An Unceremonious Dismissal
Andrew McCabe was, by most accounts, a model public servant. A 21-year veteran of the F.B.I., his tenure as Deputy Director — the chief operating officer at the Bureau — was just one of the positions which he held in his time as a law enforcement officer. His wife, Jill McCabe, ran for the Virginia State Senate as a Democrat, though McCabe is a self-professed Republican. Both have served long careers in public service, and in January Mr. McCabe announced he would be stepping down, though he remained on the payroll using accrued leave in hopes of collecting the pension and benefits earned by federal law enforcement officers when they reach 50 years old.
The Trump administration had different plans.
On March 16 — two days before his 50th birthday, the date on which he was set to retire — McCabe was unceremoniously fired. After a year of public criticism from the president, including Tweets insinuating pro-Clinton bias and his apparent “race” to collect pension benefits, the decision to fire McCabe was hardly surprising; but it raises a number of important questions about the hypocrisy of the Trump administration and its legacy of firing public servants.
After a full and exemplary career spanning two decades, McCabe’s post as deputy was the most publicly prominent and controversial of all of his positions. In the past several years, he was responsible for overseeing two of the most politically charged cases the F.B.I. has undertaken in modern times: the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s Foundation and her use of a private email server, and the investigation into the Trump campaign’s potential ties to the Russian government, including the decision to wiretap former Trump foreign advisor Carter Page (a process which required review and approval from senior Justice Department officials and a federal judge). Given the inherently political nature of these two investigations, it’s not difficult to see how politics, at least rhetorically, managed to infiltrate the supposedly independent Bureau.
Partisan accusations gained momentum when McCabe was promoted to deputy in January of 2016, in which position he was given oversight in the Clinton investigation. GOP opponents were quick to point out a potential link between Mr. McCabe and Hillary Clinton through Jill McCabe’s Senate campaign. In 2015, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat and long-time friend of the Clintons, donated a substantial sum to fellow Democrat McCabe’s campaign, which she ultimately lost. The next year, the F.B.I. declined to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. Republicans jumped on the opportunity to call for McCabe’s removal as deputy, drawing the unlikely conclusion that McAuliffe donated to Mrs. McCabe’s campaign in order to influence the (still undetermined) future deputy director in favor of the Clintons. McCabe ultimately recused himself from the investigation, but the damage was done.
The issue which proved his downfall, however, was not financial ties, but rather a media disclosure. In the months before the election, the F.B.I. publicly disclosed some information — though never the full scope — about its work on the Clinton investigation, including a statement made to The Wall Street Journal by an F.B.I. spokesman and lawyer, authorized by McCabe. Known as a “background call,” this type of interaction between government officials and the press is not an uncommon tactic to correct inaccuracies and provide nuance before reporters publish information; the issue in question, then, is whether McCabe was forthcoming to investigators about this disclosure. According to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, not only was the disclosure unauthorized, but McCabe also “lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions” during the investigation. Given that the details of internal investigations are not public information, McCabe and others must wait on the Inspector General’s report — expected this spring — before making a public rebuttal. So far, however, the former deputy has vehemently denied all charges of political maneuvering, and maintains that he has provided honest and accurate information throughout the process, claiming he is “being singled out” because of his role in the aftermath of the firing of former F.B.I. Director James Comey.
There are a number of other plotlines woven into the story; this includes renewed Democratic pushback against Sessions’ hypocrisy in light of his own “lack of candor” during previous congressional testimony on Russia, as well as the existence of McCabe’s memos of conversations with Comey which are now part of an ongoing obstruction of justice investigation. More importantly, however, is the indecorous manner in which McCabe’s dismissal was carried out. As a career civil servant, he could not technically be summarily dismissed by the president. Yet the defamation of character and accusations of Democrat favoritism he received from President Trump’s Twitter, the clear divisions in the reception of the decision by each party, and the backdrop of the Russia investigation are all conspicuous examples of partisanship in the entire affair. Beyond political considerations, there is also the more troubling question of why such haste was taken to fire McCabe. In most cases, F.B.I. disciplinary affairs are notoriously arduous, and officials often retire during the process. Here, McCabe’s lawyers say they were still receiving new evidence two days before his firing.
The decision not only denies McCabe eligibility to collect his job-specific retirement benefits — which were substantial, given his occupation as a federal law enforcement officer — but also denied him the opportunity to achieve full and honorable recognition for his lifelong career of public service. Yes, Sessions is legally authorized to make the firing decision. Yes, the alleged unauthorized disclosure would be grounds for dismissal. Yes, McCabe will still receive a pension and some benefits, albeit limited and still unclear, so he will not be living in disgraced destitution. The real issue at stake is the impetuosity with which such decisions have been carried out in the Trump administration. Public service is, in theory, a respected career path, pursued by dedicated civil servants who expect little in return except basic decency and an opportunity to serve the interests of the United States. The fact that those returns are being eroded by the arbitrary whims of our leaders has consequences not just for civil servants, but for all Americans.
