The FBI may have failed to thoroughly investigate Clinton - Tracking Thread

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Sage_Rat

I assume that you’re talking about the part where the article comments on Trump’s Obstruction of Justice interactions with the FBI.

I don’t recall saying that Horowitz would look into Trumpian obstruction of justice at any point before? That’s all post-election.

Horowitz is looking at 2016, to check whether the FBI was partisan in its handling of the Clinton investigation. That investigation has been extended into questions of whether there was a partisan, “deep state” effort to manufacture a conspiracy theory around Trump (e.g., at the behest of Democratic interests).

It’s possible that you or I misunderstood each other.

I agree that it doesn’t directly contradict you, which is why I phrased things the way I did. But the rationale he offered for not wanting to get involved with the Comey firing - that it could conflict with the Mueller investigation - could logically apply to other Trump-Russia matters as well. So that would imply that the investigation has not been expanded.

In addition, the article does mention that the Horowitz report could impact the Trump-Russia case, but doesn’t mention that he is specifically looking at it, which seems like a stark omission if true.

Though that said, I think I did specify that I was relaying my takeaway from Christopher Wray’s first public hearing with the House Judiciary Committee and his regular deflection, to refer them to Horowitz’s investigation, on pretty much every single politically sensitive question in that meeting. If you care about the subject, you would do better to watch that and see if your takeaway is the same.

Is there a full transcript anywhere? The only thing I could find was this, which seems ambiguous on the subject.

[Ravenman]

@Magiver

Yes, we just have to forget that her files from the Rose Law firm disappeared during the investigation that convicted 15 people in the Whitewater investigation. 4 of whom were pardoned by Bill Clinton.

And we need to forget she attacked the women who accused her husband of assault. She was too busy cashing in Weinstien’s checks.

We need to forget she lied about Beghazi. Or that her department was in charge of security and ignored requests to increase it.

We need to forget she hired someone to build a server in her private residence to circumvent government communications and then permanently erased 30,000 files.

We need to forget she paid for a phony document and use it to spy on her political opponent.

She’s not the most persecuted politician, she’s the least prosecuted.

That’s just Clinton being Clinton. You need to loosen up.

[Sage_Rat]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I agree that it doesn’t directly contradict you, which is why I phrased things the way I did. But the rationale he offered for not wanting to get involved with the Comey firing - that it could conflict with the Mueller investigation - could logically apply to other Trump-Russia matters as well. So that would imply that the investigation has not been expanded.

He got Strzok removed from Mueller’s team, so I don’t think he’s avoiding Mueller in the sense that a vampire would avoid Holy Water and the Sun. They each have their own investigation and there’s no value in investigating Obstruction of Justice against Trump when another perfectly good investigator is on the job and it matches his mandate more closely.

Is there a full transcript anywhere? The only thing I could find was this, which seems ambiguous on the subject.

There’s sort of one here:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?438042-1/fbi-director-responds-president-trumps-attacks-agency&start=562

You’d do better to just watch the video, I suspect, since it doesn’t give the names of the speakers.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I gather that video is several hours long, which is several hours too long for me. (I couldn’t get that c-span transcript to work altogether. What I’m looking for is one long full text transcript, so that I can search for instances of “inspector” and get any replies that mention him.)

I guess we’ll see eventually.

[Sage_Rat]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I gather that video is several hours long, which is several hours too long for me. (I couldn’t get that c-span transcript to work altogether. What I’m looking for is one long full text transcript, so that I can search for instances of “inspector” and get any replies that mention him.)

I guess we’ll see eventually.

Search works on it. Just take note of the timestamps so you can undo the search and find the questions that were asked.

Here’s about half of the material related to the Inspector General.

Q: THAT’S RIGHT. IT IS GROSS NEGLIGENCE. WOULD IT BE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT A SENIOR FBI OFFICIAL CHANGED THE WORDING OF THE DIRECTOR’S STATEMENT TO ENSURE THAT SECRETARY CLINTON WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE ESPIONAGE ACT?

