His boss thought he did. That’s all that is needed.
Quoted below is the information–previously posted in the thread, as running coach pointed out–that you were so eager to claim was unknown to me and to BobLibDem.
You made a rather odd argumentation choice, there–in effect claiming that our position lacked merit because we supposedly ‘didn’t know’ something that clearly was known to all involved in the thread. But I suppose that was the best tactic you could come up with in the circumstances.
In fact, there is a great deal of information about the way McCabe was fired, with respect to the violation of usual procedures, as with this discussion featuring a Bush Administration official:
Jeff Session’s involvement itself may constitute a violation of policy:
McCabe firing might have been a recusal violation for Jeff Sessions - Vox
Another general discussion, from the American Bar Association site, of the possible consequences of a firing that violated usual procedures and policies:
As BobLibDem was saying, the entire episode provides another item in the list of the Trump Administration’s attempts to obstruct justice.
The earlier-in-the-thread provision of information on the topic of usual procedures and policies and the way they were not observed in this case:
Do you actually believe that Donald Trump defines reality?
Do you actually believe that posters on the SDMB define reality?
I think most of them have a better grip on reality than the President. They certainly wouldn’t propose that the test of whether McCabe did something wrong was whether they feeeeeeeeel like he did, as opposed to relying on the yet-to-be-known facts.
Your tone seems a bit aggressive for a fairly uninformative response. My question was: for those who assert that due process or the rule of law (or some civil service protection) was violated, what is the basis for that?
There is BobLibDem’s seemingly unique argument that DOJ acted too slowly (leaving excessive uncertainty over McCabe’s pension) and his argument that it is untoward (even criminal) to fire someone who has already announced their retirement.
But what else do you provide? A quote that says firing the deputy director was unusual? I should hope so. McCabe was fired for lying to OIG… once hopes that is generally rare, and certainly in the senior ranks. Even I know not to lie to OIG. But it doesn’t tell me if procedure was violated.
“Some might contend” (this is why we hate lawyers) that Sessions shouldn’t have been involved in the decision, depending on how you interpret the scope of his recusal. A fair argument, I suppose. But it doesn’t really address the merits of the firing (i.e., I assume you think that if Rosenstein acted on the unanimous recommendation of FBI’s OPR and senior career DOJ officials on Friday, you would still object). But if that’s the DOJ “procedure” you’re hanging your hat on, say so and we can leave it at that.
And, a cite that claims (I think correctly) that McCabe can appeal to the MSPB (as many have, including FBI agents fired for lack of candor to OIG… they haven’t been very successful, but there are those that think that the MSPB is quite employee friendly). But surely we all know that the statutory ability to appeal a decision doesn’t tell us anything about the decision itself… or how it was arrived at.
So we’'re back to the information that McCabe’s attorney provided. Which is really just a rough timeline and the allegation that he “deserved” better. The timeline seems somewhat inconsistent with what we know (for example, McCabe resigned and went on terminal leave at the end of January when the draft OIG report came out, so I’m unconvinced that he didn’t see it until the end of February. I also presume that the FBI OPR investigation began, at the latest, at that point, not a week ago.).
But, nevertheless, it leaves us with a timeline (that is actually more favorable than the one I thought):
*OIG refers the matter to FBI OPR at some point in the past.
- McCabe sees a copy of the OIG report either at the end of January (when he resigns) or February (his attorney says).
- FBI OPR recommends firing McCabe at some point in the week of March 5.
*At the end of the week of March 5, McCabe and his attorney got a copy of the FBI OPR report. (Attorney says they got the final report a week ago… this could the final OIG report, but I’m not sure.) - They got an in-person hearing at the DAG’s office with the senior career DOJ official on March 15 to argue his case.
Career federal employees enjoy a certain amount of job protection and due process rights. FBI employees have fewer than others. Notice and hearing is the traditional hallmark of due process. So, I ask again, what procedure was violated? What process was McCabe due? What “tactic” is present in those questions?
I understand the argument that a long-time employee should be allowed to retire instead of being disciplined. And I understand the argument that retirement should not excuse misconduct. And I understand that DOJ found itself against a hard deadline to pick between those options. But nothing in that analysis seems to implicate the “rule of law” unless we go back to the BobLibDem theory that no one who has announced a retirement date can be subject to adverse action for his official misconduct.
…your analysis misses this:
You cannot look at the firing in isolation. You cannot ignore the greater context. The evidence is over-whelming that Trump wanted McCabe gone before he qualified for his pension: and in my most humblest of opinions he wanted him gone as both punishment for his various “misdeeds” and for Trump’s own personal amusement. And surprise surprise! McCabe is gone before his pension.
You expect people to trust the process? I had zero faith in the process even before we had the statement from McCabe’s lawyer. I don’t trust a word that comes out of this administration. On a daily basis we are subjected to a barrage of “alternative facts.” This isn’t fucking normal. Don’t normalise this. This isn’t how you should expect your government to do business. You should expect far better than this.
What you “think” is irrelevant.
When you literally ask me what I “believe” about posters on this board, what I think isn’t just relevant, it is the only thing that is relevant.
It’s not an opinion at what point they received the OPR’s response, nor how much time they were allowed to make their own response. And, as you neglected to respond to, the OPR didn’t deny any part of his lawyers’ argument.
Where is your cite that due process was violated? Again, the opinion of his lawyer doesn’t count.
Are you seriously going to try to claim that four days is a reasonable response time? That’s as much ‘opinion’ as the lawyer offered. That is verifiable. And unrefuted.
It may be all that is needed to persecute someone. It is not all that is needed to justly deprive someone of a pension without offering any facts.
If you have an actual fact (rather than an unsupported claim by Sessions or Trump) that the inspector general found actual violations of department rules, please provide them.
Sessions might get away with this sort of act as McCabe had moved to a position above those governed by Civil Service, but Sessions has failed to provide any evidence that he acted on actual violations of policy or law by McCabe. We have only Sessions’s (probably invented) opinion. It is remotely possible that it was a correct opinion, but we have no facts presented to support Session’s opinion.
Prior to his firing by Sessions, McCabe had authorized a criminal investigation of Sessions about lying to Congress.
Well, when you put it like that, Sessions’ lack of candor really does stand out. It’s like a cop being fired from the force for a negligent discharge of his weapon by none other than Yosemite Sam.
Hmmm… fire the guy who’s investigating you. Yep, totally justified, nothing to see here, move right along. Goodness, it would be nice to see old Beauregard in an orange jumpsuit.
Great - if true, Trump will have to fire Sessions, then Rosenstein, then Mueller. Congress will insist on it. All part of the swamp draining…
See McCabe was really on Trump’s side.
I suspect the response is less one of sympathy for the suspiciously expedited firing of bureaucrat than a pair of upturned fingers toward President Trump and Jeff Sessions, neither of whom are winning any popularity contests among the general public. It may be hoped that this will reflect a wave of voter participation in the mid-term and 2020 elections as well as special elections in the interim.
Stranger
For those interested, the OIG report regarding McCabe’s “Lack of Candor” appears to be available here. (It does not appear to be on the OIG website, so if it’s not what it purports to be, my apologies).