Napolitano: It's 'Unheard Of' for FBI #2 Official to Request Immunity Before Testifying

[Dashinka 23,164]

I wonder if McCabe is sending anyone any messages by making this request so public?

 

Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is seeking immunity in exchange for his testimony related to the Hillary Clinton email probe, something Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said is "very, very unusual."

An attorney representing McCabe on Tuesday sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) requesting that McCabe be granted immunity in exchange for testimony surrounding the inspector general’s report that he leaked information about the Clinton investigation to the press and lied about it to former FBI Director James Comey.

"I have to tell you, it's unheard of for the number two person at the FBI saying, 'You want me to testify? Give me immunity,'" Napolitano said on "Fox & Friends First" on Wednesday.

 

He added that it's uncommon to seek immunity by writing a public letter, and these negotiations typically happen quietly behind the scenes.

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/06/judge-andrew-napolitano-andrew-mccabe-seeking-immunity-unheard

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I wonder if McCabe is sending anyone any messages by making this request so public?

 

Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is seeking immunity in exchange for his testimony related to the Hillary Clinton email probe, something Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said is "very, very unusual."

An attorney representing McCabe on Tuesday sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) requesting that McCabe be granted immunity in exchange for testimony surrounding the inspector general’s report that he leaked information about the Clinton investigation to the press and lied about it to former FBI Director James Comey.

"I have to tell you, it's unheard of for the number two person at the FBI saying, 'You want me to testify? Give me immunity,'" Napolitano said on "Fox & Friends First" on Wednesday.

 

He added that it's uncommon to seek immunity by writing a public letter, and these negotiations typically happen quietly behind the scenes.

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/06/judge-andrew-napolitano-andrew-mccabe-seeking-immunity-unheard

The FBI and justice dept need a good ol fashion swamp draining 

[Dashinka 23,164]

Can you imagine the outrage if the Bush DOJ/FBI had been using an informant in the Obama campaign back in 2008?  It is sad how politicized the executive department have become.

[jb914 33]

On 6/7/2018 at 12:26 PM, Bill & Katya said:

Can you imagine the outrage if the Bush DOJ/FBI had been using an informant in the Obama campaign back in 2008?  It is sad how politicized the executive department have become.

" As far as what I have seen to date, it appears that there was an investigation not of the campaign, but of certain individuals who have a history that we should be suspicious of, that predate the presidential campaign of 2015, 2016," Marco Rubio said on "This Week." "And when individuals like that are in the orbit of a major political campaign in America, the FBI, who is in charge of counterintelligence investigations, should look at people like that."

 

Counterintelligence has been one of the FBI's mandates since 1917. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence

 

One of the most bizarre things about the past couple years has been watching the supposed party of law and order turn against the FBI and our national security apparatus.

[Dashinka 23,164]

11 hours ago, jb914 said:

" As far as what I have seen to date, it appears that there was an investigation not of the campaign, but of certain individuals who have a history that we should be suspicious of, that predate the presidential campaign of 2015, 2016," Marco Rubio said on "This Week." "And when individuals like that are in the orbit of a major political campaign in America, the FBI, who is in charge of counterintelligence investigations, should look at people like that."

 

Counterintelligence has been one of the FBI's mandates since 1917. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence

 

One of the most bizarre things about the past couple years has been watching the supposed party of law and order turn against the FBI and our national security apparatus.

Fine, then why do it without notifying the campaign heads first?  Sounds more like political spying to me, and considering both campaigns had extensive ties to Russia, where was the spy/informant in the other campaign? 

 

When you look at how politicalized the FBI and DOJ has become it is only prudent to be suspicious of their actions, but I suppose that is fine with the party of "winning at all costs".

[jb914 33]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Fine, then why do it without notifying the campaign heads first?  Sounds more like political spying to me, and considering both campaigns had extensive ties to Russia, where was the spy/informant in the other campaign? 

 

When you look at how politicalized the FBI and DOJ has become it is only prudent to be suspicious of their actions, but I suppose that is fine with the party of "winning at all costs".

Even Trey Gowdy and Paul Ryan are saying the FBI was doing its duty here, and this reported by Conservative publication the National Review.

 

"House speaker Paul Ryan undercut President Trump’s “Spygate” accusation Wednesday, saying he’s seen “no evidence” to support the notion that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign for political purposes."