A: MR. CHAIRMAN, AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE HANDLING OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO SECRETARY CLINTON IS CURRENTLY THE SUBJECT OF AN OUTSIDE, INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND I THINK IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO SPECULATE ABOUT WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WILL OR WILL NOT FIND.

Q: IN JULY 2016 THE STATE DEPARTMENT REVEALED THAT FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE SECRETARY CLINTON EXCHANGED ON HER UNSECURED PRIVATE SERVER NEARLY TWO DOZEN TOP SECRET E-MAILS WITH THREE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS. THE CLASSIFICATION “TOP SECRET” MEANS IN PART THE UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF WHICH REASONABLY COULD BE EXPECTED TO CAUSE EXCEPTIONALLY GRAVE DAMAGE TO NATIONAL SECURITY. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW THE FBI COULD NOT BE INVESTIGATING ACTIONS TAKEN BY INDIVIDUALS LIKE THOSE NAMED IN 2016, JACOB SULLIVAN, CHERYL MILLS, WILLIAM BURNS, THAT THREATENED GRAVE DAMAGE TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY?

A: WELL, AS I SAID, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE HANDLING OF THE INVESTIGATION AND WHETHER OR NOT IN PARTICULAR WHETHER OR NOT DECISIONS MADE IN THAT INVESTIGATION WERE THE PRODUCT OF ANY IMPROPER CONSIDERATIONS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE OUTSIDE, INDEPENDENT INSPECTOR GENERAL IS INVESTIGATING. AND WHEN WE GET HIS FINDINGS, I WILL LOOK A SEE WHAT APPROPRIATE ACTION WE CAN TAKE AT THE FBI IN RESPONSE TO THAT.

**Q: NOW WE LEARN THAT THE NUMBER TWO GUY ON MUELLER’S TEAM IS JUST AS BIASED. THIS ANTI-TRUMP BIAS IS SHOCKING. I KNOW ALL THIS TOOK PLACE BEFORE YOU TOOK THE HELM, BUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS SAID AN ORGANIZATION – THE FBI IS IN TATTERS. WHAT WILL YOU DO TO RESTORE CONFIDENCE?

A: IT GOES TO THE HEART OF WHETHER OR NOT THE BUREAU IF IT’S HEARING – IS ADHERING TO WHAT WE EXPECT FROM THE FBI. THE BEST WAY I CAN VALIDATE THE TRUST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS THAT WE BRING THE SAME LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM AND ADHERENCE TO PROCESS IN EVERYTHING WE DO. AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE DO NOT JUMP FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER. WHEN THERE ARE FAIR QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SOME OF THE DECISIONS MADE IN THE 2016 INVESTIGATION WERE HANDLED APPROPRIATELY, RATHER THAN HAVE THE FBI INVESTIGATED ITSELF --RATHER HAVE AN OUTSIDE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO REPORT ON THE FINDINGS. BASED ON THAT ACTION, I WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.**

Q: WE HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND WE HAVE ASKED THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR ALL OF THE 1.2 MILLION DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MINUS THOSE RELATING TO THE ONGOING GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION. I HAVE RECEIVED BACK FROM THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, MR. BOYS, A LETTER INDICATING THEY WILL MAKE A FULSOME RESPONSE TO THAT REQUEST. I WOULD LIKE, AND FOLLOWING UP WITH MR. ISSA’S QUESTION, TO HEAR YOU TELL US YOU WILL PROVIDE US WITH THE HONORING OF THAT FULSOME REQUEST.

A: I DO NOT MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT WE WOULD NOT BE FULLY COOPERATIVE AND RESPONSIVE TO THE COMMITTEE. WE WOULD WORK WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN MAKING SURE WE CONSIDERED ALL THE APPROPRIATE FACTORS TO MAKE SURE WE DO NOT DO SOMETHING WITH UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. WE DO NOT MEAN TO FRUSTRATE THE OVERSIGHT.

Q: I WANT TO ASK THE DIRECTOR, CAN THIS KIND OR DOES THIS KIND OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL --THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION, WILL IT INTERFERE WITH THE INVESTIGATION? WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS?

A: AND A LOT OF THAT REQUIRES US TO MAKE SIRURE WE ARE TOUCHING BASE WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SINCE IT IS HIS INVESTIGATION AND NOT OURS. IF IT IS NOT GOING TO INTERFERE WITH OUR INVESTIGATION, THAT IS ONE CONSIDERATION THAT CAN BE PUT TOT THE SIDE/ . OUR STAFF WILL WORK WITH JUSTICE DEPARTMENT STAFF TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT COMPROMISING AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION OR REVEALING SOMETHING ABOUT A GRAND JURY.

Q: I APPRECIATE THAT. IN THE CASE OF PETER STRUCK – PETER STRZOK – DO YOU BELIEVE A REVIEW BY SOMEONE IS CLEARLY WANTED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE WAS APPROPRIATE?

A: WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THERE IS A OUTSIDE, INDEPENDENT REVIEW BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL – THE MATTER YOU ARE REFERRING TO WAS NOT BASED ON ANY POLITICAL SITUATIONS. THERE COULD BE IN A RANGE THAT WE ARE OTHERS WOULD HAVE TO TAKE.

Q: IT IS NOT A DE NOVO REVIEW BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BUT IT IS A QUESTION OF IF IMPROPRIETY OCCURRED.

A: I THINK OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S INVESTIGATION AS DE NOVO IN ONE ASPECT BECAUSE IT IS OBJECTIVE. BUT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS NOT SECOND-GUESSING PROSECUTORIAL DECISIONS. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS LOOKING AT THE IMPORTANT QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT IMPROPER POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS FACTORED INTO THE DECISION MAKING. IF HE WERE TO CONCLUDE THAT WAS HAPPENING, WE WERE AT A POINT WHERE WE COULD ASSESS WHAT CAN BE DONE TO UNRING THAT BELL.

**Q: PETER STRZOK HEADED UP COUNTER INTELLIGENCE AT THE FBI. PETER STRZOK, THE GOT YOU DID ALL THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION INTERVIEWS AND RUSSIIAN INVESTIGATION, PETER STRZOK IS THE GUY WHO TOOK THE APPLICATION TO THE FISA COURT. IF YOU HAVE THE FBI WORKING WITH THE DEMOCRATS’S CAMPAIGN, TAKING OPPOSITION RESEARCH AND DRESSING IT UP AS A INTELLIGENCE DOCUMENT SO THEY CAN SPY ON THE OTHER CAMPAIGN, IF THAT HAPPENED, IT IS AS WRONG AS IT GETS. YOU CAN CLEAR IT ALL UP. CLEAR IT ALL UP, JUST RELEASE THE APPLICATIONS. TELL US IF I AM WRONG. I THINK THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. PEOPLE WHO DID THAT NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

A: WE WILL NOT HESITATE TO HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE AFTER THERE HAS BEEN AN APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATION, INDEPENDENT AND OBJECTIVE, BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL INTO THE PRIOR MATTER. I’LL LOOK AT ALL AVAILABLE REMEDIES. AS FOR THE ACCESS TO THE DOSSIER, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF ONGOING DISCUSSION BETWEEN MY STAFF AND THE VARIOUS INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES.**

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Thanks.

From this quote, it seems to boil down to what “the 2016 investigation” and “the prior matter” mean. I think both of these refer to the Clinton investigation.

What Wray is saying is that once the IG finishes investigating the Clinton matter we’ll be able to better assess what ramifications that has for the Trump investigation. The focus of these questions was the Clinton investigation, and the (presumably Republican) questioner dragged in the Trump investigation by saying “hey, the same guys who were favoring Clinton in the Clinton investigation were also involved in the Trump investigation”, to which Wray responded “let’s arrive a clearer understanding of what happened in the Clinton investigation before extrapolating to the Trump one”.

[Sage_Rat]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Thanks.

From this quote, it seems to boil down to what “the 2016 investigation” and “the prior matter” mean. I think both of these refer to the Clinton investigation.

