The Lawfare group are the external influence agents for corrupt politically motivated lawyers working in government. The group fingerprints show up everywhere including among “beach friends” and legal schemes hatched from the premise of their assembly. Lawfare = use the law as a tool in warfare. [Adult Alinsky disciples.]

The Lawfare group is headed by Comey’s friend Benjamin Wittes; and the group give resistance advice to ideologues inside government as well as outside organizations who are resisting (suing) the Trump administration.

So when Benjamin Wittes announces to his ideological resistance followers:

…”You should thus expect charges against McCabe to be forthcoming any day. And if such charges don’t happen, that doesn’t mean they weren’t planned but, rather, that some extrinsic event has intervened”… (link)

…readers can assume Lawfare leadership has known about McCabe’s risk position for quite some time. Remember, former FBI chief legal counsel James Baker also works for Lawfare.

It is almost guaranteed Andrew McCabe and his lawyer Michael Bromwich are in daily conversations with their network of friends inside Lawfare. This same ideological network has vast affiliates throughout media. The pending indictment of Andrew McCabe would explain why CNN hired him.

Knowing the DOJ was likely to indict McCabe, CNN could help frame a narrative that serves both their interests. That narrative was already in the New York Times article describing the potential for the indictment.

When McCabe is charged the media narrative will be it’s because he took the job with CNN… Trump/Barr weaponizing the DOJ and trying to kill free speech etc. CNN doesn’t have to defend their action in hiring a known liar, they’ll instead frame McCabe as a victim, a fellow traveler to the larger cause of justice – whose indictment is evidence of how far Trump and Barr will go to destroy their enemies etc.

Hey, at least now we know Andrew McCabe is about to be indicted.

Additionally, Wittes goes on to say that something else must be behind the conduct of McCabe if the DOJ is actually going to indict him:

[…] But criminal charges? At least based on what’s in the inspector general’s report, this is very far from a criminal case. Criminal dispositions on false statements matters in internal investigations are exceptionally rare. Absent some gross aggravating factor, I struggle to think of any other examples. Workplace false statements are normally handled through internal disciplinary means, not criminal charges. (link)

Essentially, the Lawfare position is that McCabe was authorized to leak to the media; ergo, the investigation of McCabe leaking to the media was a non-criminal investigation…. ergo, according to Lawfare logic, McCabe lying about non-criminal conduct to the FBI INSD (internal investigators) is not itself criminal. To wit Andrew McCabe is only lying as a common workplace type of lying, not illegal lying in a criminal investigation.

So Wittes says there must be more to the story…

Which then expands the Lawfare mindset to believe the decision to indict must be related to something discovered within the criminal investigation of events in/around the FISA application (intentionally and materially false presentations to the court), etc.

Perhaps…. I guess we’ll soon find out.

However, it is worth remembering how this entire internecine mess was started.

Andrew McCabe lied to INSD about leaking to the media when the INSD was investigating leaks to the media. McCabe’s statements contradicted the statements of his assigned DOJ lawer, Lisa Page; who said McCabe instructed and coordinated the leaks to journalist Devlin Barrett of the Wall Street Journal.

When confronted with two sets of competing stories, Lisa Page -vs- Andrew McCabe, it appears the IG-INSD asked Page if she could prove her side of the story. The need to prove her version of events appears to be the impetus for Page revealing her text messaging. Page’s texts proved her story, and proved McCabe was lying.

However, from that text messaging review (June/July 2017), in addition to texts between Page and McCabe, the investigation turned-up discussions between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.

And that’s how that whole thing got started…