Talk:Andrew McCabe/Archive 2

McCabe states some "answers were not fully accurate"

Read it here (it cites McCabe's ADMISSIONS in WAPO):

https://nypost.com/2018/03/24/mccabe-i-was-confused-in-interview-with-investigators/

Xerton (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The New York Post is owned by Trump's good friend and isn't a RS. It's only a little better than the National Enquirer. Before Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News) took over, it was a more respectable newspaper with a long history. Murdoch has always trafficked in yellow journalism, often with a nice semi-nude girl on Page 3 (or other page). No, find better sources. How about the WAPO article itself? That's a top notch, award winning source. They won't have the partisan spin found on the NY Post. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that your heading is a BLP violation, so I have correct it. Be more careful or you'll get blocked. Even the source you use shows you are putting worse spin on what is actually in the source. Normally we don't allow editors to alter others' comments or headings, but BLP does allow correction of such violations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The "WAPO article" is McCabe's op-ed piece, which naturally is full of partisan spin. Politrukki (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The New York Post is pretty much always useless as a source in Wikipedia, as is the case here. Politrukki (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

McCabe fired for cause

Read this - it cites a variety of sources. Xerton (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xerton: :) Indeed, according to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, both the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz and the FBI's disciplinary office claimed that McCabe was both involved in leaks and he lied under oath. Which are two very serious misconducts.

@All :) How about adding to the article introduction this draft paragraph below? Which is about this significant fired event. Including the initial information from Xerton, clarified the causes, and additional sources.

On March 16, 2018, Sessions fired McCabe only 26 hours before his scheduled retirement. According to Sessions, both the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz and the FBI's disciplinary office had found "that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under oath - on multiple occasions."

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I see that you added it the lede. I agree that the information should be in the article, and in fact it already is in the text, although not in quite this much detail. I am not convinced it needs to be in the lede. It might be better added to the existing paragraph at the end of the "Career" section. I will leave it where it is while I wait to see what other people think. --MelanieN (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're going into that much detail of Sessions' charges, we obviously need to include McCabe's responses and counter-charges, per WP:NPOV. I have appropriately added them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: and @NorthBySouthBaranof: :) Thanks for all your Wikipedia contributions. I agree with including both point of views (POV). NorthBySouthBaranof's draft summarized well McCabe's response: McCabe denied that he had ever been dishonest and charged that his firing was a politically-motivated "effort to discredit me as a witness" for the Special Counsel investigation of Trump-Russia ties.

As for the location of this information I vote for keeping this in the introduction. For two benefits for the readers, first it's a significant event, second it complete the timeline of events already presented in the introduction. Which view(s) is closer to the truth might be clarified after the soon to be release IG's report. The article might need to be updated accordingly then. Francewhoa (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree about the IG report. At this point we have not seen the actual report that triggered this firing, only the summary with weasel phrases like "lacked candor". (Does that mean actually lying, or simply withholding information, or what?) Assuming the report becomes public at some point, it should have relevant and more specific information about exactly what he is accused of doing. --MelanieN (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

missing any info about what he lied about. pathetic article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.219.65 (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

What did he lie about? If there's RS content about the precise lies he told to the IG, then that should be added to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) If you have independent reliable sources that discuss what he allegedly lied about, please offer them, instead of insults. We can only have in the article what is mentioned in reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we are missing any information about "what he lied about", or even whether he actually lied vs. being "less than candid" in some other way. We don't have it because that information or allegation has not yet been made public. When it is, we will add to the article as appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

We're not adding any kind of crap from "ZeroHedge".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@331dot, MelanieN, NorthBySouthBaranof, Snooganssnoogans, Volunteer Marek, and Xerton: and all Wikipedia contributors :) FBI Director Christopher Wray made a statement to NBC News yesterday March 21st. To the benefit of including further point of views (POV), I propose to add a paragraph about Wray’s statement to the “Resignation and firing” section. How about the draft below? Including sources.

On March 21, 2018, the FBI Director Christopher Wray stated that McCabe firing was not politically influenced but done “by the book.”

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

---

looks like a good suggestion to me. Xerton (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I see it's already in the article. I have no problem with it. --MelanieN (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no issue as well. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, but 1) if we're gonna include "it was not politically influenced" into the article then obviously we need to include all the people who are saying "yes, it was politically influenced and vindictive", which was in the article but was spuriously removed by Lambden and Politrukki. It makes no sense to have the "not politically influenced" argument in the article without including what it's actually responding too. POV anyone? Also 2) we need to include info that McCabe had launched an investigation into Sessions [1].Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I think it's time for you to restore your deletion. McCabe himself denies the allegation that his firing was "politically motivated", but you removed the allegation. If even more people make that allegation, you can add them, but don't delete the allegation. Now McCabe is left in the article denying the (removed by you) allegation. Your edit summary would assume you'd be adding more people making that allegation, but instead you removed it. That doesn't make sense. Please restore it and we can improve it, if that's the problem.