What Wray is saying is that once the IG finishes investigating the Clinton matter we’ll be able to better assess what ramifications that has for the Trump investigation. The focus of these questions was the Clinton investigation, and the (presumably Republican) questioner dragged in the Trump investigation by saying “hey, the same guys who were favoring Clinton in the Clinton investigation were also involved in the Trump investigation”, to which Wray responded “let’s arrive a clearer understanding of what happened in the Clinton investigation before extrapolating to the Trump one”.

I don’t believe that’s the correct reading.

If you say that Mueller is investigating the question of Russian interference in the election from a criminal prosecutions standpoint, then that’s something we all agree to as being his mandate. You can find it in writing and there’s no secrecy to that fact.

If you ask whether Mueller is investigating is investigating the question of whether Trump laundered money for Russian mafioso, all you would be able to say - given policy on discussing an open investigation is to say nothing - is that the mandate for Mueller is to investigate Russian interference and any investigations on money laundering would or wouldn’t flow from that as evidence allowed.

OR, you could answer by saying that the question raised - money laundering - would fall outside of the purview of the Special Counsel, and a new investigation would need to be undertaken.

This latter answer you would give if you didn’t believe that the question would reasonably arise and follow as an obvious and necessary continued investigation from the original.

But if you believe that the investigation would reveal information of the sort to lead down that path - if such evidence existed - then you would give the former answer.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I don’t understand what you’re saying. (Sounds like an analogy.)

[Sage_Rat]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I don’t understand what you’re saying. (Sounds like an analogy.)

He’s not allowed to say. All he can say is that it would fall under the purview of the existing case if that’s the way the evidence leads.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

So you’re saying that Wray has not explicitly said that the IG is investigating the Trump-Russia investigating but in your assessment what he said is consistent with what he would have said if that were the case. Is that correct?

[Sage_Rat]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

So you’re saying that Wray has not explicitly said that the IG is investigating the Trump-Russia investigating but in your assessment what he said is consistent with what he would have said if that were the case. Is that correct?

He’s confirming that it would fall under the purview if the evidence lead that direction.

[Sage_Rat]

I’m inclined to trust Horowitz (the Inspector General). He’s an Obama appointee, people on both sides of the aisle have praised his previous work, and one has to assume that the FBI office that backed his recommendation did so on the basis of testimony and evidence that Horowitz shared with them:

Sessions fires McCabe from FBI

Granted, McCabe’s firing doesn’t seem to have much to do with the Clinton investigation in general, but it does seem to have been an action favorable to Clinton. And since McCabe did it in tandem with Lisa Page, that would imply that she (and her work that would affect Clinton) are equally under question. Page isn’t just under the gun for having an affair or whatever.

[Tee]

I believe that we have further investigation of Clinton because Republicans never stop clamoring for an investigation of Clinton, and they won’t stop until someone gives them the result they want. After this, we’ll need special counsel to explore Uranium One, donations to Jill McCabe, collaboration with GPS Fusion and everything else already judged as criminal acts in the vacuum-sealed fact-spaces in conservative heads. An investigation that doesn’t yield felony charges is therefore not a good investigation, it has been corrupted by the Deep State, so there needs to be a new one with higher quality people, etc. It’s noise.

But I also believe Comey’s testimony to Congress to be the dodgiest thing I’ve ever read and I didn’t have a lot of confidence in it. He did speak publicly about Clinton being investigated ten days before the election; he did tell Donald Trump repeatedly that he wasn’t being investigated by the FBI, so if he tells the truth infallibly we can assume that Trump was not being investigated by the FBI as Comey was in possession of the dossier, talking to the then-President-elect, months after receiving it. Whereas they jumped on Anthony Weiner’s found laptop the next day.

And that is the critical juncture where I wonder what is it exactly the FBI does, besides politics, at the highest levels. Specifically, what was the departmental process behind what we’ve been told, that it was a judgment to inform people about one of these things and to conceal the other. By all means let’s find out.

