# What will be the straw that breaks Rosenstein's back? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 22, 2018, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-be-the-straw-that-breaks-rosensteins-back/814609 "2018-05-22T10:46:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![UnwittingAmericans](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d9b06d/32.png) [@UnwittingAmericans](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwittingAmericans)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-be-the-straw-that-breaks-rosensteins-back/814609/1 "2018-05-22T10:46:11Z")
Trump’s May 20 tweet demanding an investigation “whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes - and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!” was widely viewed as a provocation of Rosenstein - Rosenstein refuses, is fired, etc. Rosenstein sidestepped it by referring it to the IG. I expect there will be more of these. Trump is safe from removal, there is no circumstance related to the current investigation(s) in which the Senate would convict if it even got that far. All the scenarios I conjure, Trump survives: [ul] [li]Saturday Night Massacre - Trump fires Rosenstein (and Sessions while he’s at it, why not?), replaces him with someone who fires Mueller. Not sure what the denoument to this is, but it feels like stalemate.[/li][li]Mueller subpoenas Trump, Trump refuses, process ends up in SCOTUS, SCOTUS rules he must comply, Trump refuses. Stalemate.[/li][li]Trump goes in voluntarily, not under a subpoena, says whatever the fuck pops into his head, knowing he’s just going to call whatever report Mueller issues fake news.[/li][/ul] What would Trump demand (other than firing Mueller) that Rosenstein would refuse, thus setting off the Saturday Night Massacre scenario? Why is he waiting to spring it? Shouldn’t Mueller just subpoena Trump now, before he gets fired? He has to know what’s coming, and Congress is not offering any protection. ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-be-the-straw-that-breaks-rosensteins-back/814609/2 "2018-05-22T11:14:24Z")
In the Netherlands, a procedural answer would be fine, also to the President. An answer like: “Sir, please make that request through the proper channels” would be enough. Does POTUS really have the power to sidestep proper procedures in an non-emergency? Or is Trump just testing his limits? And will there be any costs for him for doing so? ---
**Author:** ![UnwittingAmericans](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d9b06d/32.png) [@UnwittingAmericans](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwittingAmericans)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-be-the-straw-that-breaks-rosensteins-back/814609/3 "2018-05-22T12:59:28Z")
> [@Maastricht](#): > > Does POTUS really have the power to sidestep proper procedures in an non-emergency? Yes, because unlike an ordinary citizen, he does not risk being jailed for refusing to comply with a court. He can only be punished by impeachment and removal; impeachment means basically nothing, and removal will not happen. You can say he will cost himself politically in the 2020 election, but then you have to go find me one Trump voter who says so. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-be-the-straw-that-breaks-rosensteins-back/814609/4 "2018-05-22T13:48:46Z")
So this is what living in a banana republic is like I guess, where one party is claiming that their president is not subject to the rule of law, and Trump voters are cheering this state of affairs. I wonder what they would have said if Obama pulled any of this crap. Rank hypocrisy is now just the normal mindset for the right I guess. Whatever is good for the GOP even if its incredibly damaging to the country. It’s like watching a horrific highway accident unfold in slow motion, and some people are thrilled by it. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-be-the-straw-that-breaks-rosensteins-back/814609/5 "2018-05-22T15:24:11Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > So this is what living in a banana republic is like I guess, where one party is claiming that their president is not subject to the rule of law, and Trump voters are cheering this state of affairs. I wonder what they would have said if Obama pulled any of this crap. Rank hypocrisy is now just the normal mindset for the right I guess. Whatever is good for the GOP even if its incredibly damaging to the country. It’s like watching a horrific highway accident unfold in slow motion, and some people are thrilled by it. And when it all goes wrong, they’ll blame the Democrats for not being sufficiently on-board with the GOP agenda. And the nation will agree and re-elect the GOP, because gerrymandering has made that more likely than not anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-be-the-straw-that-breaks-rosensteins-back/814609/6 "2018-05-22T15:29:43Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > And when it all goes wrong, they’ll blame the Democrats for not being sufficiently on-board with the GOP agenda. And the nation will agree and re-elect the GOP, because gerrymandering has made that more likely than not anyway. I wish I had some reason to believe this not to be true, however I do not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-be-the-straw-that-breaks-rosensteins-back/814609/7 "2018-05-24T19:30:24Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > So this is what living in a banana republic is like I guess, where one party is claiming that their president is not subject to the rule of law, and Trump voters are cheering this state of affairs. I wonder what they would have said if Obama pulled any of this crap. Rank hypocrisy is now just the normal mindset for the right I guess. Whatever is good for the GOP even if its incredibly damaging to the country. It’s like watching a horrific highway accident unfold in slow motion, and some people are thrilled by it. Can you please provide the counter example of a President who was subpoenaed to testify and did not claim that he was immune from subpoena? In other words, your paragraph implies that any prior instances of a President being subpoenaed to testify ended with the President accepting the authority of the subpoena. The ordinary reading of your words carries the strong implication that Trump is the first President to contemplate denying or refusing a testimonial subpoena. Is that in fact true? Did any prior Presidents concede the holder of the office of President was susceptible to being subpoenaed to testify? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-be-the-straw-that-breaks-rosensteins-back/814609/8 "2018-05-24T19:32:59Z")
Every one that provided testimony instead of telling the prosecutor where to stuff it did that implicitly. Not clear why you’ve chosen to make an issue of that. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-be-the-straw-that-breaks-rosensteins-back/814609/9 "2018-05-25T00:24:23Z")
