There are some interesting overlays amid a Washington Post report just published which outlines that a Grand Jury is hearing witness testimony in a criminal probe of former FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
You might remember it was April 19th, 2018, when the initial criminal referral from the Office of Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, was first made public. The actual timing of the referral, to a “D.C. U.S.Attorney” took place some time prior to April 19th.
The original IG referral to the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office was after the inspector general concluded McCabe had lied to investigators and possibly his own boss, then-FBI Director James B. Comey, on four occasions, three of them under oath. The details were outlined in the first IG report into the conduct of Andrew McCabe [See Here]
Within today’s Washington Post report they specify a grand jury has been hearing from witnesses surrounding that referral and potentially other matters, in an effort to “lock down” witness statements.
WaPo – Federal prosecutors have for months been using a grand jury to investigate former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe — an indication the probe into whether he misled officials exploring his role in a controversial media disclosure has intensified, two people familiar with the matter said.
The grand jury has summoned more than one witness, the people said, and the case is ongoing. The people declined to identify those who had been called to testify.
The presence of the grand jury shows prosecutors are treating the matter seriously, locking in the accounts of witnesses who might later have to testify at a trial. But such panels are sometimes used only as investigative tools, and it remains unclear if McCabe will ultimately be charged. (read more)
A few things about this are interesting.
First, it must always be remembered that corrupt officials within the intelligence apparatus customarily use the Washington Post as an outlet to tamp down any issues that are adverse to their interests. History has shown the reports from the WaPo indicate an effort to cover the preferred narrative(s), in advance of bad news in headlines.
Second, this report is published at the same time a customary 60-day window closes around elections when the DOJ essentially drops activity toward any current politician in office or public official. There are multiple former officials, and current politicians, who might be in the investigative spotlight.
It is unknown if the DOJ led by Jeff Sessions will pause current investigations until the mid-term elections play out. The political-left, including the media, would like to eliminate the distinction within the unwritten DOJ policy between “current politicians” and “former officials.”
The preferred narrative from the political-left would be to advance the talking point that Sessions’ DOJ cannot continue processing any investigation that might carry collateral damage for politicians in the 2018 mid-term. No-one really knows what approach Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein would take toward that custom.
President Trump expressed his disappointment recently that his AG, Jeff Sessions, would make criminal investigative announcements against republican politicians so close to this customary window of non-action by the DOJ.