• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DOJ Inspector General report on fired Andrew McCabe claims he "lacked candor"[W 21]

JasperL said:
OK, I'm honestly confused with your point, ,but I think I have a decent grasp so I'm good with on my own.
Click to expand...

Let's revisit it in a couple of weeks. The whole picture will be much clearer then. We won't have to guess as the OIG will release his final report.

Here is a link to the report if you want to read it. There is a ton of stuff in it that the media isn't covering, like McCabe trying to throw people that work for him under the bus and what he did to lie while trying to squirm out of his testimony under oath.. The guy's a weasel.

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/o20180413.pdf
 
Last edited:
NonoBadDog said:
Let's revisit it in a couple of weeks. The whole picture will be much clearer then. We won't have to guess as the OIG will release his final report.

Here is a link to the report if you want to read it. There is a ton of stuff in it that the media isn't covering, like McCabe trying to throw people that work for him under the bus and what he did to lie while trying to squirm out of his testimony under oath.. The guy's a weasel.

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/o20180413.pdf
Click to expand...

I did read it, as I said before. So I know what McCabe did was lie to make himself look good. I saw nothing in there to implicate the FBI in a scheme to help out Hillary. McCabe's lies were about a leak to the WSJ that CONFIRMED an official FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation, and who that leak implicated in bad acts, if anyone, was the DoJ who were allegedly in August attempting to slow walk that investigation. What McCabe leaked was his supposed outrage over that idea.

So what we have coming from the FBI in the last week of October before the election are:

1) Comey announcing the reopening of the EMAILS!!!! investigation,
2) McCabe through surrogates confirming to WSJ that there is an open FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation, and
3) Someone at FBI leaking to NYT that FBI had looked into into Russia-related wrongdoing by Trump folks, and cleared them, and concluded that the DNC hacks weren't to help Trump but to sow confusion, etc.

And somehow the Trump lemmings review that and believe the FBI had some "agenda" to help HILLARY. :roll:
 
NonoBadDog said:
Diversion? Can't focus? Can't talk about the subject of the thread so you just pop in and ask some random question about another subject? What do you think of the Astin Martin Vanquish over the Bentley Continental?
Click to expand...



What “another subject” are you talking about? That McCabe was fired because he “lacked candor”, on which I commented, IS the subject of the thread. Sessions also lacked candor by not having divulged all he should when testifying before Congress. My post was not random but rather systematic in implying Sessions also lacked candor when he twice stated before Congress that he did not know of any effort by the Trump campaign to meet with the Russians when, in fact, Papadopoulos stated he could arrange such a meeting and Sessions rejected the idea. Your assumption of “another subject” is patently false and your assertion of diversion, lack of focus and randomness are groundless.
 
bluesmoke said:
What “another subject” are you talking about? That McCabe was fired because he “lacked candor”, on which I commented, IS the subject of the thread. Sessions also lacked candor by not having divulged all he should when testifying before Congress. My post was not random but rather systematic in implying Sessions also lacked candor when he twice stated before Congress that he did not know of any effort by the Trump campaign to meet with the Russians when, in fact, Papadopoulos stated he could arrange such a meeting and Sessions rejected the idea. Your assumption of “another subject” is patently false and your assertion of diversion, lack of focus and randomness are groundless.
Click to expand...

Session's alleged lack of candor isn't the subject of the OP. It's pretty simple. I am shocked (not really) that you can't seem to grasp such a simple concept.
Red Herring
Ignoratio elenchi
(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation)
Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.
Logical Form:

Argument A is presented by person 1.

Person 2 introduces argument B.

Argument A is abandoned.

Example #1:

Mike: It is morally wrong to cheat on your spouse, why on earth would you have done that?

Ken: But what is morality exactly?

Mike: It’s a code of conduct shared by cultures.

Ken: But who creates this code?...