You say that such content "was spuriously removed by Lambden and Politrukki". User:Lambden doesn't exist, and the only relevant removal by Politrukki is this one. The solution is not to carry water for them by removing the remaining allegation, but to restore their removal. Let's work on getting that done. All you've done is help them and made the article worse. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@331dot, BullRangifer, MelanieN, and Volunteer Marek: Done, I restored the FBI Director’s statement. All are welcome to suggest improvements, if any.

I suggest to keep this FBI official statement about McCabe fired, and also keep any other FBI’s official statements. As for third party statements and third party reactions about McCabe fired, I feel that those are valuable too for further POV. But I suggest to group those third party statements into a new “Reactions” section. Which could be a sub-section of the present “Resignation and firing”. How does this sound? Francewhoa (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as it's ordered appropriately - first the accusations that it was political, then the response by Wray that it wasn't - I'm fine with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Francewhoa, I hope that by "third party statements" you are not referring to material removed here. How do I POV see? Let me count the ways.

1. Marek's explanation for their POV edits ("Feel free to add different quotes."[2]) misses the point: per WP:BLPSTYLE biographies may not be temporarily unbalanced.
2. Marek forgot to mention that Charlie Dent said "he would wait for the inspector general's report to judge McCabe".
3. Marek mentioned that Charlie Dent is a Republican, but forgot to mention, per WP:BIASED, that Ben Cardin is a Democrat.
4. Marek forgot to mention, per WP:BIASED, that Brennan was the head of CIA during the Obama era.
5. I believe Marek believes that including Brennan's inflammatory attack would be a BLP violation (I view I don't share), even if attributed.
6. Brennan's tweet was a reaction to Trump's reaction to Sessions's reaction to OPR's and inspector general's reaction to McCabe's actions or inaction. If we include Brennan's reaction, should we also include Trump's (possible) reaction to reaction to reaction to reaction to reaction to McCabe's actions or inaction, and Brennan's (possible) reaction to reaction to reaction to reaction to reaction to reaction to McCabe's actions or inaction?

I would wait until there are more informed people who have actually read the IG's or OPR's report, and suggest simply adding to Andrew McCabe#Resignation and firing (perhaps to the first paragraph) that the timing raised questions that the firing was political (CNBC: "McCabe's firing — the timing of which has raised concerns of being politically motivated"). Politrukki (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Politrukki: Thanks for your contributions and for asking :) By “third party statements” I was referring to all public statements which are not from the first and second parties. Where the “first party” are the official public servants directly involved in firing McCabe. And where the “second party” is McCabe. As for the coming Inspector General (IG)’s report, about their alledged investigation into McCabe's behaviors, many speculations claimed that the IG's report will be ready for public release by April 30th, 2018. But to my knowledge the IG has not communicated any estimated time of arrival (ETA). Until such public release, if any, I propose we wait for an official public release before adding to the article information about the IG’s report. How does this sound?Francewhoa (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

(Replying to VM as of 11:23, 23 March 2018) This is FAKE NEWS: I have never removed anything spuriously. I have never even met this "Lambden". Politrukki did nothing wrong – NO COLLUSION! Politrukki (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Re the Wray statement - this is properly in the body of the article, but I see no reason for it to be in the lead section (nor any consensus for it here). We already give the point/counterpoint in lead; we don't point/counterpoint/point in the lead. This is, after all, a biographical article. Neutrality^talk 01:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"Sessions said he based his action on reports..."

This sentence is pregnant with innuendo that Sessions is lying; but the media isn't saying that Sessions is lying about his stated reason for firing McCabe. This sentence should be re-written. Xerton (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we do presume he was the one who said it. Did someone else say it? If so, we should attribute the statement to them and write: "Someoneelse said he based his actions on..." We wouldn't put emphasis on any words, especially said he, as that would be an editor's opinion-based edit. My point: don't read so much into the content. It's commonly written that way. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

A bit off-topic distraction
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is there doubt about whether Sessions is ever less than candid. Yes. McCabe lead a criminal investigation into Sessions for "lacking candor". In fact, Sessions lied about multiple contacts with Russians. On January 17, 2017, Sessions stated, in writing, that he had not been "in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election." Sessions had been accused of failing to disclose two meetings with Kislyak. In fact, he had met Kislyak three times: April 27, 2016, July 18, 2016, and September 8, 2016. So who's the dishonest one here? Is it McCabe, for a highly disputed case of "lacking candor", or is it Sessions, who was the subject of a criminal investigation for "lacking candor" when he actually did lie about multiple meetings with Russians? In fact, why did so many (nearly all) of those in Trump's inner circle lie about multiple secret meetings with Russians? Today we learned that Mannafort and Gates, while Mannafort was campaign manager, and both in daily contact with Trump, were in contact with a Russian they knew was GRU. Of course secret meetings. Why the secrecy? Why the lying? I see no need to change that wording. It's totally neutral, with no innuendo, other than what you're imagining. Thou doth protest too much, methinks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer, when you say things like "In fact, Sessions lied about multiple contacts with Russians" you make me think that 1) you don't even know the actual meaning of the word "fact", 2) you are incapable of doing sufficient research to come to valid conclusions, and 3) there's really no hope of ever getting any sense of true NPOV on any of the Trump/Russia/Current politics related articles. Xerton (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

