The muted position from the Democrats on this is interesting. On the one hand, they pilloried Sessions for his involvement in the Comey firing despite his own recusal from Russia-related matters. But if that firing is Russia related, then Rosenstein, as the guy who wrote that memo on which Sessions signed off, would have to be even more directly involved. And especially since the Special Counsel is now said to be investigating the firing, it would seem that Rosenstein is now supervising someone who is potentially investigating him.
I suspect the issue is who replaces him. Rosenstein was confirmed by the Senate in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, while his deputy who would take over the investigation (Rachel Brand) was confirmed by party line vote. So it’s a choice of a guy you like who is tainted by involvement or a guy you dislike who was not involved.
Well, unlike Sessions, Rosenstein didn’t meet with Russian representatives during the campaign and then lie about it (or fail to disclose it) to Congress, which was the spark for Sessions’ recusal. Unless Rosenstein is actually being investigated by Mueller, I don’t see the need for Rosenstein to recuse, but IANAL.
I would think that any investigation into the firing of Comey would require both Rosenstein (who played a role in the firing and would certainly be a witness) and Mueller (who is close friends with Comey) to recuse.
Regarding Brand, I’m not aware of any substantive objection to her nomination as opposed to the standard #resistance that has resulted in party-line votes for a number of highly qualified unobjectionable nominees (but I could be wrong). The biggest problem with Brand is that she has never been a prosecutor or an investigator; her background is in legal policy.
Now, if Mueller’s digging into the Comey firing, I do see reason for him to investigate the truth of Rosenstein’s account of how the memo came to be. But it’s not surprising that Sessions, who has not given a full account of his conversations with the prez about the Comey firing, and has … acted suspiciously w/r/t contact with the Russian government, has faced much more pressure to recuse.
So far as we know, Rosenstein says he didn’t consider the Russia thing when writing the pro-firing memo. So far as we know, Sessions may well have violated his preexisting recusal in supporting the firing. Or not! He won’t say. (Correct me if my facts are wrong here.)
In other words, Sessions kinda looks shady as fuck**. With Rosenstein, there are just unanswered questions about an investigation no one has officially confirmed is happening (yet, AFAIK). I’m not shocked that Rosenstein isn’t under such intense pressure to recuse – although there is hubbub along those lines that is likely to intensify as facts come to light.
You could be right, but I think there’s an Occam’s razor explanation based on what I said above. There’s just not a lot of smoke around Rosenstein yet, while Sessions …
(I will also say that I’ve never heard of Rachel Brand, who has some notable GOP-partisan episodes in her career Rachel Brand - Wikipedia , to be sure. She also served in the DOJ under Obama. I’m not saying “KEEP BRAND AWAY FROM THE CONTROLS” isn’t an argument any Democrats are making, but I’ve never heard it.)
You’re saying WRT Rosenstein that “the text of his memo had nothing to do with Russia”, but at the same time saying WRT Sessions that “you agreed to Rosenstein’s memo which was really about Russia”. This seems illogical. Either the memo was a fig leaf and a pretext to remove Comey over Russia, or it wasn’t.
Ah, I see where I may have been unclear. To be crystal clear: I am suggesting that Sessions’s involvement in Comey’s firing possibly goes beyond signing off on Rosensteins’s memo. Sessions may have had conversations with Trump, before and/or after Rosenstein was asked to write his memo, about firing Comey *because (in part or whole) of the Russia investigation. *
Has Sessions said he didn’t have such conversations? My impression of his testimony last week is that he refused to answer questions about whether such conversations occurred, but I could be wrong.
Just to be sure I’m being clear: Rosenstein’s memo could have been a “fig leaf” for Trump and Sessions AND been honest and complete on Rosenstein’s part. Both halves of that proposition seem reasonable to me, and would explain the greater heat on Sessions, especially in context.
A few days ago (so no link), I saw an article whose headline said that the DOJ saw “no reason” for recusal. Thing could change, but that seems to be the situation so far.
Understood that there are more issues involving Sessions than involving Rosenstein. But Sessions is also being attacked over his involvement in the Comey firing, based on the premise that it’s Russia-related, and to the extent that you buy into that premise, then Rosenstein is also potentially implicated.
This is certainly possible. But it’s not completely obvious such that Rosenstein is a completely disinterested participant and not Sessions (as regards to the Comey firing specifically).
“Implicated”? Seriously? You’re working this hard, but the effort is showing.
Rosenstein is a potential witness in the investigation to this extent: he was asked to provide a memo and he will, no doubt, need to testify about the wording of that request, as well as any other interactions he had with Trump and with Trump’s staff that are related to the memo.
Rosenstein was not involved in Trump’s campaign (and Sessions was). Rosenstein has not neglected to mention meetings with Russians or lied about such meetings under oath (and Sessions has). Rosenstein has not continued to take part in activities relating to the Russia probe while under the condition of being recused from participation in the Russia probe (and Sessions has).
Sessions is up to his neck in the campaign and its ties to Russia. Rosenstein is not. “Implicated,” my aunt Fanny.
Okay, sure. I believe I made a caveat to that effect. My larger point was that, per your OP, it’s not surprising that Rosenstein is under less pressure to recuse than Sessions is for his involvement in the firing.
By the way, have you (or has anyone) heard “don’t put Brand in a position to fire Mueller!” as an argument against Rosenstein’s recusal? Like I said, I had never heard of her before you brought her up in the OP. If actual Democrats are bringing her up, I’ll reconsider my opinion of the OP.
I’ve not heard anyone bring it up (though I wouldn’t expect many people to bring it up even if it were true). It’s just speculation by me. That’s why I wrote “I suspect …”
Ah. Well, with all due respect, I think my Occam’s razor theory (i.e., Democrats are waiting to see whether Rosenstein’s involvement in Comey’s firing extends beyond writing the memo [criticizing Comey’s actions w/r/t Clinton last year] before pushing for Rosenstein’s recusal) is likelier than your Democrats-prefer-Rosenstein-to-Brand theory.
Given what we know now, anyway. Maybe Democrats aren’t being total hypocrites after all!
I’m not the one who posited the unsubstantiated theory based on how Democrats might feel about Brand being in charge of Mueller! I presented a simpler explanation based on the facts we have now as I understand them.
If the investigation has expanded to include whether or not firing Comey was obstruction of justice, a reasonable argument can be made that anyone involved in that action, even as witness, should recuse themselves from the investigation. I would support Rosenstein’s recusal if it was for that reason.
However, I also think that it’s Rosenstein’s duty to bring this up and not the Democrats. Presumably he knows what Mueller is investigating while the Democrats can only make educated guesses.