A possible theory to Rachel's story on Andrew McCabe. | THE POLITICUS

A possible theory to Rachel's story on Andrew McCabe.

     Rachel Maddow has bar none the best research staff in television journalism. Not only does Rachel end up with more than her shares of scoops, but thanks I’m sure largely to her research staff, she finds angles to tie stories together that nobody else would even consider looking for, much less finding it.

     Last night was no exception. Rachel’s first segment is a thing of joy. They normally run about 20 minutes, and this was close. Rachel retold the story of the firing of Mike Flynn, adding a very precise timeline. On February 13th Mike Flynn either resigned, or was fired, depending on whose bullshit smells better to you. On February 14th the New York Times published a blockbuster article on frequent contacts between members of the Trump campaign and high ranking intelligence officials from Russia during the election year. Then, on February 15th, the next dayt, reporting came out pushing back hard against the NYT report of the previous day, stating that after a 7:30 am meeting int he White House, the Deputy Director of the FBI pulled Chief of Staff Reince Priebus into a quiet room and told him that the NYT report was bullshit. In his retelling of the incident, Trpebus named his source by both name and position.

     Yes, the Deputy Director of the FBI on 2/15 was the same one we had until yesterday, Andrew McCabe, now the acting Director of the FBI.Rachel put the conflict of interest in very specific terma, and expressed bafflement as to why McCabe would do such a thing. But her conclusion was that for whatever reason, it put McCabe in an untenable position to head the Trump-Russia investigation for the FBI.

     I remember well reading that original story on 2/15, and being amazed that such a senior agent, who had climbed the ladder would make such a stupid mistake, one that would most likely have gotten him kicked out of the FBI academy. It just made no sense at all, but McCabe never publicly refuted Priebus’ account, so apparently it was true.

     But what if it wasn’t? My grandfather on my fathers side, and my uncle were both Chicago cops, my uncle was a detective. I learned almost on my mothers knee that no cop worth the badge ever discusses any aspect of an investigation with a subject until he has him or her in interrogation. How could a seasoned investigator be so stupid, careless or negligent? And although Priebus ratted McCabe out very publicly, in what was a major embarrassment for the FBI, the FBI never even acknowledged that the incident had occurred, much less announce an investigation to save face, and certainly no disciplinary action was ever announced. None of this made the slightest bit of sense. Unless. There was only one solution I could come up with that fir all of the pieces in place, and here it is.

     What if Andrew McCabe did not somehow go rogue in telling Reince Priebus that the NYT story was bullshit, what if he told Priebus exactly what his boss, James Comey told him to say, and to exactly whom Comey ordered him to tell it to? In a spy novel, it would be known as a “false flag operation”. You want to know how worried and desperate the Trump White House is? Use a scheduled meeting to slip a little golden nugget into Reince Priebus’ ear, complete with a little advice on media spin, and then just sit back and watch what happens.If they don’t buy it, or already feel that the story in the NYT is false, then nothing will happen. But if the WH is worried about the impace of that story, and they buy the false flag, somebody in congress is going to be on the phone pronto, spinning the new angle for the media. And that’s exactly what happened, the White House called out the big guns, getting Intelligence Committee Chairmen Devin Nunes and Richard Burr to call various outlets and explain how the story is worthless. Now Comey and McCabe know that the NYT piece has enough meat on it to get the White House to pull out all the stops, and they even know who the “go to guys” in the House and the Senate are for this kind of thing.

     I will be the first to admit, it is total and complete speculation. But at the same time, it’s the only thing I can think of that explains all of the myriad of misfit pieces in the original story. As for McCabe never coming out to refute the story, he couldn’t, if he was following the rules, exactly the same way that as the Director of the FBI, Comey could never comment on an ongoing investigation to refute anything false that Trump said about him, like that he had told Trump 3 times that he was not a subject. Maybe it’s true, and maybe it isn’t, but you gotta admit, it paints a beautiful picture of a classic mindf*ck in action. Actually, I kinda hope it’s true. Here’s the embed to the story if you want to watch it for yourself.

Issue: