Thread for obviously newsworthy stuff

[Kidlicious]

Again, how about you read the 35 page report about how he lied to investigators over and over again instead of making a fool out of yourself. Exactly where do you think there is not probable cause?

[Kidlicious]

Oh, the Trump appointee did what Trump told him to do, huh? Did you notice how the grand jury laughed at it? That is how weak and baseless it.

He was appointed by Obama. You can take your foot out of your mouth now.

[Dinner]

Oh, the Trump appointee did what Trump told him to do, huh? Did you notice how the grand jury laughed at it? That is how weak and baseless it.

[Kidlicious]

The IG found probable cause and recommended indictment because there is probable cause. I don't neen lessons in reality. Have you even read the IG report?

[Kidlicious]

It would be interesting to see a mental health professionall’s evaluation of Kid’s mental state.

The IG recommended charges idiot.

[Dinner]

It would be interesting to see a mental health professionall’s evaluation of Kid’s mental state.

[Kidlicious]

Kid wants a good old fashioned lynching

You don't really believe that he's innocent. Nobody does.

[-Jrabbit]

Reality is calling, Kid. It says you've been gone too long and wants you to come back.

All the prosecutor had to show was probable cause. By refusing to indict, they are saying there is no way in the effing world that prosecution would be able to meet the much tougher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of an actual trial.

BTW - a federal grand jury is between 16 and 23 people.

[giblets]

Kid wants a good old fashioned lynching

[Kidlicious]

officials who are subjects of another IG probe of abuses of power in the Russia investigation. On Friday evening, IG Horowitz wrote a letter to leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, explaining that his report is substantially complete and is undergoing a classification review to determine what portions may be disclosed. We can safely assume, then, that the release of that report, which is apt to be explosive, is imminent. Meanwhile, Connecticut U.S. attorney John Durham also has an ongoing investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation. There have been reports that Durham is using a grand jury to gather evidence and testimony.

Why are these other investigations germane to what is happening with the Washington grand jury? Well, sometimes, when a suspect is under scrutiny in multiple investigations, the Justice Department will ask the court to seal any indictments returned by the grand jury. That way, there can be no credible claim that the grand jurors in one case were swayed by allegations filed by another grand jury. Relatedly, sometimes if a grand jury’s investigation has not yet been completed, but a major development in another investigation involving the subject — such as an IG report — is about to occur, the Justice Department will ask the grand jury to file charges, but then seal the indictment. That way, it cannot credibly be said that the grand jury’s decision to indict was swayed by negative publicity surrounding developments in the other investigation.

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://news.yahoo.com/why-unlikely-mccabe-grand-jury-131012313.html

The government only needs to show probable cause to get an indictment. The IG recommended indictment because of numerous false statements to investigators. So the reason for the delay is the release of the IG report on FISA abuse because McCabe is implemented in that.

[-Jrabbit]

Repeating: "It is extremely rare for a grand jury to decline an indictment... because it only hears the government’s version of events and doesn’t require unanimity. A common joke in the legal profession is that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if asked."

[Kidlicious]

If the grand jury refused then that means there was absolutely nothing there and Republicans really were just trying to play partisan games in order to muddy the water about Trump’s numerous crimes.

No. It means that it's 12 people like you.

[Dinner]

If the grand jury refused then that means there was absolutely nothing there and Republicans really were just trying to play partisan games in order to muddy the water about Trump’s numerous crimes.

[Kidlicious]

The jury is in D.C., which is a problem for prosecuting these scumbags. Don't know why you people love to see these people get away with crimes.

[-Jrabbit]

The DoJ has rejected McCabe's request for immunity.

...and it appears the grand jury has declined to indict McCabe. As Kid loves to tell us, this is HUGE news.

Wall Street Journal:

Andrew McCabe hasn’t been indicted for allegedly lying to federal investigators, according to an email from his attorney asking prosecutors to drop the probe, a sign that the government’s case against the FBI’s former No. 2 official may be in jeopardy.

The email is the latest development in days of uncertainty about whether Mr. McCabe, who drew repeated criticism from President Trump during the U.S. criminal probe into Russian election interference, would face criminal charges for alleged false statements he made as part of an internal Justice Department probe into 2016 media leaks.

A federal grand jury met this week, according to people familiar with its deliberations. The days of closed-door drama without any sign of charges could indicate that prosecutors have encountered an unexpected snafu. In an email dated Thursday, Mr. McCabe’s attorney, Michael Bromwich, asked the U.S. Attorney in Washington, Jessie Liu, to confirm Mr. McCabe’s status, saying he had spoken to the prosecutors involved in the case, Joseph Cooney and Molly Gaston, earlier Thursday.

“At a minimum, based on our discussion with Mr. Cooney and Ms. Gaston this afternoon, it is clear that no indictment has been returned,” Mr. Bromwich wrote.
A DOJ spokeswoman declined to comment.

Mr. McCabe had been under federal criminal investigation since the Justice Department’s internal watchdog concluded last yearthat he misled investigators about his role in providing information in October 2016 to a Wall Street Journal reporter. Mr. McCabe has long disputed the allegations. He was fired from his job in March 2018 just a day before he was eligible to retire with full benefits.

Prosecutors had presented the case to a grand jury in Washington this past week, according to people familiar with the matter. At least 12 members of the jury—which can range from 16 to 23 people—must vote in favor of an indictment in order for it to be returned. It is extremely rare for a grand jury to decline an indictment sought by prosecutors because it only hears the government’s version of events and doesn’t require unanimity. A common joke in the legal profession is that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, if asked.

Mr. McCabe’s legal team argued that if a grand jury rejected the case, there is no way a trial jury, with a much higher burden of proof, would find the former Federal Bureau of Investigation deputy director guilty.
“
If the grand jury voted not to approve charges, it did not find probable cause. Therefore, it is simply not reasonable to believe that a trial jury would find Mr. McCabe guilty of any charges employing a far more rigorous and exacting standard—beyond a reasonable doubt,” Mr. Bromwich wrote.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that the grand jury had been released Thursday with no immediate signs of an indictment.

The investigation centered on Mr. McCabe’s comments to FBI inspections division agents on May 9, 2017, and later interviews with the inspector general’s office. In those interviews, Mr. McCabe allegedly said he didn’t know who had told the Journal about a phone call he had with a senior Justice Department official in 2016 about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, even though he had authorized his lawyer to provide the information. Mr. McCabe has said he never deliberately misled investigators and cited the “chaos” of that day, which is when Mr. Trump fired James Comey as FBI director, making Mr. McCabe the bureau’s acting director.

Mr. McCabe sued the Justice Department last month, saying his termination was unlawful and part of a plot to remove law-enforcement officials deemed insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump.

Witch hunt.