PoliticsWorld Events

Immunity for McCabe?

Maybe We Should Review Recent Immunity Deals Gone Wrong

According to a letter published by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Andrew McCabe is seeking an immunity deal prior to giving testimony before a congressional hearing regarding FBI and DOJ mishandling of the Clinton email “matter”, as former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch labeled it.

Key excerpts from the letter are below.

Mr. McCabe welcomes your invitation to testify and is eager to answer any questions that you or other members of the Committee have about the events that relate to his termination, both the underlying events and the rush to judgment and dismissal.  He has a credible and compelling story to tell. However, as the result of a stream of leaks from the Department of Justice, it is now well-known that the OIG has made a criminal referral to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia…

Mr. McCabe is willing to testify, but because of the criminal referral, he must be afforded suitable legal protection. Accordingly, we hereby request that the Judiciary Committee authorize a grant of use immunity to Mr. McCabe, pursuant to Section 6002 of Title 18 of the United States Code…

This is a textbook case for granting use immunity. This Committee and other committees in both the Senate and House are eager to hear Mr. McCabe’s testimony; Mr. McCabe is eager to give such testimony; he has a legitimate fear of criminal prosecution based on the criminal referral that has already been made, the irregularities in the process by which he was terminated, and the improper command influence that continues to be exercised by the President of the United States; and if there is a criminal case to be made, which we vigorously dispute, the relevant witnesses are known and they have already given sworn testimony during the OIG’s investigation.

For these reasons, we urge this Committee to apply for a Court order compelling Mr. McCabe’s testimony and granting him use immunity. If this Committee is unwilling or unable to obtain such an order, then Mr. McCabe will have no choice but to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Before addressing Mr. McCabe’s request, let’s take a step back to review the immunity deals already mishandled by the FBI and DOJ.

During the Clinton email probe, the U.S. Department of Justice already granted five individuals immunity: Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff; State Department staffers John Bentel and Heather Samuelson; Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s former IT aide; and Paul Combetta, the employee from Platte River Networks who deleted her emails using BleachBit software.

The 60-second video below further explains Mr. Combetta’s alleged shenanigans after a subpoena was issued demanding the preservation of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

In another text exchange from the couple who keeps on giving, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, it appears consideration was also given to granting Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s closest confidant, immunity, according to the Washington Examiner.

Writing on Dec. 13, Strzok texted, “Talked to DoJ about HA interview. Told them we had to interview, no immunity. They said they thought that would get counsel to the point of saying she’s either taking the 5th in the Gj or you need to give her immunity. I said that’s fine, please have discussions to get the decision to that point and I would run up the chain.” ~ Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner

Normally, immunity agreements are given as leverage to elicit information that will lead to the prosecution and conviction of a more significant target.  In this case, the larger target would be Hillary Clinton.  However, after granting immunity to people who potentially committed crimes, what charges were filed in the Clinton email investigation?

Now, Andrew McCabe wants to be added to the list of wrongdoers who get a free pass in exchange for his testimony regarding a mishandled investigation that he was involved in and that will almost certainly amount to nothing of consequence other than another guilty party getting a pass.

Remember, Andrew McCabe was fired for “lack of candor” during interviews with both the Office of the Inspector General and FBI Office of Professional Responsibility concerning his role in authorizing an FBI Attorney to speak with the media regarding an article about the FBI’s handling of the Clinton Foundation investigation.  To those of us in the private sector, lack of candor is code for “he lied.”  And, it’s important to note he lied under oath.

So, Mr. McCabe knows he has been referred for criminal prosecution for lying under oath yet has the audacity to request immunity from the Senate Judiciary Committee in exchange for yet more sworn testimony.  Wow, seriously?

From the letter submitted by his attorneys, Mr. McCabe must feel justified in his request due to the “improper command influence that continues to be exercised by the President of the United States.”  But, the President is essentially the Executive Branch CEO and has full authority over any and all personnel under his charge, including the DOJ and FBI, so what improper command influence is being exercised?

Maybe the real reason Mr. McCabe needs immunity is also contained in the letter: “…the relevant witnesses are known and they have already given sworn testimony during the OIG’s investigation.”

Tell us (and others) what you think.

This is what others think

Help us improve the quality of our content by offering an honest rating and scrolling down to leave a comment below.

User Rating: 5 ( 1 votes)
Show More

Related Articles

One Comment

  1. He should NOT be given immunity. He can already go to prison for crimes he has committed. Let him have a SLIGHT reduction in the years to be served for his testimony. From what has been done, in the past, they will all ask for immunity and all go free if they are allowed. There has been too much done against America for any of them to go free.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Close
Close