So, like, does Rosenstein’s denials make any difference here to anyone? Probably not in the White House, but in general? Because this entire thread seems to assume it’s true…
I don’t know. I can’t believe that Sessions hasn’t gnawed off his own foot by now.
It matters to me. If we’re asking ourselves, who is more credible - Rod Rosenstein or the Trump Whitehouse? - there’s only one possible answer. In fact you can sub in pretty much any name for Rod Rosenstein and get the same answer.
Haha. No.
Where did this silly idea come from?
It matters to me, too.
The New York Times has proved itself again and again as promoters of facts, and they spent a lot of time confirming the story as they reported it. I have no reason to doubt their reporting on the facts as they understand them.
However, reasonable minds can differ on the meanings of certain occurrences, and I am open to Rosenstein’s own interpretations and state of mind. He by far has more credibility than anyone on the Trump side of the equation. Moreover, it seems bad blood exists between Rosenstein and McCabe that may have tainted McCabe’s take on events.
Lastly, the New York Times did not have a source who was actually in the room where the statements about wiretapping Trump were made by Rosenstein. Other news outlets have spoken to sources who were in the room. Those sources say that Rosenstein made his remarks in a sarcastic way.
Bottom line, this is old news about events that occurred in May of 2017, lacking the context of that chaotic time in the wake of the Comey firing. Rosenstein never appears to have acted on anything he is reported to have said, and the Trump bunch has more than enough impetus to twist meanings.
I’ll speculate on what I think happened: The House Committee Trump posse headed up by Devin Nunes somehow saw the McCabe memo that noted something about the DAG and the 25th Amendment and questioned McCabe about its meaning. McCabe shared details of those discussions between Rosenstein and himself held directly in the wake of the Comey firing – a time when Rosenstein was pretty rattled at how he had been used as a basis for Comey’s firing. Now these ancient discussions are being gratuitously used by the same bunch who leaked the story as a basis to egg Trump on to firing Rosenstein.
At this point, one wonders how many charges for obstruction can be leveled by Mueller at Nunes and others for their dreadful actions throughout this ordeal, and are therefore motivated by self interest.
Draw your own conclusions.
Let’s read the actual NY Time article for comprehension: “Mr. Rosenstein made the remarks about secretly recording Mr. Trump and about the 25th Amendment in meetings and conversations with other Justice Department and F.B.I. officials. Several people described the episodes in interviews over the past several months, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that documented Mr. Rosenstein’s actions and comments.”
This is anonymous 2nd or 3rd hand information being passed to the NY Times. These are not facts, although these may be true. I’m leaning towards sensationalism and frankly disappointed in the NY Times for how they headlined the article and the above quote on sources comes in the 4th paragraph. FWIW, I’m a NY Times subscriber and think they generally do a decent job of investigative journalism.
Oh, and what Aspenglow wrote. Ninja’d
From Aspenglow:
Who said that? I still think they’re in the shithouse for their “curtains” story.
If I were Rosenstein or anyone else that engaged in conversation with Trump, I know I’d record it. The guy is such a liar you’d be crazy not to. I don’t know that I’d tell anyone else what I was doing but I’d do it. Suppose Trump was suspected of criminal activity as President and that conversations with him might contain evidence of such. Would there be anything legally wrong with recording him?
Depends on which jurisdiction it happens in. Some places (mostly blue states I think) are “two-party” states, meaning that both parties to a conversation need to be made aware that a recording is happening. This is why telemarketers often start out their calls with “i’ll be recording this call”. I’m not sure what DC’s laws are on the subject of recording conversations.
Like all Conspiracy Theories the “Deep State” Conspiracy Theory is bullshit, and one of the ways it’s bullshit is the nebulousness of the phrase “Deep State”. The “Deep State”: That’s supposedly a bunch of evil entrenched Washington bureaucrats, right? Shadowy people working for the CIA and the Pentagon and the FBI and God only knows what all alphabet soup of sinister federal agencies (the NSA! the NRO! the EPA and the CDC! the IRS!!!), who’ve been in Washington for years and years, maybe decades, accountable to no one–certainly not to the American people–who are trying to thwart the will of the duly elected President of the United States.
Trump’s own Cabinet officials aren’t the Deep State! They’re the people Donald Trump personally picked to be his top advisors. (“The best people”, remember?) Rod Rosenstein is a political appointee; he was nominated for the position of Deputy Attorney General by Donald fucking Trump. And why are we talking about the Deputy Attorney General, anyway? Oh, that’s right, because the Evil Traitor Elf, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, the not-so-deputy Attorney General, had to recuse himself from the whole Russian collusion investigation, treacherously putting the integrity of the law over his personal oath of loyalty to the Leader. Man, who put that guy in charge of the Department of Justice, anyway?
Oh, yeah, that would have been Donald fucking Trump again. (“The best people!”) Sessions was, in fact, not just a Trump supporter back when he was still a Senator, he was an early Trump supporter. He didn’t just pick Trump over Hillary, he picked Trump over all those other guys who were running for the Republican nomination.
The bottom line is, never mind some alleged shadowy cabal of “Washington insiders”; even the people Donald Trump personally picked to be his top advisors privately worry that he’s batshit crazy and totally unfit for the office of President of the United States.
The real problem isn’t that people doubt Rosenstein’s credibility; rather, it’s a question of whether civil servants are serving an elected president appropriately. Regardless of how half - or even more than half - of America feels about the president, President Trump came to power democratically, which is significant.
The impact on a story like this is that it creates noise, it creates confusion - are civil servants really the unbiased, nonpartisan actors that they claim to be? Can they be trusted to present “the truth”? Can “the truth” be known? These are the consequences, and they are real.
But these aren’t “civil servants”! These are his own damned people! Rod Rosenstein is a political appointee, and everyone who has any say-so in the process of invoking the 25th Amendment is also a political appointee (except for Mike Pence, but he’s certainly not a “civil servant” either).
Well, OK, if Team Trump is working for Russia, who is the Deep State pulling for? Belgium?
It seems worth noting here that his top advisors publicly claim that the NYT is wrong and that they do not think he is “batshit crazy and totally unfit for the office”.
Publicly, they have little choice but do so. Trump is also one that is constantly reminding us that in the end, he does not select “the best people”.
SPECTRE. Maybe KAOS. Possibly the World Crime League.
“Fucking moron.” - Rex Tillerson
“A fifth- or sixth-grader.” - James Mattis
“Idiot.” - John Kelly
“Goddamn dumbbell.” - John Dowd
“Incapable of telling the truth.” - Jay Sekulow
I think Omarosa had some choice words as well.
I should have noted that that was not intended to be a complete list.
Do any of them agree that they said these things? Or is this coming from some “anonymous source” and refuted by the alleged speaker?