Explanation: Ken has successfully derailed this conversation off of his sexual digressions to the deep, existential, discussion on morality.
Click to expand...
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring


But what about Sessions?= Red Herring.

harris red herring.jpg
 
NonoBadDog said:
Session's alleged lack of candor isn't the subject of the OP. It's pretty simple. I am shocked (not really) that you can't seem to grasp such a simple concept.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring


But what about Sessions?= Red Herring.

View attachment 67231823
Click to expand...


It is you who is nonsensically denying what the subject is. You say I’m wrong in stating that the subject is McCabe being fired for a “lack of candor.” Yet, you can’t say what the subject is, in your opinion. All you can say is, wrongly, what it isn’t. Grammatically, the subject is just as I said. If the poster of the OP says otherwise, then I’d say the OP need to be reworded accordingly.

All I’m doing is drawing a parallel between Sessions lack of candor and that of McCabe. The point I’m making is germane to the subject. I’m not saying McCabe did not lack candor (In fact, more details have emerged that make for a criminal case against McCabe for his denying he wrongly leaked damaging information about Clinton). I’m saying Sessions also lacked candor. Your “red herring” claim is unfounded.

It is definitive, in this case, that you exhibit a lack of the literal, interpretive and applied levels of comprehension. You cannot show just what I posted that literally is as you claim. Since you have no factual evidence to support your claim, the claim is unfounded and thus dismissed with no point in arguing further.
 
bluesmoke said:
It is you who is nonsensically denying what the subject is. You say I’m wrong in stating that the subject is McCabe being fired for a “lack of candor.” Yet, you can’t say what the subject is, in your opinion. All you can say is, wrongly, what it isn’t. Grammatically, the subject is just as I said. If the poster of the OP says otherwise, then I’d say the OP need to be reworded accordingly.

All I’m doing is drawing a parallel between Sessions lack of candor and that of McCabe. The point I’m making is germane to the subject. I’m not saying McCabe did not lack candor (In fact, more details have emerged that make for a criminal case against McCabe for his denying he wrongly leaked damaging information about Clinton). I’m saying Sessions also lacked candor. Your “red herring” claim is unfounded.

It is definitive, in this case, that you exhibit a lack of the literal, interpretive and applied levels of comprehension. You cannot show just what I posted that literally is as you claim. Since you have no factual evidence to support your claim, the claim is unfounded and thus dismissed with no point in arguing further.
Click to expand...

Sessions hasn't been referred to the DOJ for prosecution. McCabe has. What you think Sessions has done is your opinion, which you are entitled to. You want to ride a red herring to deflect from McCabe. What about Trump? What about Obama? What about Lynch? What about Strzok? What about Page? What about Nixon? You could do that all day. It's a pretty lame debate style, but it's what you do I guess. If you want to start a thread about Sessions go for it.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Not, apparently, according to the people who occupy the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of America. "Factually correct" statements that give the appearance of saying one thing while actually saying another are the mainstay of the US government.

If someone asked Mr. McCabe, "Did you __[fill in the blank]__?" and Mr. McCabe didn't actually do it personally, but rather had told one of his subordinates to do it, is the answer "No." a lie or simply "factually correct"?
Click to expand...
Please show we are discussing such an occurrence for this to be relevant.


TU Curmudgeon said:
Without actually seeing the actual question asked, and the actual answer given, and without knowing what actually happened, I cannot discount the possibility that Mr. McCabe's statement might simply have been "factually correct" (while still not being "forthcoming").
Click to expand...
You seriously need to look at the language the IG used to understand the significance of McCabe's actions.


TU Curmudgeon said:
If Mr. McCabe told someone else to OK the release, who ACTUALLY "authorized" the release?
Click to expand...
iLOL McCabe authorized the release, not someone else.


TU Curmudgeon said:
Then you simply haven't had sufficient exposure to the way that the English language works at the higher governmental/legal levels.
Click to expand...
Clearly that would be you and clearly why you do not understand the language used by the OIG.




AlbqOwl said:
But no indictment for McCabe for clearly making false statements both to the IG and the FBI (at that time Comey.) Translating that to 'lack of candor' seems to me a cop out when others exercising equal 'lack of candor' are indicted and some (think Gordon Liddy) are sentenced to jail for lesser offenses than what McCabe did.

