A source confirmed to Fox News Andrew McCabe is taking "terminal leave" – effectively taking vacation until he reaches his planned retirement in a matter of weeks. As such, he will not be reporting to work at the FBI anymore.


Hmm...

---

A source confirmed to Fox News Andrew McCabe is taking "terminal leave" – effectively taking vacation until he reaches his planned retirement in a matter of weeks. As such, he will not be reporting to work at the FBI anymore.


Hmm...

He's probably just tired of serving a President who is constantly calling the FBI corrupt.

---

A source confirmed to Fox News Andrew McCabe is taking "terminal leave" – effectively taking vacation until he reaches his planned retirement in a matter of weeks. As such, he will not be reporting to work at the FBI anymore.


Hmm...

He's probably just tired of serving a President who is constantly calling the FBI corrupt.

I wish he’d get just as tired of the corrupt agents working for him.

---

I doubt it’s a coincidence that Wray visits Capitol Hill on Sunday about the memo, and McCabe retired the very next day. I can’t wait to see what’s in the memo.

---

His wife took 700K from the Clinton campaign, talk about conflict of interest in investigating Trump........

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

Obama really put a bunch of loonies in power in Government didn't he.

---

Getting my popcorn ready for this one...

---

His wife took 700K from the Clinton campaign, talk about conflict of interest in investigating Trump........

That's not true.

---

His wife took 700K from the Clinton campaign, talk about conflict of interest in investigating Trump........

That's not true.

True or not, something shady is going on....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/...-show.html

---

His wife took 700K from the Clinton campaign, talk about conflict of interest in investigating Trump........

That's not true.

From the article:

Republicans have questioned McCabe’s ties to the Democratic Party, considering his wife ran as a Democrat for a Virginia Senate seat in 2015 and got financial help from a group tied to Clinton family ally Terry McAuliffe.

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

That's not true.

From the article:

Republicans have questioned McCabe’s ties to the Democratic Party, considering his wife ran as a Democrat for a Virginia Senate seat in 2015 and got financial help from a group tied to Clinton family ally Terry McAuliffe.

Okay, first you said "from the Clinton campaign" then you said, "from a group tied to Clinton family ally Terry McAuliffe."   Thank you for the correction.  The contribution did not come from the Clinton campaign.   The PAC tied to Terry McAuliffe gave the same level of contributions to several different democrats, not just her.  McCabe was not deputy director of the FBI when the contribution occurred.   And his wife had already lost the race when he got promoted. 

Now if you think the guy is going to try to indict the President of the United States because some other person gave his wife a campaign contribution a few years ago, that's kind of implausible don't you think?  

I think the McCabe is retiring because the President is a childish brat who throws mud at law enforcement every chance he gets, which incidentally is what guilty people do to try to discredit an investigation that they think might find something.   I think he's just sick of being attacked by the very person who is supposed to be backing up law enforcement, not throwing mud on it.

---

From the article:

Republicans have questioned McCabe’s ties to the Democratic Party, considering his wife ran as a Democrat for a Virginia Senate seat in 2015 and got financial help from a group tied to Clinton family ally Terry McAuliffe.

Okay, first you said "from the Clinton campaign" then you said, "from a group tied to Clinton family ally Terry McAuliffe."   Thank you for the correction.  The contribution did not come from the Clinton campaign.   The PAC tied to Terry McAuliffe gave the same level of contributions to several different democrats, not just her.  McCabe was not deputy director of the FBI when the contribution occurred.   And his wife had already lost the race when he got promoted. 

Now if you think the guy is going to try to indict the President of the United States because some other person gave his wife a campaign contribution a few years ago, that's kind of implausible don't you think?  

I think the McCabe is retiring because the President is a childish brat who throws mud at law enforcement every chance he gets, which incidentally is what guilty people do to try to discredit an investigation that they think might find something.   I think he's just sick of being attacked by the very person who is supposed to be backing up law enforcement, not throwing mud on it.

McCabe is an intricate part of deep state corruption and you put the man on a soap box like he is a victim. You are unbelievable!

---

It would be great to somehow see this deep state devils pension taken away. Maybe he could live with Strzok and Page and be their house keeper.