 

Ryan and Gowdy were among a select group of lawmakers who were briefed by senior intelligence officials on the FBI’s efforts to obtain information related to contacts Russian officials had with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos as well as two other senior campaign officials. Citing information he learned in that classified briefing, Gowdy vigorously defended the FBI’s decision to deploy an informant.

 

[bcking 3,157]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Fine, then why do it without notifying the campaign heads first?  Sounds more like political spying to me, and considering both campaigns had extensive ties to Russia, where was the spy/informant in the other campaign? 

 

When you look at how politicalized the FBI and DOJ has become it is only prudent to be suspicious of their actions, but I suppose that is fine with the party of "winning at all costs".

You don't notify any more people than you have to. That is probably one of the basic tenets of intelligence gathering. It was a political campaign, at the time it wasn't even the sitting President. At the time they likely did not know how many people were connected. They had 2 (or 3? i forget) that were suspicious, so they were looking into them. It could have gone up the ladder, it could not have. It is perfectly logical to keep it on a "need to know" basis, and the campaign heads didn't need to know.

 

Back seat "intelligence experts" love coming out of the woodwork. Just like everyone is a doctor these days.

Edited June 13, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 23,164]

31 minutes ago, jb914 said:

Even Trey Gowdy and Paul Ryan are saying the FBI was doing its duty here, and this reported by Conservative publication the National Review.

 

"House speaker Paul Ryan undercut President Trump’s “Spygate” accusation Wednesday, saying he’s seen “no evidence” to support the notion that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign for political purposes."

 

Ryan and Gowdy were among a select group of lawmakers who were briefed by senior intelligence officials on the FBI’s efforts to obtain information related to contacts Russian officials had with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos as well as two other senior campaign officials. Citing information he learned in that classified briefing, Gowdy vigorously defended the FBI’s decision to deploy an informant.

 

In this case, I believe Gowdy and Ryan are wrong since it is dealing with a political campaign.  If this was Bush and his DOJ/FBI drummed up some questionable reason to spy on the Obama campaign in 2008 the Left would be outraged, but in this case who cares.  The Dems are definitely the party of "Win at all costs".

 

 

[Dashinka 23,164]

29 minutes ago, bcking said:

You don't notify any more people than you have to. That is probably one of the basic tenets of intelligence gathering. It was a political campaign, at the time it wasn't even the sitting President. At the time they likely did not know how many people were connected. They had 2 (or 3? i forget) that were suspicious, so they were looking into them. It could have gone up the ladder, it could not have. It is perfectly logical to keep it on a "need to know" basis, and the campaign heads didn't need to know.

 

Back seat "intelligence experts" love coming out of the woodwork. Just like everyone is a doctor these days.

If their target was some low level campaign functionaries that they suspected of having foreign ties, then why not talk to the top people of the campaign to let them know what is doing unless they were hoping to entrap a bigger fish.  Considering how politicized the DOJ has become, the latter is probably more than likely.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

In this case, I believe Gowdy and Ryan are wrong since it is dealing with a political campaign.  If this was Bush and his DOJ/FBI drummed up some questionable reason to spy on the Obama campaign in 2008 the Left would be outraged, but in this case who cares.  The Dems are definitely the party of "Win at all costs".

 

 

Once again - They weren't "spying on the Trump campaign", they were investigating two MEMBERS of the Trump campaign.

 

They also didn't "drum up" a "questionable reason". They were investigating George Papadopoulus, Carter Page and Sam Clovis. They had evidence for each one worth investigating. 

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

If their target was some low level campaign functionaries that they suspected of having foreign ties, then why not talk to the top people of the campaign to let them know what is doing unless they were hoping to entrap a bigger fish.  Considering how politicized the DOJ has become, the latter is probably more than likely.

Again - Stop playing an "arm chair" intelligence agent.

 

It is perfectly normal to only involve people you NEED to involve in an intelligence gathering operation. You and I don't decide who needs to do. It seems perfectly reasonable to minimize the number of people involved until you know more. You are trying to create drama where there is none.

[Dashinka 23,164]

Just now, bcking said:

Once again - They weren't "spying on the Trump campaign", they were investigating two MEMBERS of the Trump campaign.

 

They also didn't "drum up" a "questionable reason". They were investigating George Papadopoulus, Carter Page and Sam Clovis. They had evidence for each one worth investigating. 

