Thread by @SethAbramson

(THREAD) What can we learn from CBS's interview with lifelong Republican and former FBI Acting Director Andy McCabe? A lot. In this thread I break down some of the major revelations—including a few I suspect you won't find elsewhere. I hope you'll read on and consider retweeting.

1/ Working from interviews with Jim Comey and Inspector General Horowitz's first report on Comey—the second is still forthcoming—I've written extensively about how a faction of rogue FBI agents in the NYC field office threatened illegal leaks until Comey reopened Clinton's case.

2/ I've written of how these rogue agents (a) used former Trump attorney—and current attorney for multiple Trump aides—Joe DiGenova to illegally leak to the media and threaten Comey via media, and (b) used Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani likewise to leak to media and threaten Comey.

3/ I've written of how these rogue agents, in conjunction with rogue NYPD officers—including, it appears, the man running the Weiner investigation, who donated to Trump's campaign in October 2016—leaked false info and/or coordinated false leaks with top Trump adviser Erik Prince.

4/ The question has always been how much Trump knew of what his advisers Giuliani, Prince, and DiGenova were doing to make contact with rogue FBI and NYPD officials, facilitate their illegal pre-election leaks to media, and use those leaks and a threat of more to blackmail Comey.

5/ This was critical because those illegal leaks were, per IG Horowitz, a major consideration in Comey reopening Clinton's case—a decision that, per polling data, gave Trump the presidential election. If Trump knew of these crimes, he was part of a conspiracy that made him POTUS.

6/ In the first minute of CBS's interview, McCabe reveals that Trump *was aware* of a bloc of FBI agents who'd been secretly working against Comey—we now know, by illegally leaking false information about the Clinton case to the media through Trump advisers—and said so to McCabe.

7/ "I heard that you were part of the Resistance," President Trump said to Acting FBI Director Andy McCabe. Trump went on to explain that he knew of a bloc of FBI agents who "did not support Jim Comey...[who] didn't agree with him, and the decisions he made in the Clinton case."

8/ America doesn't have to wonder how a GOP presidential candidate would "hear" about the *internal politics* of the FBI. I have linked repeatedly to articles and videos and interviews confirming DiGenova, Giuliani, and Prince were in touch with both Trump and these rogue agents.

9/ Comey has said he wants more than anything to protect the FBI's reputation. In pursuit of that goal, he has made a significant error: downplaying the significance of illegal FBI leaks to media to protect the FBI's reputation. Fortunately, the IG report set the record straight.

10/ Not only were the illegal FBI leaks to media about the Clinton case in October 2016 a major part of the Bureau's reasoning in reopening the Clinton case—as multiple agents told the IG—but *Trump himself is now tweeting daily* about how serious illegal FBI leaks to media are.

11/ Indeed, Trump, conservative commentators, and GOP Congressman are now calling for *massive investigations and criminal prosecutions* of FBI agents (in their view, including McCabe) who illegally leaked to media. Yet *that's exactly what Trump conspired to do in October 2016*.

12/ Eventually, McCabe was fired the day before his retirement by the chair of Trump's pre-election National Security Advisory Committee, AG Sessions—a major witness in the Russia case—and the result is that McCabe does not have the same delicate view of the FBI that Comey does.

13/ That McCabe—a former Acting FBI Director—is willing to talk implicitly the "Resistance" in the FBI in a way Comey wouldn't, even if obliquely, is a major feature of his CBS interview. Particularly important is what McCabe says about the fears he had one Comey had been fired.

14/ McCabe told CBS that, after Comey's firing, he ordered two investigations of the president (as we now know, both a criminal and a counterintelligence investigation, each focused on Trump's relationship with Russia) for a very clear reason. Here is what McCabe said to CBS:

15/ "I was very concerned," McCabe says, "that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground—in indelible fashion—[so] that were I removed quickly or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace." Those words matter.

16/ I've written extensively about how a far-right organization's FOIA lawsuit (Judicial Watch) led to the revelation of emails between McCabe and Comey right before Comey was pressured to reopen the Clinton case in which McCabe and Comey discussed rogue agents leaking case info.