---

From the article:

Republicans have questioned McCabe’s ties to the Democratic Party, considering his wife ran as a Democrat for a Virginia Senate seat in 2015 and got financial help from a group tied to Clinton family ally Terry McAuliffe.

Okay, first you said "from the Clinton campaign" then you said, "from a group tied to Clinton family ally Terry McAuliffe."   Thank you for the correction.  The contribution did not come from the Clinton campaign.   The PAC tied to Terry McAuliffe gave the same level of contributions to several different democrats, not just her.  McCabe was not deputy director of the FBI when the contribution occurred.   And his wife had already lost the race when he got promoted. 

Now if you think the guy is going to try to indict the President of the United States because some other person gave his wife a campaign contribution a few years ago, that's kind of implausible don't you think?  

I think the McCabe is retiring because the President is a childish brat who throws mud at law enforcement every chance he gets, which incidentally is what guilty people do to try to discredit an investigation that they think might find something.   I think he's just sick of being attacked by the very person who is supposed to be backing up law enforcement, not throwing mud on it.

A couple things: 

1.) Since when do liberals care about law enforcement? Many of whom made a career on senselessly bashing them and blaming them for things they are not responsible. The liberal support of law enforcement has always been conditional. 

2.) Trump attack’s anyone that attacks him. He doesn’t care if you’re white, black, male, female, law enforcement, or criminals. Let’s not pretend he’s doing it because he’s guilty. This is just who he is. 

3.) The FBI has earned every bit of criticism they get. If McCabe can’t handle that, I question his ability to lead. Criticism and law enforcement go hand-in-hand. I’m curious if you think it’s a coincidence that Wray went up there to speak about the memo and MCCabe decides to retire the very next day?

---

Okay, first you said "from the Clinton campaign" then you said, "from a group tied to Clinton family ally Terry McAuliffe."   Thank you for the correction.  The contribution did not come from the Clinton campaign.   The PAC tied to Terry McAuliffe gave the same level of contributions to several different democrats, not just her.  McCabe was not deputy director of the FBI when the contribution occurred.   And his wife had already lost the race when he got promoted. 

Now if you think the guy is going to try to indict the President of the United States because some other person gave his wife a campaign contribution a few years ago, that's kind of implausible don't you think?  

I think the McCabe is retiring because the President is a childish brat who throws mud at law enforcement every chance he gets, which incidentally is what guilty people do to try to discredit an investigation that they think might find something.   I think he's just sick of being attacked by the very person who is supposed to be backing up law enforcement, not throwing mud on it.

A couple things: 

1.) Since when do liberals care about law enforcement? Many of whom made a career on senselessly bashing them and blaming them for things they are not responsible. The liberal support of law enforcement has always been conditional. 

2.) Trump attack’s anyone that attacks him. He doesn’t care if you’re white, black, male, female, law enforcement, or criminals. Let’s not pretend he’s doing it because he’s guilty. This is just who he is. 

3.) The FBI has earned every bit of criticism they get. If McCabe can’t handle that, I question his ability to lead. Criticism and law enforcement go hand-in-hand. I’m curious if you think it’s a coincidence that Wray went up there to speak about the memo and MCCabe decides to retire the very next day?

1) First of all, what does this have to do with liberals.   I'm talking about Trump attacking law enforcement.   Whether liberals do or do not care about law enforcement is completely irrelevant.  

2) As far as Trump attacking anyone who attacks him, has law enforcement actually attacked him?  As far as I know, there is an investigation dealing with Russian interference in our political campaigns.   How is Trump under attack by law enforcement, unless he is expecting to be indicted or something? 

The fact is, Trump and his surrogates have slung mud on the FBI ever since the investigation started, which leads any rational person to wonder if he's guilty of something.

---

A couple things: 

1.) Since when do liberals care about law enforcement? Many of whom made a career on senselessly bashing them and blaming them for things they are not responsible. The liberal support of law enforcement has always been conditional. 

2.) Trump attack’s anyone that attacks him. He doesn’t care if you’re white, black, male, female, law enforcement, or criminals. Let’s not pretend he’s doing it because he’s guilty. This is just who he is. 

3.) The FBI has earned every bit of criticism they get. If McCabe can’t handle that, I question his ability to lead. Criticism and law enforcement go hand-in-hand. I’m curious if you think it’s a coincidence that Wray went up there to speak about the memo and MCCabe decides to retire the very next day?