[asahi]

@Sage_Rat

I’m inclined to trust Horowitz (the Inspector General). He’s an Obama appointee, people on both sides of the aisle have praised his previous work, and one has to assume that the FBI office that backed his recommendation did so on the basis of testimony and evidence that Horowitz shared with them:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/378826-sessions-fires-mccabe-from-fbi

Granted, McCabe’s firing doesn’t seem to have much to do with the Clinton investigation in general, but it does seem to have been an action favorable to Clinton. And since McCabe did it in tandem with Lisa Page, that would imply that she (and her work that would affect Clinton) are equally under question. Page isn’t just under the gun for having an affair or whatever.

I am not inclined to believe Horowitz, not because I distrust him personally (I know little about him), but because common sense tells anyone with half a brain that something is rotten in Denmark. My understanding is that in civil service terminations there is a normal process that is followed, and it is a process that does not adhere to tight deadlines or timeless – yet this one inexplicably does. Given all of the hyper-politicization of the DoJ the last few years, you cannot simply assume that the bureaucracies are free of political bias. That is not the world we live in anymore, Sage Rat. I acknowledge it’s possible that McCabe actually may have leaked to the media and lacked candor – that’s possible. But the unprecedented manner in which he was terminated leaves a lot of doubt that his case was handled objectively. I don’t trust a president who publicly urges the termination of career employees – not to mention a president who has told more than 2000 whopping falsehoods since becoming president – to be more objective and more truthful than the person he fired. I don’t care which career civil servant put his stamp on McCabe’s termination – this is Trump and Sessions all the way. This is, and never will be, regarded as anything less than a politicized termination. Period.

[Sage_Rat]

@asahi

I am not inclined to believe Horowitz, not because I distrust him personally (I know little about him), but because common sense tells anyone with half a brain that something is rotten in Denmark. My understanding is that in civil service terminations there is a normal process that is followed, and it is a process that does not adhere to tight deadlines or timeless – yet this one inexplicably does. Given all of the hyper-politicization of the DoJ the last few years, you cannot simply assume that the bureaucracies are free of political bias. That is not the world we live in anymore, Sage Rat. I acknowledge it’s possible that McCabe actually may have leaked to the media and lacked candor – that’s possible. But the unprecedented manner in which he was terminated leaves a lot of doubt that his case was handled objectively. I don’t trust a president who publicly urges the termination of career employees – not to mention a president who has told more than 2000 whopping falsehoods since becoming president – to be more objective and more truthful than the person he fired. I don’t care which career civil servant put his stamp on McCabe’s termination – this is Trump and Sessions all the way. This is, and never will be, regarded as anything less than a politicized termination. Period.

Based on some more information from Lawfare, it sounds like they fast-tracked McCabe’s termination review process and didn’t get him time to respond to the allegations. So the recommendation to fire may have been a “recommendation to fire, given the facts that we have, but not necessarily the facts that we should have.”

Still I think that, while it’s probably safe to say that McCabe is a decent guy who believed that he was acting in good faith in his job, that doesn’t mean that he didn’t - for example - decide that the Clinton investigation was a “Republican conspiracy theory” and treat it as such, rather than investigating it with an unprejudiced mind and communicating with the press about it in the same way that he would have communicated with them if it had been a real investigation.

And if that’s the case, and that’s liable to be his defense, then he would prove it by finding others at the top level of the FBI to agree with him that the whole thing was Republican conspiracy nonsense that they couldn’t be bothered to act on seriously.

And if he did that, then he’d basically be proving everything that the Republicans would need to go to town on the top ranks of the FBI.

Even if we assume that the Clinton investigation was a load of political, partisan nonsense, the FBI cannot ignore the directives of Congress. You can’t have a rogue secret police organization that’s not beholden to the Legislature. If Congress tells them to waste their time on something stupid, then they have to do it professionally and thoroughly. Anything outside of that, while less demeaning for the agents of the FBI, is a path to madness, and the people in Congress are aware of that.

