Fired and Disgraced FBI Director Andrew McCabe Caught in Another Lie in Front of Senate Judiciary Committee
Guest post by Joe Hoft
Disgraced and fired FBI Director Andrew McCabe was caught lying multiple times while at the FBI and since. We’ve just uncovered another lie that McCabe made under oath.
Former FBI Director Andrew McCabe is a proven leaker and liar, like many of his compatriots at the Obama – Comey FBI. In April 2018, NBC reported –
The Justice Department’s inspector general has recommended a criminal investigation into whether former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied to federal officials about a leak to a newspaper reporter.
McCabe was fired in March, and last week a report from the inspector general concluded that he repeatedly lied when asked about the leak of information regarding the FBI’s efforts to look into the finances of the Clinton Foundation in 2016.
Legal sources familiar with the matter revealed Thursday that Inspector General Michael Horowitz recommended in January that McCabe be investigated on suspicion of lying. That same month, FBI Director Christopher Wray demoted McCabe from his position as deputy director.
Per our recent analysis, McCabe is guilty of committing another lie. In the May 11, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, the following exchange took place between McCabe and California Democrat Senator Kamala Harris:
The problem with this is that McCabe lied. According to the text messages between FBI lovers Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, 48 hours prior to McCabe making his statement, his lead investigator, Bill Priestap, was spending the day down at the Eastern District of Virginia US Attorney’s Office (EDVA), and they were talking about having discussions with then Assistant Attorney General Dana Boente.
|5/9/2017||7:18 am, Peter Strzok text: I could go on. Man I’m salty this morning. Harumph. No, there’s no try, only success or failure. I get you. I do. I’m just tired and cranky. I asked [redacted] to come and get numbers on the HA emails, recalled recalled (sic) correctly, we didn’t count that way (forwards and backups.) Then I can give all the data to Bill to give to Carl to brief and you can listen to it all go sideways. F [redacted]. f people and their egos (that includes me at times). f incompetence and incompetents. F climate surveys. F big organizations and the impersonal nature they develop.||[source]|
|5/9/2017||7:35 am, Lisa Page text: He’s the A/AAG, not the DAG anymore. Why can’t you just call him back?||[source]|
|5/9/2017||7:43 am, Peter Strzok text: I did.||[source]|
|5/9/2017||7:46 am, Peter Strzok text: It will still make Carl cranky, or at least Bill’s worried about that. I don’t f*cking care any more. I reminded Bill that Dana and in [sic] have known each other for 15 years and have a working friendship. He wanted to talk about [redacted] (after we discussed the Norfolk USAO, where he physically is right now). They’re reaching out to [redacted] and otherwise doing alerting stuff. I told him we’re ready to partner aggressively with them.||[source]|
|5/9/2017||7:48 am, Lisa Page text: God I’m so sick of this place I can barely stand it.||[source]|
|5/9/2017||7:53 am, Peter Strzok text: I know. I think I’m going to tell Bill for stuff like this particular incident, he needs to tell Carl (or whoever) to chill the f out. Reminds me of the last time Dana called, the only feedback I got was him relaying people asked him, “Why is Dana calling Pete”?||[source]|
|5/9/2017||8:00 am, Lisa Page text: Bill is old bureau. I don’t see that happening.||[source]|
|5/9/2017||8:05 am, Peter Strzok text: Great. Remind me a comment he made in response to an apparent question about why I’m involved in stuff. What he said was people came to me because they knew me and knew I was good and would get a right answer/action. The implication was a question about why I was involved in so much, with so many people, whether I was a busy body. Nothing like stifling competence. I’m sorry. Don’t bother me. Because that’ll work. I’m really angry, Lisa.||[source]|
|5/9/2017||8:22 am, Peter Strzok text: I’m just getting angrier as the morning progresses. Should I not seek to be excellent? Should I not seek to develop close and professional relationships with good people? Is this how the organization wants to develop leadership? Fine. F this. I want to step down. Get the ADs and SACs that we do as a result. They’ll never “show anyone up.” We can sit in deferential mediocrity. Maybe I’ll get a bunch of tshirts with that for the next exec retreat.||[source]|
|5/9/2017||8:36 am, Peter Strzok text: And please before you talk to Andy or Carl or Bill about your stuff or this generally I need to relay some info.||[source]|
|5/9/2017||8:37 am, Lisa Page text: I will. I just left anyway.||[source]|
|5/9/2017||8:38 am, Peter Strzok text: You’re ahead of me.||[source]|
|5/9/2017||8:45 am, Lisa Page text: Honestly dude, yes. You should aim for average. You’ll never be penalized that way. So the next time bill gives you 1 hour notice for a brief for the d, just say no. Don’t want to leave the impression that you’re a busy body.||[source]|
|5/9/2017||9:16 am, Peter Strzok text: One more thing about what Bill said how Carl wants to proceed.|
It’s difficult to understand the entire transcript of text messages with the redactions and the abbreviations. It’s also unknown who Carl is but it was clear that the FBI was working with the EDVA on the investigation only two days before McCabe’s testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It’s also clear that the corrupt Strzok feels that the FBI is stifling his competence!
Besides lying to Congress, who knows what other illegal activities were taking place between McCabe, Preistap, Strzok, Page and the EVDA.
Hat tip D. Manny