I would expect that Rosenstein is working with Mueller to decide what is or isn’t allowable. I don’t know that that’s true, but so long as it is, I’m fine. It’s a question I would hope that someone in the media can answer (e.g., Lawfare). And I would expect that the thing which would break Rosenstein’s back would be when the White House or House Republicans demands something that Mueller vetoes. In that case, Rosenstein becomes another witness in the Obstruction of Justice case. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-be-the-straw-that-breaks-rosensteins-back/814609/10 "2018-05-25T02:35:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you please provide the counter example of a President who was subpoenaed to testify and did not claim that he was immune from subpoena? > > In other words, your paragraph implies that any prior instances of a President being subpoenaed to testify ended with the President accepting the authority of the subpoena. The ordinary reading of your words carries the strong implication that Trump is the first President to contemplate denying or refusing a testimonial subpoena. > > Is that in fact true? Did any prior Presidents concede the holder of the office of President was susceptible to being subpoenaed to testify? Didn’t Bill Clinton testify regarding the Lewinsky affair? And other than Clinton and Nixon I don’t recall any other president that was personally investigated. ---
**Author:** ![Railer13](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/railer13/32/9742_2.png) [@Railer13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Railer13)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-be-the-straw-that-breaks-rosensteins-back/814609/11 "2018-05-25T14:54:53Z")
Here’s what my Google search told me about presidents who have been issued a subpoena. Thomas Jefferson, in the 1807 treason trial of his former vice-president, Aaron Burr, was issued a subpoena to appear in court with a letter written by one of Burr’s co-conspirators to Jefferson. Jefferson refused to honor the subpoena, saying that > [@](#): > > …compliance with such court orders “would leave the nation without an executive branch,” which the Constitution had never intended “be withdrawn from its station by any coordinate authority.” Chief Justice John Marshall was asked to rule on Jefferson’s refusal; Marshall ruled > [@](#): > > that the President was subject to subpoena, just like any other citizen. Jefferson eventually provided some other relevant documents (not the letter); Burr was eventually acquitted, much to Jefferson’s dismay. > **[Presidential Subpoena Upheld in 1807 (Published 1973)](https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/25/archives/presidential-subpoena-upheld-in-1807-marshall-opinion-not-immune.html)** > > Article notes that Pres T Jefferson, only Pres other than Nixon to be served with subpoena, refused to make ct appearance that subpoena required but that his refusal was never challenged in ct; 1807 incident, therefore, established no legal... > **[Thomas Jefferson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson)** > > Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743\[b\] – July 4, 1826) was an American statesman, diplomat, lawyer, architect, philosopher, and Founding Father who served as the third president of the United States from 1801 to 1809. He was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. Following the American Revolutionary War and prior to becoming president in 1801, Jefferson was the nation's first U.S. secretary of state under George Washington and then the nation's second vice president under John Ad... In 1974, Richard Nixon was issued a subpoena ordering him to release certain tapes and papers related to specific meetings between the President and those indicted by the grand jury in the Watergate break-in. The subpoena was issued by Leon Jaworski, the Special Prosecutor investigating the break-in. Nixon initially refused, then release edited portions of some of the conversations. Nixon’s attorney then asked the District Court to quash the subpoena, arguing that the President > [@](#): > > …is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment. The District Court rejected that argument, and both Nixon and Jaworski appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court unanimously ruled that Nixon must surrender the tapes and documents. 16 days later, Nixon resigned. > **[United States v. Nixon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon)** > > United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court unanimously ordered President Richard Nixon to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials related to the Watergate scandal to a federal district court. Decided on July 24, 1974, the ruling was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal, amidst an ongoing process to impeach Richard Nixon. United States v. Nixon is considered a crucial precedent ... In 1998, Independent counsel Ken Starr issued a subpoena to Bill Clinton, compelling him to testify before a Grand Jury regarding the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Clinton and Starr reached an agreement by which Clinton would testify to the Grand Jury via videotape. After the agreement was reached, Starr withdrew the subpoena. (Clinton’s testimony eventually led to his impeachment proceedings by the House.) > **[TESTING OF A PRESIDENT: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON AGREES TO TESTIFY FOR LEWINSKY...](https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/30/us/testing-president-overview-clinton-agrees-testify-for-lewinsky-grand-jury-starr.html)** > > Pres Clinton agrees to submit to questioning at White House by Federal prosecutors in Monica Lewinsky investigation after Kenneth W Starr, special prosecutor, withdraws unprecedented subpoena to compel his testimony; Clinton will be permitted unusual... ---
**Author:** ![UnwittingAmericans](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d9b06d/32.png) [@UnwittingAmericans](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwittingAmericans)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-be-the-straw-that-breaks-rosensteins-back/814609/12 "2018-05-25T23:58:01Z")
Apparently there were discussions about Trump agreeing to be interviewed back in January (2018). If Mueller was prepared to have Trump’s interview four months ago, then he should subpoena Trump _ **immediately** _ and stop tempting fate. ---
**Author:** ![UnwittingAmericans](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d9b06d/32.png) [@UnwittingAmericans](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwittingAmericans)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-be-the-straw-that-breaks-rosensteins-back/814609/13 "2018-05-26T00:37:47Z")
I suppose there’s an exception. Mueller is offering an interview as a courtesy, and doesn’t really need to talk to Trump at all.