17/ From those emails, it's clear that Andy McCabe (a) knew there were rogue pro-Trump agents in the FBI's NYC field office, (b) knew that those agents were illegally leaking to media, and (c) knew those leaks were putting pressure on the Bureau with respect to the Clinton case.

18/ But we now know something else: that when McCabe went into the Oval Office with all those—eminently reasonable and indeed wholly accurate—fears, the President of the United States *immediately* made reference to there being a "Resistance" within the FBI that Trump knew about.

19/ So when McCabe talks about being worried that open FBI investigations might suddenly be "closed or vanish in the night without a trace," understand that he is *speaking of the pro-Trump "Resistance" in the FBI*. He obviously knows Trump himself can't close FBI investigations.

20/ Therefore, Trump's knowledge of a Resistance in the FBI is a significant area of criminal inquiry that Trump, Prince, DiGenova, and Giuliani must all be asked about. While illegal FBI leaks to media are Hatch Act violations, they're even more dire when they swing an election.

21/ We also learn via McCabe's interview that Trump tried to recruit Rosenstein into a *Russia-related obstruction conspiracy* by asking his Deputy AG to *fraudulently* put in a memo recommending Comey's firing "Russia" as a reason. Rosenstein knew this implicated him in a crime.

22/ It is shocking to learn that *within 24 hours* of Trump's firing of the FBI Director, it was the belief of the nation's Deputy AG that Trump had followed up on that act—which the FBI believed was evidence of obstruction—with a solicitation for the DAG to *enter a conspiracy*.

23/ McCabe's interview—and his summary of Rosenstein's words the day after Comey was fired—underscores that Obstruction of Justice can indeed be seen by law enforcement as a *collusive crime* whose commission raises *counterintelligence* fears about a person's loyalty to America.

24/ To the extent "collusion" means anything outside antitrust law, we can say that a crime is "collusive" in its character if its commission raises counterintelligence fears that someone is wittingly acting as a foreign agent. McCabe is saying the FBI and DAG *feared collusion*.

25/ Side note: I recommend the video below, in which Trump transition team member and Trump adviser Devin Nunes admits that "good FBI agents" in the NYC field office who he considered "whistleblowers" came to GOP members of Congress in September 2016.

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1007720437692891137

26/ Nunes refers to the same Resistance inin the FBI Trump did. Note: future Trump attorney DiGenova spoke to media about helping FBI "whistleblowers" get to Congress. Giuliani has described the Resistance as a sort of coup, ironic given Trump's allegations against the FBI now.

27/ It now seems self-apparent that Trump, Nunes, and others are alleging a "coup" within the FBI precisely *because* they're well aware that they participated in a "coup" within the FBI in October '16 that gave Trump the White House. Always accuse your enemies of what *you* did.

28/ Back to Trump inviting Rosenstein to enter a conspiracy to obstruct justice. McCabe confirms what those of us with a criminal law, criminal justice, and criminal investigations background have said from the jump: Trump's tweets are *evidence of a crime* and *the FBI agrees*.

29/ One reason Trump's statements about the FBI are evidence of a crime—by no means the only one—is that by speaking to McCabe of the "Resistance" and having aides make contact with rogue FBI agents, it's clear Trump wanted his words to foment rebellion (a "coup") inside the FBI.

30/ That strategy—tweets, plus illicit contacts with law enforcement—had worked for Trump in getting Comey to reopen the Clinton case, so once he fired Comey Trump clearly expected that *the very same Resistance* could be exhorted to end the Russia investigation as McCabe feared.

31/ An investigation can be initiated when law enforcement has "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that a crime may have been committed or be in the process of commission. That suspicion must be based on "specific facts." McCabe deliberately uses this language in speaking to CBS.

32/ It's important for people to hear this: the way top FBI officials thought through whether Trump's words were evidence of a) a crime, and b) an illicit relationship with the Kremlin, is exactly the way legal and investigative professionals like me have discussed it on Twitter.

33/ What was portrayed on Twitter—and even in media—as conspiratorial thinking was in fact *precisely* the sort of professional-grade legal and investigative analysis that was happening within the FBI and DOJ in May 2017. I want to register that McCabe's interview confirms this.

