The defense argument for former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe
This week former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe made a great many shocking and disturbing statements about his decision to initiate both a counter-intelligence and obstruction of justice investigation against Donald Trump. He also elaborated why he placed those investigations into the hands of special counsel Robert Mueller, as well as the investigation of Russians who had attacked the 2016 election and at least four individuals within the Trump campaign who had interacted with Russian intelligence assets during the campaign. Many would argue that the most shocking was his statement that he and the Department of Justice had felt, after the firing of FBI director James Comey, that Trump himself may have been a Russian asset. Then there were the discussions he claims he had with deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein over the possible use of the 25th Amendment to have Trump removed by his cabinet as unfit for office or to have Rosenstein wear recording equipment to capture and record improper and illegal actions by Trump in real time.
However, there is a credibility issue hanging over all of these claims by McCabe based on the fact that he was fired by the FBI due to the DOJ Inspector General allegation that he lied to them during their investigation of leaks to the media which apparently came from within the FBI. He’s been repeatedly called a liar and a partisan hack by Trump supporters who’ve been able to use the Inspector General report to dismiss anything he’s said. In response he made probably the most shocking accusation yet: that the DOJ Inspector General, who was an Obama appointee, was not “unbiased” in their report, that their final analysis was “incomplete” and missing significant facts and even worse, that their conclusions were “rushed” and may have been influenced and pressured by the Trump administration to specifically undermine McCabe and allow for any future claims he made to be discounted and disavowed.
Is this last claim merely a deflection by McCabe intended to minimize his own wrongdoing, or is there evidence that the IG report against him truly could have been tainted, compromised, and biased by influence and pressure from the Trump administration?