None of this side commentary about Sessions' honesty is needed. Our wording does not carry any implication that he was lying; where in the world did you come up with that? We are attributing Sessions' reasons to Sessions, because we always attribute a statement to who said it. Are you suggesting we should state as a fact, in Wikipedia's voice, what Sessions' reasons were? Obviously we can't, because we don't know that. We are giving it the best possible attribution, namely, this is what he himself said his reasons were. This is standard Wikipedia practice. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If their is an alternative to the use of the words "said he" I am open to listening to that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

"Said he..." is weasel wording. I makes it sound as if it's got no veracity except that he said it. It should say "according to the public announcement of McCabe's firing, Sessions based his decision on...". Our sources are reporting what the DOJ's announcement said, which is the actual primary source. Unless there's a video of of Sessions saying something like "Today, based on the blah blah reasons, I have fired McCabe...". And in that case, we would simply write "Sessions announced..." not "Sessions said...". Our current phrasing lacks gravitas and it sounds petty. Xerton (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

We use three secondary sources for this content. You are basing your version on the primary source. Although we don't usually depend on primary sources, let's take a look at it. Please provide your primary source here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The correct way to phrase this is "U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced", which is exactly how Reuters[3] phrased it. Xerton (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. What you want is to change "said" to "announced" or "stated" or some word other than "said"? All this drama, "pregnant with inuendo" etc., because you think "said" implies lying while "announced" doesn't? You must have a different thesaurus than I do. Anyhow, I certainly have no objection to saying "announced" as a way of attributing the comment to Sessions. The two words are equivalent. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I have hatted the distracting part that takes attention away from the actual point here. If Xerton wishes to discuss this further, they are welcome to do so on my talk page.

MelanieN is right. Whether Sessions is or is not candid/honest isn't the question right here. He said it and we attribute the statement to the person who said it. That's normal practice. We don't try to fix something that isn't broken. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with the unadorned "said." Neutrality^talk 04:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

OIG Report

The recently released OIG report should probably be summarized in the article. The main findings were that McCabe lacked “candor” in several instances regarding investigations into the Clinton Foundation, among others. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

See full report here: https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/politics/20180413a-doj-oig-mccabe-report.pdf

Xerton (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Direct verbatim quote, the conclusion of the report:

As detailed in this report, the OIG found that then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lacked candor, including under oath, on multiple occasions in connection with describing his role in connection with a disclosure to the WSJ, and that this conduct violated FBI Offense Codes 2.5 and 2.6. The OIG also concluded that McCabe’s disclosure of the existence of an ongoing investigation in the manner described in this report violated the FBI’s and the Department’s media policy and constituted misconduct.

It's an official finding of misconduct. Sounds pretty unequivocal to me...

Xerton (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, MelanieN, Mr Ernie, and Xerton: About the OIG's Report released today April 13th, 2018, there is a related article at http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/383080-watchdog-fired-fbi-official-mccabe-leaked-to-media-to-help-himself I suggest to both include and focus on the primary point of views (POVs). I mean IG's, FBI's, McCabe's. This is the best article I could find that seems to include all those primary POVs. Any volunteer to draft a paragraph? Francewhoa (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be covered, but be careful. So far we need to avoid OR use of a primary source and NOTNEWS. Be patient and see if this gets substantial traction. It may come very quickly, and then we can quote multiple secondary RSes. They are coming. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV Sources

About the sources. For neutral point of views (NPOV), I suggest to add a second source, while keeping the first source. The first source POV is valuable. By "NPOV" with the sources I mean based on their past track records, Washington Post is often leaning toward the left. While Fox is often leaning toward the right. All are welcome to suggest a third or more source(s). How about those two sources in this extract below?

The report found that McCabe lied to or misled federal investigators at least four times, with three of these instances occurring while he was under oath.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Story still developing

Per this story, it appears as if prosecutors are considering opening a criminal investigation. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

diGenova quote

I'm not sure what the purpose of the diGenova quote (diff) is supposed to be here. He doesn't seem like a neutral source or a particularly important/relevant figure to McCabe's life, and the material in the quote is discussed earlier in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"former American attorney"

why does the first line start out he "is a former American attorney"? Is he no longer an American or no longer an attorney? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.250.61 (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)