In an interview to air on "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Feb. 17, former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe told correspondent Scott Pelley he briefly discussed invoking the 25th Amendment with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

The full transcript of that part of the interview, released Friday, follows:

ANDREW MCCABE: Discussion of the 25th Amendment was, was simply Rod raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort.

SCOTT PELLEY: Rosenstein was actually openly talking about whether there was a majority of the cabinet who would vote to remove the president.

MCCABE: That's correct. Counting votes or possible votes.

PELLEY: What seemed to be coursing through the mind of the deputy attorney general was getting rid of the president of the United States–

MCCABE: –Well–

PELLEY: –One way or another.

MCCABE: I can't confirm that. But what I can say is the deputy attorney general was definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity and about his intent at that point in time.

PELLEY: How did he bring up the idea of the 25th Amendment to you?

MCCABE: Honestly, I don't remember. He– it was just another kinda topic that he jumped to in the midst of– of– of a wide-ranging conversation.

PELLEY: Seriously? (LAUGH) Just—

MCCABE : –Yeah–

PELLEY: –Another topic

MCCABE: Yeah.

In a preview of the interview Thursday on "CBS This Morning," Pelley described what was discussed in the interview. "There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment," he said.

"They were counting noses," Pelley explained. "Not asking Cabinet members whether they would vote for or against removing [him]. But they were speculating, 'This person would be with us. That person would not be.' They were counting noses in that effort."

McCabe's spokesperson, Melissa Schwartz, said in a statement to CBS News' Paula Reid on Friday that "at no time did Mr. McCabe participate in any extended discussions about the use of the 25th Amendment, nor is he aware of any such discussions."

"He was present and participated in a discussion that included a comment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein regarding the 25th Amendment," Schwartz said, but she added this anecdote was not included in his book.

The Justice Department also said in a statement, "As the Deputy Attorney General previously has stated, based on his personal dealings with the President, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment, nor was the [deputy attorney general] in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-andrew-mccabe-told-60-minutes-about-trump-and-the-25th-amendment/

JAMES COMEY…ANDREW MCCABE…PETER STRZOK…WHERE’S THE INDICTMENTS?

1/2

Former, FBI Director James Comey; ADIC Andrew McCabe; ADIC Peter Strzok et al, should have been indicted by now…why haven’t they??

As the phony Mueller Counterintelligence Investigation drags on, why haven’t these 3 key players in a major Obstruction of Justice, Hobbs Act-Political Corruption, Theft of Government Property, Perjury cases and many more serious, substantive, Criminal violations, been indicted?

A temporary AG can certainly Direct the FBI to file charges against these 3 heroes, just on their own admissions on National Television. An admission to stealing documents and leaking info on an open case by Comey and McCabe is certainly PC to indict!

The Obstruction and Corruption charges evolve from the Clinton “matter”. Violating written FBI Rules to intentionally lessen the obvious intent to commit crimes is Obstruction/Political Corruption. These three intentionally subverted FBI, DOJ Rules and Regs that are etched in stone and intentionally violated the Federal Rules of Criminal Prosecution to subvert, undermine and cripple a major FBI investigation.

Allow me to explain some of the egregious things these FBI “Agents” intentional did to minimize Hillary Clinton’s appearance of criminal intent . They tried to down play the significance they wanted the public to believe that the FBI placed on the Clinton investigation by going along with AG Lynch (another subject) calling the crime a “matter”. Another example would be changing the wording used in Comey’s “prosecutive opinion” from negligent to careless in the attempt to “help” Hillary and not the government and country, to whom he swore allegiance.

Normally a FBI Supervisor assigns a case Agent to a case. The case Agent is responsible for producing; the title for the case, description of the crimes, name of subject(s) or UNSUB if unknown, Office of Origin (OO) and Fugitive status if applicable. In almost 30 years in the FBI working many major criminal cases, including multi office investigations, including several “Specials” which are like the “Oklahoma City Bombing”, which I also worked…I never saw a criminal case with Headquarters as OO. I brought Tim McVey’s father to Oklahoma City to see if I could get Tim to talk through his father…no luck. The case Agent of this Case was an experienced brick Agent from the security Squad, not an ADIC. My long time friend from the NYO Danny Coulson ( DOC), the Hostage Rescue Team’s first Hondo, was an ADIC ,on scene with other ADICs and SACs “supervising”. This case, with 300 + people killed, was much more important than the Hillary criminal case. The difference was, the FBI Director during the Bombing case, had nothing to hide, no horse in the race but Comey, the FBI Director during the Hillary case, apparently did!

Headquarters does not have the manpower to act as OO in an investigation. They would have to draw on WFO ( Washington Field Office) and other close Field Offices for investigators. HQ is designed to Supervise. Theoretically, ADICs are supposed to be too important to do interviews and investigate, as they provide overall supervision and avoid being placed in a position to have to testify because they would be forced to be available to testify for weeks if necessary. I never saw a case where the ADIC from HQ was Case Agent and performed interviews for the reasons I just stated. Some will tell you, many ADICs are not experience enough in criminal cases , like Strzok and McCabe, to run a big criminal case. They wouldn’t even know when to administer Miranda rights and that I’ve seen firsthand. ADICs supervise…period! FBI HQ is supposed to make sure that the FBI Field Offices follow and obey FBI and DOJ Rules, and that Title 18 US Code, are all followed…and not break the very Rules and Laws that we are supposed to follow and enforce!