34/ That top officials at the FBI and DOJ were unanimous, it appears, in believing that both a criminal and counterintelligence investigation of Trump needed to be opened and maintained underscores that Trump's "Resistance" was located in New York, not at FBI HQ or Main Justice.

35/ McCabe describes "pressure," "chaos," "incredible turbulence," "stress", and "frenzy" at FBI/DOJ in the days after Comey's firing. This underscores that it was *nonpartisan* when legal/investigative professionals outside the FBI/DOJ—including on Twitter—responded as they did.

36/ The firing of Jim Comey, under the circumstances in which it occurred, was an *historically astounding event* whose factual contours suggested criminality *even to the man who helped Trump do it*, Rod Rosenstein. And the reason for that is Trump's public statements on Russia.

37/ When Rosenstein "absolutely serious[ly]" volunteered, *twice*, to wear a wire into the Oval, it was shocking in its novelty but not its investigative sense. If indeed the FBI had an active counterintel probe open then, which it did, a wire would be *one* investigative method.

38/ Anyone shocked by more than the historic novelty of the act Rosenstein described—who cannot see its investigative sense—simply does not understand or has refused to process how historically serious it is when the FBI and DOJ determine a POTUS could be a witting foreign agent.

39/ If there's one thing *every person America must accept* as a condition of citizenship it's that our Constitution *is* the document from which our laws emanate. *Any* person in the Oval who's a foreign agent *must* be removed *immediately* by impeachment or the 25th Amendment.

40/ So once the DOJ and FBI had an active counterintelligence investigation open involving the president, they were *obligated* to act *pursuant to SOP* on how such an investigation might be conducted *and* the speed and urgency with which all of its operations should be handled.

41/ Conservatives in law enforcement can disagree with the reading of the "specific, articulable facts" top brass at DOJ/FBI *unanimously observed* in May 2017, but they also *must* concede that *if* a law enforcement official felt such facts existed, they had to act accordingly.

42/ Certain of the facts McCabe, Rosenstein, and the remainder of Comey's team were working with in May 2017 were unknown to Americans until now—and some remain unknown. Trump's conversations with McCabe and Rosenstein are powerful new evidence that informed these men's actions.

43/ What is remarkable is that the evidence Rosenstein would have hoped to obtain by wearing a wire—an investigative method McCabe vetoed—was exactly the evidence that Trump would, soon after, give *publicly* to Lester Holt at NBC: Trump fired Comey over the Russia investigation.

44/ Let me put this clearly, speaking as a lawyer and former criminal investigator: the only reason we don't treat Trump's statement to NBC as a confession to a federal crime is that it occurred in public, and Americans wrongly assume evidence of a crime always arises in private.

45/ If Rod Rosenstein had worn a wire into the Oval Office and Trump had said to him there *exactly the same words* he said to NBC, many more Americans would understand his words were a confession. As it stands, legal and law enforcement professionals do, but many others do not.

46/ Note that, per McCabe, the FBI General Counsel said of the wire idea only that the investigation wasn't there "yet"—meaning there were other avenues to extract the same information from Trump as to his motives in firing Comey. And after the NBC interview, he was proven right.

47/ What this means is that the wire was only passed over due to matters of *investigative strategy and timing*—*not* whether there could at any point be a justification in taking that route. I expect all the people involved saw that Trump might confess *publicly*. And so he did.

48/ In retrospect, I wish the FBI and DOJ had indeed attempted a clandestine intercept of the president, as it would have forced both the media and many Americans—who can't understand criminal justice except in Hollywood tropes—that Trump has confessed to an impeachable offense.

49/ And that's the thing we *have* to remember: as *lifelong Republicans*, both Rosenstein and McCabe were assuredly aware of the fact that *their party* had established in the late 1990s that the offense Trump was suspected of committing could remove him from office permanently.

50/ Now, instead of Americans working from that common assumption, we have attorneys like Alan Dershowitz and right-wing law enforcement analysts suddenly deciding that—for the first time in history—crimes like obstruction are just process crimes that don't really matter so much.

51/ But those of us who've seen people *go to jail*—be torn from their families—over obstruction charges, and who understand that the history of enforcement of obstruction statutes is one in which such statutes are always taken seriously, refuse to *change history* to suit Trump.