Can somebody explain to me why those others deserved indictment and McCabe doesn't?
Click to expand...
It is not the job of the OIG to indict.


Justice Dept. watchdog sends McCabe findings to federal prosecutors for possible charges

The Justice Department's inspector general referred its findings on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to the US attorney's office in Washington for possible criminal charges associated with lying to internal investigators, according to a source familiar with the matter.

[...]​

Justice Dept. watchdog sends McCabe findings to federal prosecutors for possible charges​
 
Excon said:
Please show we are discussing such an occurrence for this to be relevant.
Click to expand...

We were (at least I was) dealing with the difference between "being factually correct" and "telling the truth". "Being factually correct" can, indeed, be making a statement that is "lacking in candour", but it is NOT "lying" since the statement is "factually correct".

Excon said:
You seriously need to look at the language the IG used to understand the significance of McCabe's actions.
Click to expand...

No, I need to examine the evidence of what questions were actually asked and what answers were actually given rather than relying on someone else's opinion as to what the net result of those constituted.

Excon said:
iLOL McCabe authorized the release, not someone else.
Click to expand...

Nope. In the situation I postulated, Mr. McCabe would have authorized the authorization of the release. The person who ACTUALLY "authorized the release" would be just that - the person who ACTUALLY authorized the release. In that situation, it would be "factually correct" for Mr. McCabe to maintain that HE did not "authorize the release" (because all he did was tell someone else to ACTUALLY authorize the release).

Of course, that would be a "mere lack of candour" as opposed to "actually telling a lie".

Excon said:
Clearly that would be you and clearly why you do not understand the language used by the OIG.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion.

Excon said:
... Justice Dept. watchdog sends McCabe findings to federal prosecutors for possible charges
Click to expand...

Which, of course, means that Mr. McCabe has been tried and found guilty - right?

PS - I know that it does NOT mean that he has been tried and acquitted.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
We were (at least I was) dealing with the difference between "being factually correct" and "telling the truth". "Being factually correct" can, indeed, be making a statement that is "lacking in candour", but it is NOT "lying" since the statement is "factually correct".
Click to expand...
Every damn adult here should know what you are speaking about, but that is irrelevant here because he was required to be candid and was fired for not being so.


TU Curmudgeon said:
No, I need to examine the evidence of what questions were actually asked and what answers were actually given rather than relying on someone else's opinion as to what the net result of those constituted.
Click to expand...
As I said; You seriously need to look at the language the IG used to understand the significance of McCabe's actions.
That does not mean you examine that language in absent of what it addresses.


TU Curmudgeon said:
Nope. In the situation I postulated, Mr. McCabe would have authorized the authorization of the release.
Click to expand...
No, and shows a clear lack of knowledge of what is actually being discussed.
He is the one who authorized it by his own admission, not someone else.


TU Curmudgeon said:
The person who ACTUALLY "authorized the release" would be just that - the person who ACTUALLY authorized the release. In that situation, it would be "factually correct" for Mr. McCabe to maintain that HE did not "authorize the release" (because all he did was tell someone else to ACTUALLY authorize the release).
Click to expand...
He is the one who authorized it by his own admission, not someone else.


TU Curmudgeon said:
Which, of course, means that Mr. McCabe has been tried and found guilty - right?
Click to expand...
I do not believe anyone said that, did they?

What it shows is that the OIG believes McCabe's actions rose to the level of criminality.
Which of course isn't my concern as I opened this thread stating in regards to the posted findings that his termination was in order.
 
Excon said:
Which of course isn't my concern as I opened this thread stating in regards to the posted findings that his termination was in order.
Click to expand...

While I'd agree with "justified according to the regulations", I can't quite go along with "in order" (since there appears to have been a bit of deliberate vindictiveness and petty mindedness involved).