1) First of all, what does this have to do with liberals.   I'm talking about Trump attacking law enforcement.   Whether liberals do or do not care about law enforcement is completely irrelevant.  

2) As far as Trump attacking anyone who attacks him, has law enforcement actually attacked him?  As far as I know, there is an investigation dealing with Russian interference in our political campaigns.   How is Trump under attack by law enforcement, unless he is expecting to be indicted or something? 

The fact is, Trump and his surrogates have slung mud on the FBI ever since the investigation started, which leads any rational person to wonder if he's guilty of something.

Trump respects those who enforce the law. You are confusing the rank and file FBI with the slimy deep state corrupt leaders of the FBI. Big difference. Trump loves law enforcement.

---

A couple things: 

1.) Since when do liberals care about law enforcement? Many of whom made a career on senselessly bashing them and blaming them for things they are not responsible. The liberal support of law enforcement has always been conditional. 

2.) Trump attack’s anyone that attacks him. He doesn’t care if you’re white, black, male, female, law enforcement, or criminals. Let’s not pretend he’s doing it because he’s guilty. This is just who he is. 

3.) The FBI has earned every bit of criticism they get. If McCabe can’t handle that, I question his ability to lead. Criticism and law enforcement go hand-in-hand. I’m curious if you think it’s a coincidence that Wray went up there to speak about the memo and MCCabe decides to retire the very next day?

1) First of all, what does this have to do with liberals.   I'm talking about Trump attacking law enforcement.   Whether liberals do or do not care about law enforcement is completely irrelevant.  

2) As far as Trump attacking anyone who attacks him, has law enforcement actually attacked him?  As far as I know, there is an investigation dealing with Russian interference in our political campaigns.   How is Trump under attack by law enforcement, unless he is expecting to be indicted or something? 

The fact is, Trump and his surrogates have slung mud on the FBI ever since the investigation started, which leads any rational person to wonder if he's guilty of something.

1.) I said that because you made it seem as though he disparaged law enforcement and that doing so is dishonorable. My point is that liberals don’t often defend law enforcement unless convenient. Maybe I misunderstood your point and if so that’s my bad. 

2.) If Trump is innocent, he’ll certainly believe he’s being attacked. You may think he’s guilty, but there’s been no evidence of criminal activity. I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable for someone to be as defensive as he has been if he’s being falsely accused.

---

1) First of all, what does this have to do with liberals.   I'm talking about Trump attacking law enforcement.   Whether liberals do or do not care about law enforcement is completely irrelevant.  

2) As far as Trump attacking anyone who attacks him, has law enforcement actually attacked him?  As far as I know, there is an investigation dealing with Russian interference in our political campaigns.   How is Trump under attack by law enforcement, unless he is expecting to be indicted or something? 

The fact is, Trump and his surrogates have slung mud on the FBI ever since the investigation started, which leads any rational person to wonder if he's guilty of something.

1.) I said that because you made it seem as though he disparaged law enforcement and that doing so is dishonorable. My point is that liberals don’t often defend law enforcement unless convenient. Maybe I misunderstood your point and if so that’s my bad. 

2.) If Trump is innocent, he’ll certainly believe he’s being attacked. You may think he’s guilty, but there’s been no evidence of criminal activity. I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable for someone to be as defensive as he has been if he’s being falsely accused.

Aren't you a cop? Do you really think we've seen all of the evidence? Is that how your investigations work?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Everything has been imagined or invented by the incredibly biased MSM or former Obama appointees.

I'm sorry, but it's becoming more and more obvious which side of the aisle has lost all grasp with reality.

---

1.) I said that because you made it seem as though he disparaged law enforcement and that doing so is dishonorable. My point is that liberals don’t often defend law enforcement unless convenient. Maybe I misunderstood your point and if so that’s my bad. 

2.) If Trump is innocent, he’ll certainly believe he’s being attacked. You may think he’s guilty, but there’s been no evidence of criminal activity. I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable for someone to be as defensive as he has been if he’s being falsely accused.

Aren't you a cop? Do you really think we've seen all of the evidence? Is that how your investigations work?

His investigations most likely aren't politically motivated witch hunts by sore loser democrats, so no he doesn't manufacture "evidence" and obfuscate the real criminals with his behavior.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato