Justice Dept. Won't Pursue Case Against Andrew McCabe, Ending Uncertainty
Newly released court transcripts, posted on Friday, further revealed a Washington judge's frustration with the pace of the McCabe investigation, the secrecy surrounding it and the apparent pressure Trump was putting on the Justice Department to bring charges.
February 14, 2020 at 12:40 PM
6 minute read
Updated at 2:25 p.m.
Former FBI leader Andrew McCabe will not face charges in an investigation centered on whether he lied to investigators about a media leak, the U.S. Justice Department said Friday, lifting months of uncertainty over whether the regular target of President Donald Trump's ire would face a criminal prosecution.
In a letter to McCabe's defense lawyers, a top prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in Washington said the Justice Department had decided after "careful consideration" to not bring charges. The letter was signed by J.P. Cooney, chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. Attorney's Office, and by Molly Gaston, a career prosecutor in the section.
"Based on the totality of the circumstances and all of the information known to the government at this time, we consider the matter closed," Cooney and Gaston wrote.
The letter came just days after Justice Department leaders intervened in the case of Roger Stone, overruling career prosecutors in Washington who had recommended the longtime Trump confidant receive a prison term of between seven and nine years.
The move drew broad criticism from observers who said Main Justice had interfered with the decisions of career prosecutors. Three career prosecutors withdrew from the Stone case, and a fourth resigned from his post altogether. An advocate for career government lawyers has defended the integrity of the original four Stone prosecutors, saying they had done nothing improper in recommending a prison term within the guideline range.
The Justice Department on Tuesday suggested a more lenient sentence after an early morning tweet in which Trump criticized the initial recommendation as overly harsh, inviting speculation of presidential interference in Stone's case and perhaps others being handled by the U.S. attorney's office in Washington. Stone is set to appear Feb. 20 before U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia.
A Justice Department spokesperson, Kerri Kupec, has denied that department leaders communicated with Trump or anyone else in the White House about Stone's case. The DOJ has said the decision to amend the sentencing recommendation was made Monday night, before Trump unleashed a Twitter tirade against the proposed prison term.
As McCabe faced the possibility of criminal charges, a federal judge in Washington pressured the Justice Department to provide more clarity about the status of the investigation.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton of the District of Columbia criticized the Justice Department for leaving McCabe in "limbo," saying it was "unconscionable" to have the threat criminal prosecution hanging over someone for so long in what he saw as a straightforward case. His remarks came in a case involving a request from the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for Justice Department records about McCabe's firing.
Newly released court transcripts, posted on Friday, further revealed Walton's frustration with the pace of the McCabe investigation, the secrecy surrounding it and the apparent pressure Trump was putting on the Justice Department to bring charges.
Cooney had told Walton in early September that the McCabe matter would be resolved soon, but later that month returned to tell the court that his prediction did not pan out. Part of that hearing still remains sealed. Cooney asked for three more months to apprise the court. Walton gave the government six weeks.
"The public is listening to what's going on, and I don't think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted," Walton said, according to the newly unsealed transcript. "I just think it's a banana republic when we go down that road and we have those type of statements being made that are conceivably even if not influencing the ultimate decision, I think there are a lot of people on the outside who perceive that there is undo inappropriate pressure being brought to bear."
Walton, a former Justice Department lawyer, recounted that he'd never had to endure circumstances where there was "either perceived or actual pressure on the office as to whether you prosecute somebody for a criminal offense."
Cooney responded: "No, I completely understand. And I want to assure the Court that I and others involved in this take our representation of the United States and the Department of Justice very seriously."
McCabe's defense lawyers, Michael Bromwich at Steptoe & Johnson and David Schertler of Washington's Schertler and Onorato, said in a statement:
"We learned this morning through a phone call from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office that was followed by a letter that the Justice Department's criminal investigation of Andrew McCabe has been closed. This means that no charges will be brought against him based on the facts underlying the Office of the Inspector General's April 2018 report. At long last, justice has been done in this matter. We said at the outset of the criminal investigation, almost two years ago, that if the facts and the law determined the result, no charges would be brought. We are pleased that Andrew McCabe and his family can go on with their lives without this cloud hanging over them."
McCabe, who was fired just days before he was set to retire with full benefits, is challenging his termination in federal court in Washington. He is represented in that case from lawyers at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer.
Read the letter from prosecutors below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEx-Deputy AG Trusts U.S. Legal System To Pull Country Through Times of Duress
7 minute read'Even Playing Field?' Wiley Rein Intervenes in Federal Election Campaign Spending Row
3 minute readBig Law Lawyers Fan Out for Election Day Volunteering in Call Centers and Litigation
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250