New FBI Director Andrew McCabe Compromised By Serious Conflict Rachel Maddow MSNBC

[turbinetree]

[yesphan]

1. I wondered whatever

happened to Stork.


https://images.moviepilot.com/images/c_fill,h_240,w_321/t_mp_quality_gif/e1jbvxxu2fvgq7xfuqyx/animal-house-15-things-you-probably-didn-t-know-about-the-comedy-classic-douglas-kenney-536954.jpg

[still_one]

2. That is according to WH "senior administration officials" There is no credibility with what this WH

says. I wouldn't trust anything that this administration says, and especially the story that McCabe told Priebus that "the NYT story was BS".

In the letter where trump fires Comey, trump says he was told 3 times by Comey, that Comey told him he was not being investigated for any Russian interactions", and that simply is not true.

I am not saying McCabe, or the FBI can trusted, but I sure know anything that comes out from the trump administration cannot be trusted, and the source for this story is trump's senior administration officials. At least that is how I see it

[chowder66]

3. I love Rachel but we have to be more scrupulous against WH propaganda

It could be true, it could be misconstrued information, it could be false.

"The conversations between Priebus, McCabe, and Comey have taken center stage because of Thursday’s CNN report, which gave the impression that the White House had pressured the FBI to denounce the Times story. Trump’s team disputes this account, arguing that the initiative came from the FBI. The White House claims that on the morning after the Times published its story, FBI officials—apparently McCabe—told Priebus that the Times story was false. Priebus then asked the FBI to state publicly, or at least tell reporters on background, that “there had been no contacts” between Russia and the Trump people. The FBI refused.

Preliminary signs suggest Priebus is fudging what the FBI told him about the Times story. On Meet the Press, Priebus alluded to Comey’s Feb. 17 briefing of the Senate Intelligence Committee—“I know what the intelligence committees in the House and the Senate were told by the FBI”—to support his categorical dismissal of the Times story. Sen. Angus King, who was at the briefing, responded that he was “surprised” Priebus chose to be “that categorical.” And other public officials who contacted reporters to shoot down the Times story on behalf of the White House weren’t nearly as absolute. According to the Post, “The officials broadly dismissed Trump associates’ contacts with Russia as infrequent and inconsequential. But the officials would not answer substantive questions about the issue.”

The FBI has declined to comment on any of these reports, including the original Times story and Priebus’ assertions of FBI support. In theory, this keeps the bureau apolitical. In practice, it lets Trump continue to lie without being directly exposed. In his speech to CPAC on Friday, Trump said of news organizations that publish critical stories:"


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/02/it_s_hard_to_trust_reince_priebus_fbi_claims.html

[MGKrebs]

4. So what is the "serious conflict" in the headline?

[Maeve]

5. If it is true that McCabe told the WH that the NYT's story was bs

When, as it has been reported, it was true, then McCabe is compromised for lying about an ongoing investigative matter and for talking to the WH about it. He can't be independent and in tRump's pocket.

It is good that Rachel is pointing out the flaws in the WH story--they can't keep their lies straight--but I think the simple answer is that Priebus lied originally. He's not very good at it. Hell, he's not good at telling the truth, either.