Federal Judge Hands McCabe Big Procedural Win Against Barr - discovery & litigation can proceed

[UTUSN]

***********QUOTE*******

https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/federal-judge-hands-fbi-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe-a-big-procedural-win-against-bill-barr/

Federal Judge Hands Fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe a Big Procedural Win Against Bill Barr

.... ...Barr’s motion to dismiss was denied.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, a Barack Obama appointee, said that he would set a schedule for discovery and further proceedings in McCabe’s lawsuit against DOJ, which alleges that McCabe was “unlawfully demoted” and fired for political reasons in violation of his constitutional rights. ....

The DOJ argued, among other things, that McCabe was not fired for political reasons, but because he lied under oath when he said he didn’t authorize and didn’t know who authorized the disclosure of the Clinton Foundation investigation to the press.

Here’s how the court summarized the DOJ’s claims:

In Defendants’ (DOJ) view, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ statutory and regulatory claims, while his constitutional claims fail on both the law and the facts. Most significantly, Defendants contend that Plaintiff was not fired because of his perceived political affiliation, vote in the 2016 presidential election, or refusal to pledge personal loyalty to the President but because he lacked candor (including under oath) in an investigation conducted by the FBI’s Inspection Division and the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General. Dkt. 23 at 13–18.

....

McCabe focused heavily in the lawsuit on President Donald Trump’s negative tweets about him. The judge decided discovery was needed in order to determine whether then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions was motivated by political pressure—applied by the president—to punish McCabe: ....

“Defendants might ultimately show that the Attorney General was not swayed by the President’s tweets and comments, but Plaintiff is entitled to test his claim of improper influence through discovery and the usual rules of civil litigation,” the judge ruled. ....

***********UNQUOTE********