I have read this report and cannot find anything along the lines of what you are claiming Andrew McCabe did. There is a discussion of recusal issues and two conclusions:
Regarding his wife’s campaign: " we believe McCabe did what
he was supposed to do by notifying those responsible in
the FBI for ethics issues and seeking their guidance."
Regarding the Clinton Foundation: “we also found that
McCabe did not fully comply with this recusal in a few instances related to the Clinton Foundation investigation.”
Not exactly stuff to shake the Republic to its foundation.
If I am looking at the wrong report please point me in the right direction.
You’ll have to excuse me but often…I tend to connect the dots of information that I’m privy to. Out here in the real world, it’s really helped make me be successful. Here in Hannity Land, you can choose to use it…or not?
I am very familiar with the conservative technique of providing biased summaries of documents in order to fire up their base. Since you’re not interested in the original document, all you have is spin.
If you bothered to read the Horowitz Report you would find that it never discusses McCabe’s firing and whether or not it was justified. Thus the headline in The Federalist that you quoted is both erroneous and inflammatory.
You should think through how you are being deceived by the sources you trust.
Nope…except that there were threats in the air of Flynn’s son being investigated a couple of years ago. It was first reported by the FBI that Flynn didn’t appear to lie. Then after that report regarding his son, things changed quickly. You don’t remember that?
Imagine having such a weak case against McCable that in a federal court system with a ninety percent conviction rate you can’t even get a grand jury to true-bill an indictment. Harder than a ham sandwich.
Its always tough when conspiracy theories bump into reality… far better to keep them firmly planted in the CEC echo chamber where nothing ever gets actually tested.