The same day that FBI Counter-Intelligence Director Bill Priestap testified to Congress, we are informed Andrew McCabe wants immunity.
When he was fired, the media portrayed the FBI Deputy Director as a victim of bullying. Now, suddenly, we discover that Andrew McCabe wants immunity from prosecution. In exchange for this immunity he will testify before Congress.
The Associated Press reports, “Former FBI official McCabe asks Senate panel for immunity.”
In a Monday letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, McCabe attorney Michael Bromwich requested that McCabe be given immunity so his testimony could not be used against him in a criminal case. The request comes after the inspector general’s office issued a criminal referral about McCabe to federal prosecutors in Washington.
“McCabe is willing to testify, but because of the criminal referral, he must be afforded suitable legal protection,” Bromwich wrote, adding that if he were unable to get such a deal, McCabe “will have no choice but to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”
Frankly, if his testimony could be corroborated and revealed all the corruption in the FBI, the DOJ, the Obama White House, the Clinton Foundation, and the DNC, I would be in favor of a deal.
However, I doubt he will get it. The Conservative Treehouse quoted Senator Grassley’s written reply to McCabe:
First, with respect to your testimony, the Committee’s understanding of various controversies at the FBI related to and following the 2016 election would be greatly aided by your testimony, not only at the upcoming hearing but in a more comprehensive private setting as well.
While I have not yet done so, I am willing to discuss with the Ranking Member your request that the Committee consider seeking a court order compelling you to testify under a grant of immunity. However, under 18 U.S. Code § 6005, seeking such an order requires a two-thirds vote of the Committee, and even if that were to occur, the Justice Department would then have a formal opportunity to delay any testimony and attempt to persuade the Committee not to proceed. Before even beginning to consider whether to initiate that process, the Committee would need to know a lot more about the anticipated scope, nature, and extent of your testimony. The Committee could then informally consult with the Department to solicit its views before deciding whether to proceed formally.
I doubt anyone will want to wait that long.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com