McCabe Casts Doubt on the Date Added to His Notes, Too

In my coverage of the way DOJ has added dates to undated notes, I’ve always said that I have no reason to believe that the date DOJ added to Andrew McCabe’s notes was erroneous.

Now I do.

In a letter that McCabe’s lawyer, Michael Bromwich sent to Judge Sullivan last week, he explains why the May 10, 2017 date added to McCabe’s notes couldn’t be remotely credible. That’s because he was busy cleaning up the Jim Comey firing.

The date “5/10/17” that appears on Exhibit B is not in Mr. McCabe’s handwriting and he did not enter the date that now appears there. Further, contrary to counsel’s claim, Mr. McCabe did not brief the Senate Intelligence Committee on anything on May 10. That was the day after President Trump had fired FBI Director Comey and Mr. McCabe was consumed with various other responsibilities. Mr. McCabe did participate in a public Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing and closed briefing on worldwide threats, along with other intelligence community officials, on May 11. Neither the public hearing nor the secret briefing had anything to do with Mr. Flynn. Counsel did not seek to confirm the accuracy of its claims with Mr. McCabe or us about Mr. McCabe’s notes before filing the Third Supplement.

Update: Bromwich is not saying that the date is not correct. He’s saying that the implication, created by the redaction, that McCabe briefed Flynn to SSCI on May 10, 2017 is incorrect.

These appear to be notes tracking McCabe’s day. The top half, redacted save the time and description, explains that at 5:15 PM on whatever day this was, McCabe was doing World Wide Threat hearing prep.

Then, on the same day but in no way related to it, he reviewed the Flynn case in some way or another.

The redaction also almost certainly splits the Flynn related information in half (note the bracket starting at “closed” and extending well into the redaction).

In any case, nothing in these notes suggest this happened after Comey’s firing, which is the point they’re trying to make of it.

Update: According to McCabe’s book, nothing happened after he attended a WWT prep session on May 10, because that took several hours, he had already been in two draining meetings at the White House that day, and he was pooped.

As the president requested, I went back to the White House that afternoon. When I arrived, at 2 P.M., the bodyguard Keith Schiller came down again and greeted me like I was his buddy, like someone he sees every day—Hey, what’s going on?

[snip]

When I left the Oval Office, I went straight to a prep session at the Bureau. Jim Comey had been preparing for two weeks to testify at the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Worldwide Threats Hearing—an annual event where the director of national intelligence and the heads of the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency share their assessments of the most urgent threats to U.S. national security and answer questions from senators about those threats. Preparation for the hearing typically involves a number of lengthy background sessions with staff and a review of hundreds of pages of briefing material; it also requires drafting an official statement for the record.

[snip]

So when I left the Oval Office, I went straight back to a prep session that night. I had been to a lot of these meetings for Comey and Mueller—when I was involved in the prepping. Usually I had been the guy sitting at the right hand of the director, listening to everyone else’s contributions and trying to distill it all into better formulations.

Chiming in when you have a shapely little idea, I quickly discovered, is very different from sitting at the head of the table while a dozen people to your right and left argue the pros and cons of issue after issue, firing ideas and comments at you nonstop—all of which you have to take in while also assessing how those answers will be interpreted and processed by members of Congress, the president, and the media. I had never fully appreciated the complexity of that task. After two and a half hours of this, my tank was full. I had to get some sleep.

The passage makes clear that he had been a part of Comey’s prep before Comey was fired, and that prep had been going on for two weeks. Which suggests that McCabe could have attended a WWT hearing any time in the previous two weeks.

That’s not definitive, of course (though it was almost certainly written with the benefit of McCabe’s notes). But this passage suggests the date is wrong, and the Flynn briefing took place before Comey’s firing.

image_print
10 replies
  1. Brian M says:

    Also, they cannot go back to their “it was an accidental post-it scan” since this was done on lined paper.

    these guys are criminals.

  2. jerryy says:

    … “Jeffrey Jensen wants you to believe his FBI Agents — FBI Agents!!! — are so dumb that they don’t know what Andrew McCabe was up to on May 10, 2017.”

    https://www.fbiagentedu.org/fbi-requirements/

    “The work that FBI Special Agents perform is exacting and demanding and it requires a high caliber of individual to successfully fill the role. Because of the sensitive nature of this work, the FBI has very strict entry requirements in place. To qualify for a position as an FBI Special Agent:

    “Candidates must be at least 23 years old, but younger than 37 at the time of appointment.
    “Candidates must be citizens of the United States.
    “Candidates must hold a four-year degree from a college or university accredited in the United States.
    “Candidates must possess a valid U.S. driver’s license.
    “Candidates must have completed at least two years of professional work experience, or one year for those that hold a master’s or higher degree.
    “Candidates must comply with the FBI Drug Policy and meet the physical fitness standards described below.
    “Candidates must be able to be cleared for Top Secret SCI (Secure Compartmentalized Information).

    Okay, then.

  3. pdaly says:

    Is there a reason the submission of false documents (or true documents that have been altered to fit a false narrative) is not considered fraud upon the court?

    • Rugger9 says:

      It is a fraud upon the court, and Judge Sullivan is one of the least likely jurists to be tolerant of such fraud by the DOJ since he’d seen stuff similar to it before in Stevens’ case and clearly stated his displeasure.

      Attorneys that do this need to be disbarred if it’s intentional. That requirement for intent seems to have been covered by all of the submissions to Sullivan, and so he should refer the attorneys involved to their relevant Bar associations. Given the choice of loss of their license to practice law versus “just following orders” to save their current jobs the choice ought to be clear.

  4. SteveL says:

    Extending maximum fairness to Jensen, the government’s response to the Sullivan minute order on the dates only says that “someone” added the date to the McCabe notes, unlike the Stzok case, where FBI agents are cited specifically.

  5. LaMissy says:

    “When I left the Oval Office, I went straight to a prep session at the Bureau. Jim Comey had been preparing for two weeks to testify at the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Worldwide Threats Hearing—an annual event where the director of national intelligence and the heads of the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency share their assessments of the most urgent threats to U.S. national security and answer questions from senators about those threats.”

    What McCabe’s comments make excruciatingly clear is the absolute disregard and ignorance Trump has of governance and national security. Bouncing people out of his administration without regard for the ongoing work they do is close to criminal.

    #JustAnotherTrumpieDay.

Comments are closed.