As far as taking the position that Mr. McCabe is "guilty" because the matter has been referred for consideration of possible prosecution, the "standard" position on things like that is:

  1. if the person involved belongs to the same political party as I support then they are absolutely 100% totally innocent until they have been found guilty AND they have exhausted all possible appeals without overturning that verdict (AND, if that happens, then they were convicted through a miscarriage of justice); and
  2. if the person involved belongs to a different political party than the one that I support, then the merest whiff of a hint of a ghost of a trace of a suspicion that they might potentially have possibly come close to doing something that sort of more or less might be considered to be an action that could possibly resemble an illegal act is PROOF that they are absolutely 100% totally GUILTY and any court finding that even hints at the contrary is a miscarriage of justice.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
While I'd agree with "justified according to the regulations", I can't quite go along with "in order" (since there appears to have been a bit of deliberate vindictiveness and petty mindedness involved).
Click to expand...
I see this claim you made as being real ****ing stupid.
Please show this deliberate "deliberate vindictiveness" and "petty mindlessness" on the part of the OIG in order for your claim to be true.



TU Curmudgeon said:
As far as taking the position that Mr. McCabe is "guilty" because the matter has been referred for consideration of possible prosecution, the "standard" position on things like that is:
Click to expand...
Why do you keep speaking to something that was not said.

Again.
I do not believe anyone said that, did they?

What it shows is that the OIG believes McCabe's actions rose to the level of criminality.
Which of course isn't my concern as I opened this thread stating in regards to the posted findings that his termination was in order.
Click to expand...

You are not having a discussion with someone who said he was guilty of a crime or said it did show he was guilty of a crime etc.
I clearly stated that the OIG believed his actions rose to the level of criminality, which has nothing to do with my statement in regards to the informati0on showing his termination was in order.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Sessions hasn't been referred to the DOJ for prosecution. McCabe has. What you think Sessions has done is your opinion, which you are entitled to. You want to ride a red herring to deflect from McCabe. What about Trump? What about Obama? What about Lynch? What about Strzok? What about Page? What about Nixon? You could do that all day. It's a pretty lame debate style, but it's what you do I guess. If you want to start a thread about Sessions go for it.
Click to expand...



“Sessions hasn't been referred to the DOJ for prosecution”

At the time of the OP you and I were then arguing, McCabe had not been referred for POSSIBLE prosecution. That was not a fact in evidence. McCabe “has”, as you say, but not “was” then referred for possible prosecution of a crime. Regardless, even with that fact, it does not change the fact of the lack of candor of Sessions. That is fact. That’s all I’m saying and you can’t disprove that.

I’m on record as not deflecting from McCabe, but only giving a parallel between McCabe and Sessions as to a lack of candor. I’ve not said anything to disagree with the findings of the IG to do with McCabe. You now bring up “what abouts” to do with Trump, Obama, et al, without even saying what they are. I might agree with you that those incidents, if you even bother to specify, are also cases of lacking candor. But you don’t even bother to mention them, do you?

You’ve not been able to refute anything I’ve posted for lack of factual, pertinent evidence. Your attempt to refute my post is contradicted by fact.
 
bluesmoke said:
“Sessions hasn't been referred to the DOJ for prosecution”

At the time of the OP you and I were then arguing, McCabe had not been referred for POSSIBLE prosecution. That was not a fact in evidence. McCabe “has”, as you say, but not “was” then referred for possible prosecution of a crime. Regardless, even with that fact, it does not change the fact of the lack of candor of Sessions. That is fact. That’s all I’m saying and you can’t disprove that.

I’m on record as not deflecting from McCabe, but only giving a parallel between McCabe and Sessions as to a lack of candor. I’ve not said anything to disagree with the findings of the IG to do with McCabe. You now bring up “what abouts” to do with Trump, Obama, et al, without even saying what they are. I might agree with you that those incidents, if you even bother to specify, are also cases of lacking candor. But you don’t even bother to mention them, do you?

You’ve not been able to refute anything I’ve posted for lack of factual, pertinent evidence. Your attempt to refute my post is contradicted by fact.
Click to expand...

