Winston Churchill to Jack Churchill, November 15, 1895 ← ← good to reread in 2018

Winston Churchill to Jack Churchill, November 15, 1895

Well worth rereading in the present day. Two pull quotes:

But essence of American journalism is vulgarity divested of truth.
A great, crude, strong, young people are the Americans – like a boisterous healthy boy among enervated but well bred ladies and gentlemen. Some day Jack when you are older you must come out here and I think you will feel as I feel–and think as I think today.

Picture to yourself the American people as a great lusty youth – who treads on all your sensibilities – perpetrates every possible horror of ill manners – whom neither age nor just tradition inspire with reverence–but who moves about his affairs with a good hearted freshness which may well be the envy of older nations of the earth.

Thank you, young Winston!

Advertisements

“I would like to nail one to the door as a message,” on Valentines Day

Inspector Comey, speaking his own doom.

” would like to nail one to the door as a message.”
McCabe weasel boy Comey drama ballerina

So tremendous.

And another thing: no PADAG testimony?

Now that I think more about it, why isn’t there more testimony, sworn statement or any interview information from the PADAG in question, whether it was Matthew Axelrod or someone else.

“…we [OIG] found that in late October 2016, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to discuss with [WSJ reporter] Barrett issues related to the FBI’s Clinton Foundation investigation (CF Investigation). In particular, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to disclose to Barrett the contents of a telephone call that had occurred on August 12, 2016, between McCabe and the then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (“PADAG”)… The disclosure to the WSJ effectively confirmed the existence of the CF Investigation…”

Lisa Page and Strzok Man are in the OIG report, but nothing from PADAG, other than one footnote, about what he told OIG, that the PADAG call leak was accurate to what he recalled, but that

“…the Bureau was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was totally unfair.”

What does it signify that PADAG is just a footnote?  Reminds me of the the tiny quote of Bill Priestap in the Nunes Memo.  Priestap’s quote signified that he was talking to OIG or Huber or both, and perhaps that he had flipped, being the only guy still in place in his original job and not demoted to HR or some such.  PADAG is out of government now?  Or it was someone other than Axelrod and still inside the DOJ?

Matthew Axelrod was PADAG in the summer of 2016?

“…we [OIG] found that in late October 2016, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to discuss with [WSJ reporter] Barrett issues related to the FBI’s Clinton Foundation investigation (CF Investigation). In particular, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to disclose to Barrett the contents of a telephone call that had occurred on August 12, 2016, between McCabe and the then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (“PADAG”)… The disclosure to the WSJ effectively confirmed the existence of the CF Investigation…”

Matthew Axelrod was PADAG in summer of 2016, presumably the PADAG who jawboned the Clinton Foundation investigation over the phone with Andrew McCabe.

For the past few years, his lawyering career has been a DC revolving door between Department of Justice and various private DC law firms. Here is former PADAG Matthew Axelrod’s LinkedIn page.

 

“As of approximately 1 month later, McCabe had failed to execute and return the draft SSS.”

Stonewall.

In regard to the Wall Street Journal leak that McCabe had engineered, he let on that he was a victim.  He knew nothing about it.  This was during a private interview in which his interviewers from FBI Inspection Division (INSD) had him swear an oath.  They later drafted a statement for him to sign, an SSS, “signed sworn statement,” viz.

On 05/09/2017, [INSD-Section Chief] and [INSD-SSA1] provided me with a photocopy of a Wall Street Journal article, dated 10/30/2016, and requested I evaluate and assess the content of the first three paragraphs appearing on the last page for accuracy. My assessment of the referenced portion of the article is that it is basically an accurate depiction of an actual telephonic interaction I had with a Department of Justice (DOJ) executive. I do not know the identity of the source of the information contained in the article. Since this event, I have shared the circumstances of this interaction with numerous FBI senior executives and other FBI personnel. I gave no one authority to share any information relative to my interaction with the DOJ executive with any member of the media. I initialed a photocopy of the article, which is attached to my statement as Exhibit Number 5.

However, there was a little problem. The INSD twice emailed McCabe a draft of the signed sworn statement, but he never signed it. “McCabe did not sign the draft SSS and did not communicate with INSD regarding the draft SSS until August 18…”

Stonewalling the FBI.

Snake time

A snake.

“Two FBI Executives, NY-ADIC and the then-Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Division (“W-ADIC”), told us that they each received calls from McCabe rattlesnakeadmonishing them for leaks contained in the October 30 WSJ article about the CF Investigation. At no time did McCabe disclose to either of them that McCabe had authorized Special Counsel to disclose information about the CF Investigation to the WSJ reporter.”

McCabe beats up two ADICs about something he, McCabe, orchestrated through two other individuals.  Despicable.

And it gets worse.  McCabe “forgets,” just like Hillary Clinton: “McCabe told us that he did not recall calling either NY-ADIC or W-ADIC to reprimand them for leaks in the October 30 WSJ article.”

“I spoke to both. Both understand that no decision on recusal will be made until I return and weigh in.”

strategy and implementationThe Inspector General has McCabe’s text messaging.  The report contains this: “I spoke to both. Both understand that no decision on recusal will be made until I return and weigh in.”

Not surprising.

But why in the prior releases of text messages, they were all from Strzok and Page.  Not a single one was from McCabe.  What does that signify about Horowitz’ strategy and intentions?