52/ This takes us to the "25th Amendment" portion of the interview, in which the question is implicitly asked, "What should FBI and DOJ do if they know that the president has confessed (or would readily confess) to an impeachable offense with a major national security component?"

53/ If FBI and DOJ only knew Trump had confessed—or was about to confess—to an impeachable offense, you'd expect them to try to send that information to the appropriate party for impeachment: Congress. But the national security element understandably extended their deliberations.

54/ The language of the 25th impliedly imagines a scenario in which America is under *immediate* threat from a president's continued authority. That sort of threat would *not* exist for a "straight" impeachable act of obstruction, but *would* for a *collusive* act of obstruction.

55/ This is why the nation's discussion of "collusion" has been such a *disaster*. *Everyone* agrees collusion "is not a crime" as such—but that *doesn't* mean that crimes can't be "collusive" in character, and that that collusive quality can't raise counterintelligence concerns.

56/ Many crimes can be undergirded by a "collusive" intent—obstruction being one—which elevates the case from being "merely" a criminal case to one that is *both* a criminal and counterintelligence case. After Comey's firing, DOJ and FBI saw collusion and thus a security concern.

57/ If impeachment is the remedy for a criminal act, the Constitution suggests that the remedy for a criminal act underwritten by collusive intent *and therefore a national security concern* might be, under circumstances, the invocation of the 25th Amendment. So what is the 25th?

58/ Well, whereas "crime --> impeachment"—and impeachment is a *political* process that moves *slowly*—"collusive crime --> impeachment and national security fear," so the Constitution imagines a *jointly* political *and* emergency process that moves *quickly*—to protect America.

59/ The way the 25th—which removes a president from office, sometimes temporarily—is executed looks a little bit like a "mini-impeachment" that is conducted quickly and *by the president's own people*. That the president's own people do it is an implicit check on it being abused.

60/ Under the 25th, evidence a POTUS is an *immediate* danger to America is presented in a meeting of the president's Cabinet—as I said, it's like an impromptu impeachment before a *sympathetic jury* where the political process simply won't move quickly enough to protect America.

61/ There is *absolutely no reading* of the "specific, articulable facts" before the *lifelong Republicans* who discussed either the use of a wire or the 25th Amendment (some of which Republicans Trump had himself appointed) that made the conversation in *any way* inappropriate.

62/ Moreover, the leaks to the press McCabe is accused of *are so less serious in content, timing, and intent* from those Trump and his aides engaged in pre-election to win the general election that *anyone* who says you can't believe McCabe because of what he did is a partisan.

63/ So:

In a battle of credibility between MCCABE and TRUMP, MCCABE wins.
In a battle of credibility between ROSENSTEIN and TRUMP, ROSENSTEIN wins.
In a battle of credibility between TRUMP and ANYONE AT DOJ/FBI WHO WASN'T PART OF TRUMP'S PRE-ELECTION CONSPIRACY, the latter wins.

64/ McCabe's description of his meetings with Rosenstein and others after the Comey firing should comfort Americans. While they are described as intense and stressful, McCabe also describes them moving from topic to topic in the open, deliberative way that was proper at the time.

65/ Presented with a novel scenario, a professional works through *all* of the possible responses to that scenario to ensure that prior prejudices—from prior events that may *seem* to be the same, but are clearly different—are not unduly weighted. It's the *right* way to proceed.

66/ I urge people to *re-watch* the first 14 minutes of the CBS interview with former Acting FBI Director Andy McCabe in light of all the background information I've explained here. (This thread will continue in the next tweet, though the video is below): cbsnews.com/news/andrew-mc…

67/ At the 14:50 mark in the interview, CBS puts on screen the DOJ's response to what McCabe has detailed—a response that is unfortunate because it *seems* to discredit McCabe even as the *language of the statement itself* does very little to deny the truth of *anything* he says.

68/ For instance, look at the screenshot below.

McCabe *never* said that Rosenstein *ever* authorized a wiretap. And the DOJ *agrees* with him. But it does so in a way that *implies* that McCabe said that, thereby discrediting his account as "inaccurate and factually incorrect."

