Government-Speak

[togor]

"We write to inform you that, after careful consideration, the Government has decided not to pursue criminal charges against your client, Andrew G. McCabe"

Years ago I had a back-and-forth with the IRS, who figured I owed self employment tax on some company stock options. It took awhile to get them to see the light, but I finally got a letter that said "We have decided to accept your return as originally filed." Gosh! Thanks!

[Art]

I guess the Trump Justice Department is fair now...right????

Somehow I think the OP would have a completely different tone if McCabe had been a Trump tody.

The Feds not pursuing charges can mean any of the following: (1) We have discovered evidence that exonerates you. (2) There is evidence sufficient to convict you but we have decided to put the resources somewhere else. (3) There is sufficient evidence to convict you but we feel that the administrative steps taken in your case are sufficient punishment. (4) Currently prosecuting you does not conform with department (political) policy. (5) There is evidence to convict you but we don't feel we can get a conviction due to publicity or a tainted jury pool in the court in which the trial would be held. (6) There is evidence sufficient to convict you but it is tainted by misconduct and as "The Fruit of the Poison Tree" it isn't admissible.

In my career I heard every one of these in respect to criminal cases I personally presented, sometimes in combination. I don't know the thinking of the DOJ but I think it at least possible that 3, 4, and 5 could apply separately or together.

There is another reason. These people take care of there own and despite the fact that the D.O.J. and the F.B.I. conducted an investigation that included falsified documents and perjured testimony in "Operation Crossfire Hurricane" (which are incontrovertible facts) the embarrassment to the Department to prosecute anyone except the lowest level flunky on the case team totem poll is causing this to be swept under the rug with as little publicity as possible and yes I've seen that too. Sorry Sean Hannity.

[togor]

The OP was pretty neutral, Art. Whatever he might have done or not done, McCabe flunked Trump's loyalty test. On that we can agree. Maybe we can also agree that shouldn't be a crime?

[Art]

The OP was pretty neutral, Art. Whatever he might have done or not done, McCabe flunked Trump's loyalty test. On that we can agree. Maybe we can also agree that shouldn't be a crime?

We can agree on that.

The problem comes with the fact that McCabe's false statements to the FBI seem to have been about the same gravity as Michael Flynn's. McCabe was fired for his false statement just short of receiving his pension (see number 3.) He has made himself quite a career as a cable TV pundit though so all was not lost.

Flynn lost his job and was prosecuted and has a decent chance at doing jail time.

[togor]

There's a good bit more to it with Flynn. Secretly on the Turkish payroll at a time he's advising the US government. That's a whole different dimension than McCabe.