 I realize that the MDL has downplayed the Hillary team's foreign collusion efforts that drove this whole thing, and the fact that the FBI spies were in many ways leading these horses to water, but it doesn't wash when it is a political campaign.  There used to be a person here that coined the phrase the "Orange Nixon", but Nixon could only dream of doing what the Dems did, but justify it all you want.  I am sure you will think the same thing when Trump's DOJ inserts a spy in the 2020 DNC campaign.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

 I realize that the MDL has downplayed the Hillary team's foreign collusion efforts that drove this whole thing, and the fact that the FBI spies were in many ways leading these horses to water, but it doesn't wash when it is a political campaign.  There used to be a person here that coined the phrase the "Orange Nixon", but Nixon could only dream of doing what the Dems did, but justify it all you want.  I am sure you will think the same thing when Trump's DOJ inserts a spy in the 2020 DNC campaign.

Also, no spy was "inserted" into a campaign. The guy didn't work for the Trump campaign. He was contacting the members of the campaign that were suspicious.

 

If there are members of the DNC campaign in 2020 that are suspiciously making contact with Russians, by all means the FBI should investigate.

 

The evidence on Papado and Page was real, and they were leads that needed to be followed up. Anyone reasonable person that doesn't have a stiffy for Trump would see that. Even many Republicans are publicly agreeing that the FBI did nothing wrong in this case. That doesn't mean the FBI doesn't have problems, but this isn't one of them.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Read the last sentence of my post that you quoted.  Sure I forgot the ?, but it was still asking for your opinion.

Read the second line of my reply. I gave you my opinion:

 

"If there are members of the DNC campaign in 2020 that are suspiciously making contact with Russians, by all means the FBI should investigate."

 

I've seen no evidence that the FBI at that time was investigating Trump's campaign. They were investigating specific people who worked for the campaign, because they had evidence of concerning contact with "Russian connections". This was before an investigating into the extent of connection between the Trump campaign and Russia. This was when there were just a few people who they had found out had made contact (or were contacted) but Russia. They believed that warranted investigation. They used Halper as someone who could get close to those SPECIFIC people and try to get more information.

 

I don't care what campaign the people are connected with. In this case the FBI was doing their job, plain and simple. If something happens again in 2020 I would fully expect them to continue to do their job.

 

 

[Dashinka 23,164]

Just now, bcking said:

Read the second line of my reply. I gave you my opinion:

 

"If there are members of the DNC campaign in 2020 that are suspiciously making contact with Russians, by all means the FBI should investigate."

 

I've seen no evidence that the FBI at that time was investigating Trump's campaign. They were investigating specific people who worked for the campaign, because they had evidence of concerning contact with "Russian connections". This was before an investigating into the extent of connection between the Trump campaign and Russia. This was when there were just a few people who they had found out had made contact (or were contacted) but Russia. They believed that warranted investigation. They used Halper as someone who could get close to those SPECIFIC people and try to get more information.

 

I don't care what campaign the people are connected with. In this case the FBI was doing their job, plain and simple. If something happens again in 2020 I would fully expect them to continue to do their job.

 

 

So why does it have to be just the Russians.  The Hillary campaign was colluding with a UK spy who was in turn colluding with Russian sources.  Does that qualify in your opinion of further scrutiny by the FBI?  If so, where was it?

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So why does it have to be just the Russians.  The Hillary campaign was colluding with a UK spy who was in turn colluding with Russian sources.  Does that qualify in your opinion of further scrutiny by the FBI?  If so, where was it?

I'd have to review the timing of when the FBI found out about Steele, and his connection with Hillary's campaign. 

 

Also, like it or not, I believe our intelligence agencies act differently when someone is working with a UK National versus a Russian National. Our relationship, at least up until now, has been quite different with the UK versus Russia. Though with the way Trump is shifting his allegiances that may change. I don't believe that standard was established in the last campaign. My guess is we have been more suspicious of connections with Russia since, I don't know, perhaps the Cold War? 

Steele, after gathering information, took it directly to the FBI. That seems like an entirely appropriate thing to do. While yes he may have learned his information from Russian sources while under the payroll of Clinton (after his group was first payrolled by conservatives), but in this situation his source of funding is less important than the actual information he uncovered. He did what a responsible intelligence operative should do - Forward it to the government organization that can try to confirm the information and investigate further.

Edited June 13, 2018 by bcking