You really are boring me. The reason I am not refuting anything you have posted is because you insist on posting red herrings. I brought up Obama, Trump, etc to demonstrate how stupid red herrings work. When you learn how to debate let me know. Until then I am just going to ignore your stupid ****.
 
Excon said:
Please show we are discussing such an occurrence for this to be relevant.


You seriously need to look at the language the IG used to understand the significance of McCabe's actions.


iLOL McCabe authorized the release, not someone else.


Clearly that would be you and clearly why you do not understand the language used by the OIG.




It is not the job of the OIG to indict.


Justice Dept. watchdog sends McCabe findings to federal prosecutors for possible charges

The Justice Department's inspector general referred its findings on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to the US attorney's office in Washington for possible criminal charges associated with lying to internal investigators, according to a source familiar with the matter.

[...]​

Justice Dept. watchdog sends McCabe findings to federal prosecutors for possible charges​
Click to expand...

No but he can make referrals to the A.G. with recommendations.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yep as I was pretty specific about in previous posts.
Click to expand...
You are not making any sense.
You complained in reply that the OIG did not indict.
It had to be pointed out that it is not his job to indict, and that he had indeed referred his actions for consideration.
In response to that you said the following.
AlbqOwl said:
No but he can make referrals to the A.G. with recommendations.
Click to expand...
How in the world do you think that is a valid response to being shown he had been referred?
 
Excon said:
And as shown to you, it was referred.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and the "recommendation" was "for such action as you see fit".

"For such action as you see fit" is hardly a ringing clarion call for prosecution.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Indeed, and the "recommendation" was "for such action as you see fit".

"For such action as you see fit" is hardly a ringing clarion call for prosecution.
Click to expand...
Point without meaning. It was referred.
If criminality is found in his action you can expect indictment.
 
Excon said:
You are not making any sense.
You complained in reply that the OIG did not indict.
It had to be pointed out that it is not his job to indict, and that he had indeed referred his actions for consideration.
In response to that you said the following.
​
How in the world do you think that is a valid response to being shown he had been referred?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I have had a very full day and do not want to go back and recreate all my posts that hopefully would then make sense. So just let it go okay?
 
AlbqOwl said:
I'm sorry but I have had a very full day and do not want to go back and recreate all my posts that hopefully would then make sense. So just let it go okay?
Click to expand...
Yes, you should let it go as there was no sense in your replies.
 
Excon said:
Point without meaning. It was referred.
If criminality is found in his action you can expect indictment.
Click to expand...

Indeed I can - and I would expect indictment.

Not only that, but I expect to see an indictment REGARDLESS of how slim a chance of conviction there is or how dubious the "evidence".

Mr. Trump appears to need either a war or a show trial, and could possibly be trying to obtain both.

That, however, doesn't change the "I can find no fault with this man." nature of the "referral".
 
NonoBadDog said:
You really are boring me. The reason I am not refuting anything you have posted is because you insist on posting red herrings. I brought up Obama, Trump, etc to demonstrate how stupid red herrings work. When you learn how to debate let me know. Until then I am just going to ignore your stupid ****.
Click to expand...



You have a rather keen interest in replying for being so bored. I agreed with the OP so what I posted is not by intent a “red herring” but is rather your failure of comprehension. You won’t refute what I’ve posted because you can’t refute what I’ve posted, can you? What you need to learn about debate is your admitted failure to refute my post leaves what I said stand unabated and your claim against my post unfounded and dismissed without need to argue further. It’s called Hitchens Razor. Look it up and learn. Or, wallow in the stew of your own ignorance, as you so wishfully stated.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Indeed I can - and I would expect indictment.

Not only that, but I expect to see an indictment REGARDLESS of how slim a chance of conviction there is or how dubious the "evidence".

Mr. Trump appears to need either a war or a show trial, and could possibly be trying to obtain both.

That, however, doesn't change the "I can find no fault with this man." nature of the "referral".
Click to expand...
Which is all irrelevant to the OP where I made it about it making his termination in order. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom