabe’s openness for a deal rather than making any particular deal with specifics attached.

Most would consider McCabe a pretty big fish in this coup, but if Durham truly had a deal in mind for him, it would likely mean Durham has tied up loose-end evidence at lower levels and is ready to firm up his cases against against the higher ups, meaning possibly Lynch, Comey, the Clintons or Obama. Information available to Durham regarding Comey is probably similarly as solid as it is against McCabe. An up-and-up deal sought by Durham with McCabe seems a tactic to seek stronger evidence against HRC or Obama.

As the evidence against HRC has to be considered pretty darned solid, my guess is the hope for better evidence would be to use against Barry, as McCabe was perhaps a strong part of the conduit that gave rise to the lovers’ text about [Barry] wanting to know everything about their investigation [of PDJT].

Of course, getting McCabe to cooperate under the aegis of a deal, would solidify the network of an all-out “attack” on the upper-echelon (the three Rockefellers) Barry, Slick and HRC, Brennan and Clapper. Failing McCabe’s cooperation, there are still plenty of other possibilities (the Jesuit Strzok, Lynch, Page, ValJar, etc).

But why would McCabe not be interested in any deal? Three possibilities: 1) he’d think or know that he’d be signing his own death warrant, or 2) he thinks he could “keep his reserved parking pass” likely in the form of getting some “help from above” (an Obama Presidential Directive) that he may already have beeh given. Having lived near HRC, it seems possible that his perceived strength to withstand a legal onslaught might come because of his relationship to her.   Or 3) he may have rigged a dead-man switch or poison pill that may never hit the news wires.

If major players may be holding Presidential Directive (PD), “get-out-of-jail-free” cards, I’m pretty sure Durham and Barr would feel a need to know that by “smoking them out.”

I believe Barr would think he could break a PD that was obviously intended to advance the necessary outline of a coup, but it would likely be much more difficult as a legal process. Thank God for the potential to use tribunals!

[Rockingham]

The federal system tilts heavily toward the government these days. Federal prosecutors commonly make their first plea offer their best plea offer, with the terms of later offers, if any, being worse for the defendant. Affluent white-collar defendants are not used to being treated like that.

[upsdriver]

I'm not certain Hillary and Zero are going to be indicted and charged with crimes. Depending on how big Durham's huevos are and whether he wants to risk Arkancide.

If they aren't tried for their crimes, then justice in America is dead.

[bIlluminati]

McCabe is inside enough to know that Jeff Epstein’s death was inside hardball. Sedition only carries 20 years.

[bIlluminati]

At least he wasn’t given immunity...with no requirement to actually testify...

---

... with a requirement to NOT testify. FUFY

[Brown Deer]

It looks like Judge Reggie Walton's bluff was called.



Judge to DOJ: Make Decision on McCabe Charges—or Face Release of FBI Records
Published 10.01.19

The Department of Justice was warned on Monday that if they do not charge former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe by Nov. 15 or drop the investigation altogether, the agency will be forced to release internal FBI documents related to his firing. Veteran District Judge Reggie B. Walton said at a hearing that the indecision regarding McCabe was undermining the credibility of the Justice Department. “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,” Walton said, according to a transcript of the hearing. “You all have got to cut and make your decision... 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.”

Federal Judge Warns That Trump is ‘Going After the Courts, Too’

Former acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker even appeared on Fox News to predict that McCabe was “imminently going to be charged.”

Stipulation of Dismissal, SNYDER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al, No. 1:18-cv-01389 (D.D.C. Oct 25, 2019)

[Flaming Conservative]

I’m wondering if it will be out Connecticut, since Durham works from Connecticut.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

He is going to trial in D.C......with jury of his peers (CNN and MSNBC hosts) except for the jury foreman who will be an Antifa leader.

[BigEdLB]

If he was asked to finger Hillary, it was simply survival instinct

[Rockingham]

Apparently, the most immediate case against McCabe is a claim that he lied to IG investigators about his contacts with and release of information to the news media. That is what prompted McCabe's firing by Sessions, with the decision as to prosecution raised by the government as a reason to delay a long-pending FOIA release.

Federal Judge Reggie Walton told prosecutors in mid-September that they needed to either file charges against McCabe or drop the investigation, giving a deadline of November 15 to make a decision or he would order the release of the documents.

The criminal statute at issue is 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which penalizes the making of false statements to the federal government even when not under oath. Such a charge against McCabe could not be mitigated by any directive from Obama because he was no longer in office when McCabe was interviewed by the IG investigators.

Of course, other charges against McCabe are also possible, and criminal investigations with multiple defendants tend to generate rumors about plea deals. Prosecutors like such rumors as a way to get their targets at odds with each other. We shall see. My guess though is that since Durham's criminal prosecution authority is relatively new, he is focusing for now on the potential false statement charge.

[Cuttnhorse]

Jury nullification is what I worry about. Where will the trial be located?
If any trial is in D.C., the chance of conviction seem slim to me.
I dunno, but maybe that is why McCabe is holding out for trial??

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

31. Once before a grand jury, McCabe is screwed. No testimony, go go jail for the life of it. Lie and you go to jail for years. Bulletin and it is contempt of court with jail time. Hope he’s got his butt protector already.

[rx]

Agreed. The false statement would indeed fall outside Barry’s protection reach and perhaps McCabe thinks his “lack of candor” is a small enough issue that Durham/Barr should not be trying to make a big fuss about it. He may think that his reasonable, foreseeable consequences would not compare to his exposure if he were made to broadly cooperate with the rest of the investigation.

If there is a Presidential Directive protecting McCabe for his activities prior to PDJT’s inauguration, it’s my estimation that it won’t easily become exposed by DOJ people. If that’s true, many citizens will get a skewed view of how Justice is being served and meted out.

I think PDJT was coolly calculating to let the hold-over types continue their malicious coup activities past his inauguration, to see them continue with those into a time that such protection would no longer serve them any benefit. I think it likely there will be more charges for McCabe beyond that particular false statement—and they’ll be quite serious.

[RitaOK]

That’s common practice to offer a plea deal when the Justice Department is working the bottom feeders first, while upward to the top tier conspirators, eg., Comey, Brennan and Klapper. The FBI did the same with Michael Cohen personal attorney to DJT, trying to get upward with something on Trump.

[9YearLurker]

No, idiot. George Webb can actually tick off a list of times Barr has done just that.

[Lockbar]

I say move any possible Fed trials to Wyoming or Idaho.