It’s probably just as well that McCabe did get the axe, before he was able to prepare a response. But it’s also possibly true that he didn’t do his job professionally, according to the word and spirit of the job he was given, and the FBI is purportedly held to that standard.

[Sage_Rat]

In other news…

The Republican party is slowly moving towards starting a competing investigation to Horowitz’s.

GOP close to issuing subpoena for Justice records linked to Clinton probe,...

I feel like they’re in a hard place. I think they want to turn the story to Clinton, rather than Trump. (The Clintons really needs to stop doing things to make headlines, FTR.) But there’s no value in doing so right now when they know that they’re just going to do a worse job of finding people to prosecute for anything than Horowitz will and it’s far too soon in the year to impact the midterms. But at the same time, I think that they’re worried that Horowitz will simply prove that the FBI was 99% in the right on everything and that, beyond some spit and polish, there’s not much that Congress needs to do. And once his report comes out, it has the potential to take the wind out of the sails of anything they do attempt to do on this front later.

That they’re waffling is certainly telling the considerations are mostly politically-based rather than evidence-based.

[Johnny_Ace]

The questions quoted are so stilted it’s ridiculous. The last one is a straight translation of the Nunes memo, before the fact.

[Sage_Rat]

Allegedly, FBI policy would be to fire Sztrok and Page for having an affair, so the fact that they are still in the employ of the FBI is quite strange. The New York Post posits that they are being kept on by Horowitz in order to help his investigation:

FBI lovebirds might be getting busy in other ways, too

I question much of that hypothesis. It doesn’t seem like one would need to keep people employed in order to use them for an investigation, nor would you offer to maintain the employment of two people who have committed a firing offence. You might offer to write them a letter of recommendation or give them a nice severance package, but you wouldn’t be like, “Oh yeah, now that we’ve had to discover that you’re a questionable employee, we’re all okay to keep employing you!”

So I am curious, if the NYP’s statement that the affair is a clear and unambiguous firing offense, what is going on?

[k9bfriender]

@Sage_Rat

Allegedly, FBI policy would be to fire Sztrok and Page for having an affair, so the fact that they are still in the employ of the FBI is quite strange. The New York Post posits that they are being kept on by Horowitz in order to help his investigation:

FBI lovebirds might be getting busy in other ways, too

I question much of that hypothesis. It doesn’t seem like one would need to keep people employed in order to use them for an investigation, nor would you offer to maintain the employment of two people who have committed a firing offence. You might offer to write them a letter of recommendation or give them a nice severance package, but you wouldn’t be like, “Oh yeah, now that we’ve had to discover that you’re a questionable employee, we’re all okay to keep employing you!”

So I am curious, if the NYP’s statement that the affair is a clear and unambiguous firing offense, what is going on?

I don’t even know if the NYP actually made the statement that an affair is a clear and unambiguous firing offense. The closest that that writer says that is “the two hadn’t even lost their security clearance — which is unheard of, I’m told, even when FBI agents are caught having extramarital affairs.”

Which has a few assumptions. He is “told” this, by whom? I don’t see anywhere in these articles that actually shows a policy, clear or not, that states that having an affair is a firing offense. Not saying that there is not, but this article does not back that assertion, and trying to google to find any sort of policy just keeps bringing up FBI office of public affairs. Are we sure that there is such a policy, before we go on to speculate as to why this policy wasn’t followed?

Also, it is not even the NYP that is positing that hypothesis, but merely one of his readers, "“The reason why the lovebirds haven’t been fired is because they have been granted immunity at some level or another because they have agreed to cooperate in the (Justice Department’s) Inspector General’s investigation into the corruption within the leadership of the DOJ/FBI leading up to and immediately following the 2016 election,” speculated one of my readers., though the author does go on to agree with the speculation of his reader, “Yes, that actually makes lots of sense.”

[detlep]

The OIG Report (warning: pdf) on the accuracy of statements made by McCabe is online. It appears McCabe was found to have had difficulty keeping his story consistent with his counsel and with the FBI Director regarding leaks to the WSJ regarding the Clinton Foundation investigation.