69/ Just as Trump's malfeasance "forced" Comey to defend the FBI in a way that covered up how bad things really were there (re: the pro-Trump, Trump campaign-adjacent "Resistance" in the New York field office), here the DOJ throws McCabe under the bus largely to protect itself.

70/ Trump has been so threatening to the *DOJ*—just as much as the FBI—that it's clear there's a legitimate fear within Justice that if it does anything whatsoever that makes it appear partisan, even if it's just *telling the truth*, it will anger Trump into some dramatic action.

71/ Any person or institution that feels compelled to "forgive," condone, or enable malfeasance out of a fear that they might anger the wrongdoer is definitionally in an abusive relationship. I do think Trump's abuse of the DOJ and FBI has real effects and we're seeing them here.

72/ Just so, McCabe doesn't say Rosenstein was "consider[ing] invoking the 25th Amendment" but that he, Rosenstein and others were gaming out a scenario as part of their responsible discussion of the situation. "What would happen if we did this" is different from "I may do this."

73/ (The DOJ is *made up of* lawyers, so if you don't think DOJ's statement is making incredibly fine distinctions of that sort, I, uh... well, you don't know any lawyers.)

74/ Some of you will wonder about Rosenstein saying "there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment." This too is *technically true* even though McCabe is telling the truth also—i.e. there's no conflict here. Until the Russia probe is over, FBI/DOJ can't decide there's collusion.

75/ Indeed, the biggest canard spread by those who support Trump but know *absolutely nothing about the criminal justice system* is that a criminal investigator announces publicly his/her findings in *mid-investigation*. That *doesn't happen* for about 100 very important reasons.

76/ When McCabe, Rosenstein, and others gamed out (a) a wire, and (b) the 25th Amendment—as part of a responsible professional discussion of what to do in a novel scenario—what they were trying to determine is *how imminent is the national security threat posed by the president*.

77/ Please understand that, in short order, *all of the people involved in this conversation*, including *both McCabe and Rosenstein*, decided that the threat from Trump's collusive obstruction was *not so imminent* that *either* a wire *or* the 25th Amendment was yet necessary.

78/ So when DOJ says there's "no basis" to use the 25th, it's saying that until its Russia probe concludes, it is the finding of Main Justice (*and*, I would note, of *McCabe also*) that the threat from Trump is not *so* imminent that the investigation can't be allowed to finish.

79/ And—follow me—once you've said that the potential national security threat is *not* so imminent the investigation can't finish, you're *also* saying that the appropriate remedy once it's finished, if malfeasance is found, is impeachment not the 25th. That's all DOJ is saying.

80/ (The rest of the DOJ press release is just a statement of fact about the actions taken by Rosenstein and the basis for McCabe being terminated from the FBI.)

81/ So now we come to the scariest part of the McCabe interview—a discussion of which will close this thread. McCabe reveals to CBS that Trump said he believed *Russian intelligence* on North Korea's nuclear capabilities over U.S. intelligence.

That's a national security threat.

82/ Those who say McCabe's statement on what Trump said in a security briefing isn't credible are—excuse me, I don't know how to say this politely—not living in the reality the rest of us are. Trump has *repeatedly* and *publicly* accepted the Kremlin line over U.S. intelligence.

83/ Indeed, McCabe's statement that Trump said "I believe Putin" when confronted with intel that North Korea is still a significant national security risk for America—dismissing what his own intelligence was telling him—is so consistent for Trump it bolsters McCabe's credibility.

84/ Just so, how McCabe describes Trump's execrable lies about McCabe and his wife is consistent with Trump's modus operandi. Trump says the Clintons gave Jill McCabe money while Andy McCabe was working on Clinton's case. In fact, EVERY PART OF THAT SENTENCE IS MANIFESTLY UNTRUE.

85/ As a Democratic candidate for state office in Virginia, Jill McCabe received money—as *many* such candidates did—from a PAC controlled by someone who is friends with the Clinton. She did not get special treatment—and in any case, McCabe WASN'T ON THE CLINTON CASE at the time.

