Jump to content

Jeff Sessions hates him some Andrew McCabe


TitanTiger

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

What law was violated? What charges have been brought?

none of course....read the violations...the FBI has just covered it up and want it to go away.  He likely could have probably been indicted for some "secrecy violations" if anyone actually wanted to do so....JMO....

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply
13 minutes ago, AU64 said:

none of course....read the violations...the FBI has just covered it up and want it to go away.  He likely could have probably been indicted for some "secrecy violations" if anyone actually wanted to do so....JMO....

This isn’t how you cover something up— it’s one of their most high profile firings in recent history. I read he violated an internal rule. If he violated a law, charge him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

This isn’t how you cover something up— it’s one of their most high profile firings in recent history. I read he violated an internal rule. If he violated a law, charge him.

True...but firing is not indicting and jailing.....just saying that in my view,  this what they had to do....not what could actually do if they really wanted to. 

For example, you can bet that among other things he has probably lied to superiors  when all of this stuff was being investigated....which is what got poor old Martha Stewart sent to jail.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AU64 said:

True...but firing is not indicting and jailing.....just saying that in my view,  this what they had to do....not what could actually do if they really wanted to. 

For example, you can bet that among other things he has probably lied to superiors  when all of this stuff was being investigated....which is what got poor old Martha Stewart sent to jail.   

I think Martha lied about insider trading. Mike Flynn sold out his country, took money from adversaries and lied to the FBI. Still has his pension. Should he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This IG investigation started before Trump took office....it was intiated by a Democrat admin...handled by a Democrat IG  appointed by Democrats....when it was initiated, McCabe, thru his lawyer "welcomed it"....McCabe had already been removed from his post for "undefined" FBI rules violations...the IG and OPR (McCabe' , peers, career agents) recommended he be fired...not sure what you guys want .... he's either really stupid for welcoming an investigation that he should have known would reveal his guilt or he possessed a s*** load of hubris and he thought the rules were different for him and/or he expected the bureaucratic stonewall to protect him from info being exposed....I suspect 2 and 3.  It' been 15 months since this all started....he should have been fired months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

I think Martha lied about insider trading. Mike Flynn sold out his country, took money from adversaries and lied to the FBI. Still has his pension. Should he?

Martha's was a trivial matter when they could not get her on something else....and Flynn was already retired and did not work for the government ...so no legal way to reach back and take his pension...but you know both of those things....just struggling to come up with some defense for a guy who dishonored his badge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

Martha's was a trivial matter when they could not get her on something else....and Flynn was already retired and did not work for the government ...so no legal way to reach back and take his pension...but you know both of those things....just struggling to come up with some defense for a guy who dishonored his badge.

And you’re either incredibly ignorant or lying to protect Flynn.

I’m open on McCabe’s situation pending more info— don’t have a firm opinion on what he “deserves”, but the handling is odd on many levels. You’ve accepted the degradation of standards and values Trump brings. That’s sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

*Something you'll never see Tex assert  re Russia-Trump investigation. 

Two Cult45ers  have a giggle. Sweet that y’all found one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Two Cult45ers have a giggle. Sweet that y’all found one another.

Lots of people have a giggle when you post. Just saying. :gofig:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Lots of people have a giggle when you post. Just saying. :gofig:

You and your fellow cultists. Congrats on Putin’s big win! Figured you’d be celebrating!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You and your fellow cultists. Congrats on Putin’s big win! Figured you’d be celebrating!

I bet the Russian election was rigged. Just like the Dem 2016 primary. Remember that one Tex?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Yes, you’re that, too. Sorry if you felt I was selling you short.

Sorry, I forgot to cater the comment to the elementary individual it was geared towards (you)... You're a racist. I don't know why but you just are (this is me utilizing your profound logic). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

What law was violated? What charges have been brought?

The laws violated:

1. Giving classified info to the NYT

2. Perjury (lying to Congress under oath)

Charges haven't brought yet. Maybe with his firing charges won't be filed or he would likely spend some time in jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emphasis, mine.

No, Andrew McCabe Isn't 'Losing His Pension'

Note:  see updates at the bottom of this column.

In the news this weekend, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe had been fired.  And I'm not going to debate whether this was right or wrong, especially not in this forum.  But I wanted to address this as far as retirement issues are concerned.

The reports that are flying across the news, Twitter, and Facebook are that McCabe was just two days short of retirement and that this move by Sessions will, as, for instance, Vox, reports, "cost him his federal pension." On Twitter, Andrea Mitchell writes

One suggestion from a McCabe supporter: if a friendly member of Congress hired him for a week he could possibly qualify for pension benefits by extending his service the extra days
 

and Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton tweeted in reply,

Would be happy to consider this. The Sixth District of MA would benefit from the wisdom and talent of such an experienced public servant.

Which all gives the impression of a veteran, elderly federal official being cheated out of his pension accruals due to a vindictive Trump administration.  But this didn't pass the sniff test.  Pensions -- public as well as private -- are required to meet certain vesting requirements, and, in fact, the FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System) benefits vest at five years, meaning that benefit accruals cannot be taken away.

 

In fact, McCabe is all of 49 years old, likely 50 by the time readers see this, and what he lost out on was, as CNN much more calmly recounts, the ability to take his benefits at age 50, rather than somewhere between age 57 and age 62, and he lost his eligibility to a special top-up in benefit formula.  These are, admittedly, tangible financial losses, but it is grossly misleading that various news outlets are giving the general public the impression that he has lost his pension entirely.

But the existence of these special perks, benefits that we in the private sector can barely comprehend in the year 2018, points to a fundamental disconnect between the private and public sector.  Why shouldn't someone whose benefits consist of 401(k) account accruals believe that government pensions work so differently as to punish someone arbitrarily by removing their benefits?  Add to this the fact that retirement at age 50 is well-nigh incomprehensible for the average working American, except perhaps in the case of high-risk, health-sapping occupations, which surely likewise added to the impression that actual pensions, rather than generous ancillary provisions, were being lost.

Yes, the rationale for these generous pension benefits is that these civil servants accept significantly lower salaries than they would be able to earn in the private sector.  But this exchange of "low salaries now, rich retirement benefits later" is a matter of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" that isn't wise in the long term, either.

UPDATE:  On Saturday evening, the Washington Post reported:

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) announced Saturday afternoon that he has offered McCabe a job to work on election security in his office, “so that he can reach the needed length of service” to retire.

According to the Post's experts, McCabe "would need to just go to work with the federal government for another day or so in any job he pleases," although "it would probably look more ethical if McCabe worked for at least a pay period rather than just one day."  And, due to the nature of federal pensions and their portability from one position to another, this sounds credible -- though at the same time, well, I'm from Illinois, a state with a long list of examples of pension spiking, ghost employees, and other ways that public officials have manipulated public pensions, so it doesn't sit right with me.

In addition, according to a helpful twitter exchange, the particular nature of McCabe's pension benefits condition age-50 retirement eligibility on primary law enforcement employment, not just general federal government employment, at age 50; what's more, being terminated "for cause" wholly eliminates eligibility for special age-50 retirement, according to 5 U.S.C. § 8412.

(Note that this column is based on the information available to me; if any part of it proves incorrect, I will update as needed.  If you wish to comment, please visit janetheactuary.com)

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2018/03/17/no-andrew-mccabe-isnt-losing-his-pension/#47a90a8d236d

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, stoic-one said:

Emphasis, mine.

No, Andrew McCabe Isn't 'Losing His Pension'

Note:  see updates at the bottom of this column.

In the news this weekend, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe had been fired.  And I'm not going to debate whether this was right or wrong, especially not in this forum.  But I wanted to address this as far as retirement issues are concerned.

The reports that are flying across the news, Twitter, and Facebook are that McCabe was just two days short of retirement and that this move by Sessions will, as, for instance, Vox, reports, "cost him his federal pension." On Twitter, Andrea Mitchell writes

One suggestion from a McCabe supporter: if a friendly member of Congress hired him for a week he could possibly qualify for pension benefits by extending his service the extra days
 

and Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton tweeted in reply,

Would be happy to consider this. The Sixth District of MA would benefit from the wisdom and talent of such an experienced public servant.

Which all gives the impression of a veteran, elderly federal official being cheated out of his pension accruals due to a vindictive Trump administration.  But this didn't pass the sniff test.  Pensions -- public as well as private -- are required to meet certain vesting requirements, and, in fact, the FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System) benefits vest at five years, meaning that benefit accruals cannot be taken away.

 

In fact, McCabe is all of 49 years old, likely 50 by the time readers see this, and what he lost out on was, as CNN much more calmly recounts, the ability to take his benefits at age 50, rather than somewhere between age 57 and age 62, and he lost his eligibility to a special top-up in benefit formula.  These are, admittedly, tangible financial losses, but it is grossly misleading that various news outlets are giving the general public the impression that he has lost his pension entirely.

But the existence of these special perks, benefits that we in the private sector can barely comprehend in the year 2018, points to a fundamental disconnect between the private and public sector.  Why shouldn't someone whose benefits consist of 401(k) account accruals believe that government pensions work so differently as to punish someone arbitrarily by removing their benefits?  Add to this the fact that retirement at age 50 is well-nigh incomprehensible for the average working American, except perhaps in the case of high-risk, health-sapping occupations, which surely likewise added to the impression that actual pensions, rather than generous ancillary provisions, were being lost.

Yes, the rationale for these generous pension benefits is that these civil servants accept significantly lower salaries than they would be able to earn in the private sector.  But this exchange of "low salaries now, rich retirement benefits later" is a matter of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" that isn't wise in the long term, either.

UPDATE:  On Saturday evening, the Washington Post reported:

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) announced Saturday afternoon that he has offered McCabe a job to work on election security in his office, “so that he can reach the needed length of service” to retire.

According to the Post's experts, McCabe "would need to just go to work with the federal government for another day or so in any job he pleases," although "it would probably look more ethical if McCabe worked for at least a pay period rather than just one day."  And, due to the nature of federal pensions and their portability from one position to another, this sounds credible -- though at the same time, well, I'm from Illinois, a state with a long list of examples of pension spiking, ghost employees, and other ways that public officials have manipulated public pensions, so it doesn't sit right with me.

In addition, according to a helpful twitter exchange, the particular nature of McCabe's pension benefits condition age-50 retirement eligibility on primary law enforcement employment, not just general federal government employment, at age 50; what's more, being terminated "for cause" wholly eliminates eligibility for special age-50 retirement, according to 5 U.S.C. § 8412.

(Note that this column is based on the information available to me; if any part of it proves incorrect, I will update as needed.  If you wish to comment, please visit janetheactuary.com)

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2018/03/17/no-andrew-mccabe-isnt-losing-his-pension/#47a90a8d236d

Thanks stoic. Just another example of misleading news reports vs. the facts. Here is another example of why he isn't going to the poor house. looks like the Dems are more than willing to say "thank you McCabe for all you help in trying to get Trump defeated. We really don't care if you lied or committed perjury."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/19/ousted-fbi-official-mccabe-offered-jobs-by-dem-lawmakers-so-can-get-full-pension.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You and your fellow cultists. Congrats on Putin’s big win! Figured you’d be celebrating!

Double down furthering my point. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...