The subject’s name ALWAYS belongs in the title. It defines who is being investigated! So if Hillary isn’t the subject in her Destruction of Government property and multiple other violations…who the hell is? She is the person under investigation. I ask…”Who is the subject in the Hillary Clinton investigation”? It’s Hillary and there are no “Criminal Matter” investigations in the FBI…never have been and never will be! To intentionally misname an FBI Title is to intentionally violate FBI Rules and is an overt act to minimize the significance of the real subject, Hillary…why? I would love to cross Strzok or Comey trying to explain why Hillary wasn’t the subject of her investigation!

JAMES COMEY…ANDREW MCCABE…PETER STRZOK…WHERE’S THE INDICTMENTS?

2/2

The FBI Rules on who can be present in an FBI interview are hard and fast and etched in stone because everyone in the interview room becomes a witness. Consequently, prosecutors (AUSAs), other witnesses and defense attorneys are not allowed in the interview room. In Hillary’s case from what has been reported, Comey would have known for sure who he allowed in…and he broke every interview rule we have, without any doubt… Comey allowed in 4 or 5 defense lawyers and Cheryl Mills, who was another witness, an attorney and main Subject. If she wasn’t a named subject, that’s another intentional overt act to intentionally subvert the investigation.

Hillary would have never been interviewed by me or any other experienced criminal Agent I ever worked with without being told her rights! We would not have put her under oath. That’s what the Grand Jury does…not FBI Agents. Lying to an Agent when not under any oath …is the crime…lying to a Grand Jury, under oath, is perjury. Lying under oath to Congress is probably perjury.

From what was reported of the interview, Hillary was asked by Strzok if she received any training on Classified Information”, she reportedly said , “No”. That’s an outright lie. Her Non Disclosure Agreement is prima fascia evidence against that false statement. That answer alone is enough to indict, try, and convict her on several charges!! Further , why didn’t Strzok challenge that answer by showing her the NDA she signed, acknowledging being advised of the do’s and don’ts and punishment for violating her NDA? His not doing that is nothing short of malfeasance and intentionally subverting an interview.

Remember J. Edgar Hoover always responding, “No comment”, when asked about ongoing investigations? There is a reason. That reason is that any FBI Agent comments on open cases can be used as evidence in a case either for or against a subject and muddies the water in cases that are already big and complicated…so the FBI and DOJ agreed that the FBI will only announce arrests and info related thereto and the USA’s Office will release info on prosecuting. No FBI Agent nor FBI Director can publicly make any statement about guilt , innocence, or whether or not there should be an indictment or prosecution for any pending case…period, even if the FBI Director believes he is a form of Christ, like Comey apparently believes. It also violates the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Where are the indictments?

The fact is that former FBI Director Comey admitted he knew that the Dossier was , “unsubstantiated and solicitous”, in January 2017. He then lied that he did not know the Dossier was used as the primary PC for the warrant Application… another Felony. If the Dossier was “unsubstantiated and solicitous” in Jan 2017 , it was “unsubstantiated and solicitous” when he Rosenstein, Sally Yates, McCabe ,Strzok and anyone else, signed the warrant!!!As an Agent ,that is a gift! If you can’t get more than ONE of those arrogant losers to roll and deal…you don’t deserve to be an FBI Agent!

FD302s must be produced from the notes within 5 days. Failure to do so is subject to severe reprimand as it violates FBI evidence Rules. Cases are thrown out of court for sloppy handling of document evidence all the time! It’s serious. Do you think Strzok McCabe and Comey may have violated any of these Rules/Laws, by using a personal computer or taking notes /documents home and then giving them to a friend to intentionally leak them to the press to influence an investigation or Strzok taking 4 months to transcribe his 302s?

In my opinion Strzok and McCabe were both used by Comey and if and when Comey is charged or close to it, he will throw ALL those he implicated under the bus. If McCabe and Strzok are smart, and I have my doubts, they will both come clean and look for a deal as I would push for a deal with one of them, not both…either one… it doesn’t matter. Either is enough with everything else to nail Comey…and unless Obama orders Comey killed through his black ops, Comey can burn Lynch, Rosenstein, Mueller, Holder and …OBAMA!!!

In the 2016 election, The Hill reported that an astounding 97% of DOJ employee contributions were given to Hillary Clinton, while Donald Trump received only 3%.

Questions for Schiff:

1. Along with this Aspen Security Forum meeting, how many other meetings did Chairman Schiff have with Mr. Simpson over the past three years?

1. What did Chairman Schiff and Mr. Simpson discuss at the Aspen Security Forum meeting, along with any other meetings?

1. Why did Chairman Schiff go to such great lengths, including supporting Chuck Schumer’s former staffer who was representing Mr. Simpson – even going to court – to keep secret who was behind paying for the political attack piece on then candidate Trump?

1. Why did Chairman Schiff seek investigatory guidance and suggestions from Mr. Simpson, a witness whose credibility has been called into question but whose bias is unmistakably anti-Trump?

1. If Chairman Schiff is really interested in who provided false or misleading testimony to Congress, why not start with Mr. Simpson?

1. Given Chairman Schiff’s previous underlying rationale when calling for others to recuse themselves from Russia-related investigations, in order to avoid charges of hypocrisy or perceived bias, should Chairman Schiff recuse himself from his intended investigations after meeting with a witness of an ongoing investigation?

>>5212212

76°52'36.9"S 149°55'49.3"W

Ancient Castle Ruin Shadows