Talk:Andrew McCabe

Article on Comey's replacement started.. come help out
Article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_A._Wray

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2019
change political party from Republican to Democrat Gierz80 (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. We have four sources, cited right there, that say he is a Republican. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of potential indictments
>The grand jury had been idle for months before being summoned to reconvene in early September 2019, but was promptly dismissed without any public announcement of an indictment. The DOJ then immediately rejected McCabe's arguments and prosecutors recommended he be indicted.

How is it that the Grand Jury was dismissed, but the prosecutors then recommended an indictment? To who did they recomend it to? An empty room?It's not clear at all that the editor knows what he/she is talking about and seems to be breathlessly repeating gossip. Did the Prosecutor ask for an indictment? We don't know.

Former United States Attorney for the Soutern District of New York, Andrew McCarthy, writes,

"It is entirely possible that the grand jury has not yet been asked to indict because relevant conduct is still under consideration — conduct related to McCabe, related to other suspects, or both.And then there is the matter of prejudice to consider.

Besides the ongoing grand-jury investigation of McCabe’s alleged false statements, the former deputy director is also among the current and former officials who are subjects of another IG probe of abuses of power in the Russia investigation...

And later,

"That is to say, there could be a dozen or more good explanations for why there has been no public announcement of a McCabe indictment. The other investigations could be complicating things. It could be that the Washington grand jury’s investigation is broader in scope than we’ve been led to believe. It could be something as simple as the availability of necessary witnesses, the availability of enough grand jurors to constitute a quorum, or the happenstance that the case is taking more time to present than the defense lawyers and media think it should.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/why-its-unlikely-the-mccabe-grand-jury-voted-against-indictment/ Spiker 22 (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , or, it could be that Trump and Barr are pushing a politicized case without enough proof to secure an indictment. Point is, right now we don't know so much of this is speculation. seems to have written most of that content. Can we trim it? I'm thinking at least the point on NYT reporting that two prosecutors leaving the case being "unusual" as one bit of WP:CRYSTAL balling we can cut. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Lawfare: "There have also long been reasons to doubt the strength of the case, not the least of which is that two of the prosecutors who supervised it have dropped off the matter." soibangla (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything in the subsection is fully supported by four reliable sources, and there are more. Please read them thoroughly. Andrew McCarthy, on the other hand, is not a reliable source, despite his long-ago experience as an SDNY prosecutor. He has since become yet another partisan polemicist for a conservative publication. For example, he states "no reason to conclude that an indictment was sought," which is preposterous on its face because the only reason the government impanels a grand jury is to seek an indictment. A grand jury literally has no other purpose, per the Constitution. You ask How is it that the Grand Jury was dismissed, but the prosecutors then recommended an indictment? which is exactly the crux of the peculiarity in the matter. The GJ was impaneled 18 months ago, but did not return an indictment with a small amount of evidence and a small number of witnesses, which should have resulted in a rapid indictment, but instead was recalled after months of being idle, promptly dismissed and then the DOJ recommends indictment without the GJ to back it. All of your questions: How is it that the Grand Jury was dismissed, but the prosecutors then recommended an indictment? To who did they recomend it to? An empty room? Did the Prosecutor ask for an indictment? are addressed in the four cited reliable sources. Again, please read them thoroughly. soibangla (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla: Please don't change my title. This is, after all the talk page and not the main article. The edit appears to be overly biased in McCabes favor. As for McCarthy, polemics and reliabilty aren't mutually exclusive. I don't think anyone has missed the fact that McCarthy is giving his OPINION. It is, after all, in an OPINION magazine. That doesn't make his arguments unreliable. Perhaps you can explain why the timing of another investigation can't explain the situation under discussion. Yes, it COULD BE that Trump and Barr are up to no good orr it COULD BE that aliens are pulling the strings. The question is whether the aforementioned explanations are plausible. BTW, McCarthy's argument boils down to a point you conceded: That we don't know and shouldn't jump to conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiker 22 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I changed the title. And then changed it the second time. Talk pages of BLPs are subject to WP:BLP. And your accusations of bias are WP:UNCIVIL. Comment on content, not other editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * McCarthy is giving his OPINION whereas the reliable sources are reporting news. Perhaps you can explain why the timing of another investigation can't explain the situation under discussion I don't know what that means, and it's not my role to explain it. That we don't know and shouldn't jump to conclusions The content doesn't draw conclusions. If you believe the content is overly biased in McCabes favor I encourage you or others to ameliorate the perceived bias with reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

work at CNN
His work at CNN not mentioned in the article? A bit out of date. 79.186.236.133 (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. There was a short mention, but it was quickly removed:
 * If we forget grammatical errors and other trivialities, was there something controversial about this: "he was later hired by CNN as contributor drawing the ire of conservatives"? Per given source it would be more accurate to say "the ire of Trump and media critics", but other sources (ex #1, ex #2, ex #3) would support "conservative". What would you suggest? Politrukki (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no immediate suggestions as I am not familiar with the subject. I reverted the addition because it was too-poorly written. I have no objection to it being restored once it undergoes nominal proofreading. El_C 21:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't see why their "ire" is relevant. It's WP:NOTNEWS. We know that conservatives are against McCabe because of his overseeing the Mueller investigation, and that his wife ran for Virginia Senate as a Democrat, though McCabe himself is a Republican. That's already covered though. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I see... Sorry, again, I have not read the article closely — I remain rather unfamiliar with its subject and his immediate relations. El_C 22:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , he became a lightning rod of criticism from the right wing due to the Mueller investigation. I think it's better to stick to that, rather than the CNN hiring, when talking about criticism of McCabe. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If the CNN addition is violating due weight then it should be omitted, or at the very least placed in its proper context. No disagreement there. El_C 22:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * McCabe hiring has been reported in myriad of sources and there no question whether McCabe was hired or not. I'll add this to the body: "In August 2019, McCabe was hired by CNN as contributor, drawing criticism from conservatives and media critics."Would you oppose citing Erik Wemple Blog for context: The Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple criticized the hiring, saying that McCabe has credibility problems – or something similar? Politrukki (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Please don't revert something that can be easily fixed. (I'll admit that I may have have I broken NOTBURO a couple of times, but you should do as I say, not as I do. ) The "ire" was not all of conservatives, McCabe has also come under fire from media critics as the sources that have already been mentioned say. To quote Erik Wemple Blog – a source often cited in Wikipedia – To sum up: Here is a prominent public figure with "real" credibility issues ... McCabe is a newsmaker, a figure of ongoing interest to reporters and editors across the land. So, how does CNN deal with the situation? By hiring him! In another post Erik Wemple Blog repeated the criticism: "Four years of truth-squadding Trump, you might suppose, would vest CNN with a firm aversion to hiring people with credibility problems."
 * Media critics and others have said the hiring was controversial because of McCabe's firing from the FBI for having a difficult relationship with truthiness and because McCabe is likely asked to comment matters that are closely related to the DoJ. That is the organisation that fired McCabe and the same organisation McCabe is suing. McCabe was fired because it was the recommendation of the DoJ's Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who is often described in the media as a straight-shooter. The IG was investigating McCabe's conduct in the Clinton email scandal investigation. Politrukki (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite
Just did a significant rewrite of the article to make it flow better, and to emphasize that there were TWO OIG reports.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

IG report
, I hope we can resolve this here

soibangla (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)