86/ That media didn't disregard Trump's wildly unsupported conspiracy theory about the McCabes out-of-hand, and allowed McCabe's firing—*clearly influenced* by Trump's public exhortation of his former campaign aide, Jeff Sessions, to do it—to affect his credibility is disgusting.

87/ We previously saw, in the case of Peter Strzok, FBI officials, independent and nonpartisan, recommending a demotion and a 60-day suspension—with Trump's agents instead orchestrating a *firing*, just as Trump was publicly calling for. So Trump *is* influencing these decisions.

88/ Andy McCabe could have been allowed to retire, given that (a) he was one day from retiring, and (b) he had had a long career with the FBI unblemished by misconduct, and (c) his actions arose in the context of an historic set of circumstances that are still being investigated.

89/ The McCabe-Comey emails FOIAed by right-wing operation Judicial Watch indicate that McCabe absolutely believed that he and his wife were being used as political pawns in October 2016—which they definitely were. Without excusing his conduct, I'd note that that was its context.

90/ McCabe's honest belief that he and his wife were being falsely oriented in the public as scoundrels—purely to benefit the political campaign of a single man—is bolstered and indeed *corroborated* by Trump calling McCabe's wife a "loser" in a May 2017 conversation with McCabe.

91/ Ask yourself—red-blooded Republican men of America—what *you* would do if a man called your wife a "loser"... *over the phone so he didn't have to face you*... and did so merely out of spite, and not because she had ever done any harm or wrong whatsoever to him. Imagine that.

92/ My point is to remind us how *spitefully and irrationally contemptuous* Trump was of McCabe *seven months after the election*—so you can imagine the fear McCabe had for how Trump or his minions might be manipulating media coverage of his wife in October 2016. Which they were.

93/ There are lies a man tells that get him fired but do not permanently affect his credibility because of the circumstances under which they were told. And then there are cases where a man in that situation is in a public credibility battle with *the biggest liar in US history*.

94/ We have lost all sense of what is normal in this country—even in our legal system and law enforcement. McCabe revealing to CBS that Rosenstein was afraid to do his duty and appoint a Special Counsel in the Trump-Russia matter because Trump might fire him is harrowing, indeed.

95/ Per McCabe, Rosenstein's fear was Trump would fire him—leaving the DOJ with no Senate-confirmed leader—disabling the FBI's ongoing probe into Russian interference in the election and possible Trump campaign ties to it. *That's* the sort of effect Trump's malfeasance can have.

96/ As detailed by CBS News, what McCabe faced was bad also: he gave info to the WSJ to correct a false story at a time he was authorized to give info to the media. Trump's media allies were at the time trying to cast doubt on McCabe and Comey's objectivity for partisan purposes.

97/ This was in the context of the WSJ using an "unknown" FBI source to hurt Clinton while McCabe and Comey knew there was a pro-Trump bloc leaking to media for that very same purpose. For *his* part, McCabe connected to media openly—going through the FBI's Public Affairs office.

98/ McCabe's error—and it was one—was not admitting to the IG that he'd made the decision. He's alleged to have lied about it 3 times under oath—which is exactly one-tenth the number of times Trump admitted under oath—in a single civil deposition—to lying. chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/c…

99/ Of course, I don't need to relate for you all the evidence of Trump perjuring himself—including about Russia (below). By comparison, McCabe's statement that he had no *reason* to lie to the IG because he'd done nothing but protect the FBI is credible. washingtonmonthly.com/2017/08/28/tru…

100/ In summary, there's every reason to agree with McCabe when he says, "I was fired [a day before retirement, rather than being permitted to retire] because I opened an investigation into the president."

And every reason for us to fear Trump is a national security threat. /end

PS/ McCabe ends his interview by telling CBS that he made *contemporaneous memoranda* of all his conversations with Trump—as investigators are trained to do—that will confirm everything he is saying now about what Trump said. Those memoranda are now in the custody of Bob Mueller.

NOTE/ A clarification on Tweet #14: as McCabe explained to CBS, he didn't initiate the FBI probes, but rather used his authority as FBI Director post-Comey to check in on two *ongoing* ones—counterintelligence, begun summer 2016; obstruction, begun 2017—to ensure their viability.