Departed Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe is being targeted by the DOJ Inspector General for leaking sensitive information and misleading the IG about it. So reports The New York Times and the Washington Post.

According to the Times, Inspector General Michael Horowitz is focused on an October 30, 2016 Wall Street Journal article called “FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe.” That article said the Obama Justice Department had no interest in pursuing the Clinton Foundation and that some FBI agents thought McCabe was also blocking efforts to expose Hillary Clinton’s pay-to-play schemes. However, it also quotes “one person close to Mr. McCabe” as saying he was willing to investigate. In fact, it claims McCabe got in the DOJ’s face, saying the FBI had every right to continue the investigation.

So McCabe leaked to the WSJ in order to counter the allegation he was out to protect Hillary Clinton.

Now, here’s the odd thing. That’s precisely what is going on with the new New York Times story.

An Inoculation?

Horowitz’s report on the assorted partisan shenanigans by the DOJ and FBI during the 2016 campaign is scheduled to be released this month or next. That investigation, over a year in the making, is expected to be a devastating indictment of the Obama Justice Department and FBI. At the center of the action is Andrew McCabe.

Already, McCabe faces enormous scrutiny for allowing his wife to pocket $1.25 million in campaign donations from the Clinton machine while he was overseeing the Clinton email investigation. He’s also facing questions about why he waited roughly a month to tell James Comey about Hillary’s emails showing up on Anthony Weiner’s computer. (He’s also facing heat for his vendetta against Gen. Michael Flynn, and role in the FISA court tomfoolery. For that matter, what was “the plan” to stop Trump discussed in his office with Lisa Page and Peter Strzok?)

Imagine you’re McCabe. You know the IG report is going to demonstrate a shocking abuse of powers, laying out your misconduct on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the email investigation. FBI director Christopher Wray already pushed you out the door based on information from the IG. What’s your move?  Maybe get ahead of the report. Get the least serious charges out there. Undercut the idea you acted out of partisan motivation.

Surprise. Here comes this new leak to the Times, which highlights how McCabe wanted to push the Clinton Foundation investigation. And both the Post and Times are saying how this fact undercuts President Trump’s assertion that McCabe was in the tank for Hillary.

Convenient.

There’s another reason why, if you’re McCabe, you want this story about this element of the IG report out now: Inoculation. You have the big headlines now about your leaking. But it was a rather innocuous, self-serving leak. “Washington insider leaked information to make himself look good.” Wow. Stop the presses. However, when the IG report talks about other, more ominous leaks, you and your media boosters can say, “It’s old news.” (Declaring new revelations old news is a wonderful Clinton trick.) 

What More Ominous Leaks?

Let’s talk about one in particular. We’ve written about this previously on The Stream. On May 5, 2016, the Washington Post (again) posted an article quoting sources involved in the Clinton server investigation as saying FBI agents had uncovered “scant” evidence that Hillary Clinton “intended” to mishandle classified information.

Two issues right off the bat: 1) The sources leaked information about an ongoing investigation. 2) They leaked a lie. Intention is simply not part of the statutes governing classified material. Hillary’s intent has as much to do with the law as what color pantsuit she was wearing the days she moved classified information on her unsecure, private server.

Where did this “intent” business come from in the first place? President Obama. In an interview with Fox News just weeks before, Comey and Lynch’s boss declared, “(Clinton) would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy.”

It gets worse. That very same day as the Post report, FBI officials had met at the White House to discuss the Clinton investigation. FBI lawyer and McCabe cabal insider Lisa Page was among them. She had called the meeting. Just the day before, Page had been texting Peter Strzok. She said that now that Trump had secured the GOP nomination they would be under “enormous pressure” to wrap-up the Clinton investigation. From whom?

Well, the next day she is at the White House and by day’s end the Washington Post is running their story. A story that has FBI officials pushing Obama’s rewriting of the law. A story intended to tell the public right at the start of the general election that Hillary was safe. A message that two months later, James Comey would repeat when he let Hillary walk.

Is Inspector General Horowitz looking at that leak? Well, it’s certainly more crucial than the one the Times is reporting about. Is he looking at the “enormous pressure” put on investigators to wrap up the case? Did that pressure include leaking to the Post within hours that Hillary looked to be in the clear? Did it include Obama’s dubious dictate about “intent”? For that matter, did it include removal of reference to Obama in the Comey statement two months later? A reference that made clear Obama not only knew about Hillary’s private, unsecure server — which he had denied — but was communicating with her via that server while she was in a hostile country?

The story in the New York Times does spell trouble for McCabe. It’s no small thing to leak information about an ongoing criminal case and then try to mislead an investigator looking into your actions.

But trouble with a capital “T” for McCabe and those up and down the ladder — including the man at the top rung — may just be beginning.