Showing posts with label Rosenstein-Rod. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rosenstein-Rod. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 7, 2020

The evil empire: Horowitz (draft) report on child-parent separation

Though [then Attorney General Jeff] Sessions sought to distance himself from the [illegal immigrant child-parent separation] policy, allowing Mr. Trump and Homeland Security Department officials to largely be blamed, he and other top law enforcement officials understood that “zero tolerance” meant that migrant families would be separated and wanted that to happen because they believed it would deter future illegal immigration, Mr. Horowitz wrote.

“The department’s single-minded focus on increasing prosecutions came at the expense of careful and effective implementation of the policy, especially with regard to prosecution of family-unit adults and the resulting child separations,” the draft report said.

[...]

The five U.S. attorneys along the border with Mexico, including three appointed by President Trump, recoiled in May 2018 against an order to prosecute all undocumented immigrants even if it meant separating children from their parents. They told top Justice Department officials they were “deeply concerned” about the children’s welfare.

But [AG] Sessions, made it clear what Mr. Trump wanted on a conference call later that afternoon.

[...]

“We need to take away children,” Mr. Sessions told the prosecutors, according to participants’ notes.

[...]

Rod J. Rosenstein, then the deputy attorney general, went even further in a second call about a week later, telling the five prosecutors that it did not matter how young the children were. He said that government lawyers should not have refused to prosecute two cases simply because the children were barely more than infants.

“Those two cases should not have been declined,” John Bash, the departing U.S. attorney in western Texas, wrote to his staff immediately after the call. Mr. Bash had declined the cases, but Mr. Rosenstein had overruled him. “Per the A.G.’s policy, we should NOT be categorically declining immigration prosecutions of adults in family units because of the age of a child.”

[...]

Mr. Horowitz had been preparing to release his report since late summer, according to a person familiar with the investigation, though the process allowing for responses from current and former department officials whose conduct is under scrutiny is likely to delay its release until after the presidential election.

[...]

Mr. Sessions refused to be interviewed, the report noted. Mr. Rosenstein, who is now a lawyer in private practice, defended himself in his interview with investigators in response to questioning about his role, according to two of the officials. Mr. Rosenstein’s former office submitted a 64-page response to the report.

“If any United States attorney ever charged a defendant they did not personally believe warranted prosecution, they violated their oath of office,” Mr. Rosenstein said in a statement. “I never ordered anyone to prosecute a case.”

[...]

Senior Justice Department officials viewed the welfare of the children as the responsibility of other agencies and their duty as tracking the parents. “I just don’t see that as a D.O.J. equity,” Mr. Rosenstein told the inspector general.

  NYT
The more you know about Rod Rosenstein, the more disgusted you become.
Gene Hamilton, a top lawyer and ally of Stephen Miller, the architect of the president’s assault on immigration, argued in a 32-page response that Justice Department officials merely took direction from the president. Mr. Hamilton cited an April 3, 2018, meeting with Mr. Sessions; the homeland security secretary at the time, Kirstjen Nielsen; and others in which the president “ranted” and was on “a tirade,” demanding as many prosecutions as possible.

[...]

“The draft report relied on for this article contains numerous factual errors and inaccuracies,” [Alexa Vance, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department,] said. “While D.O.J. is responsible for the prosecutions of defendants, it had no role in tracking or providing custodial care to the children of defendants. Finally, both the timing and misleading content of this leak raise troubling questions about the motivations of those responsible for it.”
Always shift the focus to the messenger.

The fact that this policy was abhorrent is borne out by the fact that everybody is trying to shift the blame for it onto someone other than himself.
Government prosecutors reacted with alarm at the separation of children from their parents during a secret 2017 pilot program along the Mexican border in Texas. “We have now heard of us taking breastfeeding defendant moms away from their infants,” one government prosecutor wrote to his superiors. “I did not believe this until I looked at the duty log.”

Border Patrol officers missed serious felony cases because they were stretched too thin by the zero-tolerance policy requiring them to detain and prosecute all of the misdemeanor illegal entry cases.

[...]

The failure to inform the U.S. Marshals Service before announcing the zero-tolerance policy led to serious overcrowding and budget overruns. The marshals were forced to cut back on serving warrants in other cases, saying that “when you take away manpower, you can’t make a safe arrest.”

[...]

After the pilot program in Texas ended, the report asserted, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Rosenstein pushed aggressively to expand the practice across the entire southwestern border, with help from prosecutors.

[...]

Mr. Rosenstein told the inspector general that Mr. Sessions “understood what the consequences were.”

“The A.G.’s goal,” he said, “was to create a more effective deterrent so that everybody would believe that they had a risk of being prosecuted.”

[...]

The decision roiled the prosecutors along the border. In Arizona, Elizabeth Strange, the acting U.S. attorney, led a minor rebellion, temporarily declining six cases, citing concern about the children.

[...]

Justice Department officials have repeatedly claimed that they thought the adults would be prosecuted and reunited with their children within hours of being separated. But the inspector general found a memo informing top officials that sentences for adults ranged from three to 14 days, making it all but certain that children would be sent to the custody of officials at the Health and Human Services Department for long periods of time.
UPDATE:

Speaking of Rosenstein...
What the everloving fuck? What is Rosenstein smoking?

UPDATE:

Preet Bharara and Anne Milgram (justifiably) ream Rod Rosenstein.

Thursday, June 4, 2020

Sunday, December 8, 2019

The Illustrated Mueller Report

In six chapters from the Washington Post online and at Amazon (plus audio analysis),  you can get the major points from Robert Mueller's investigation.  It's a good outline.

Excerpts:

Chapter 1: This Russia thing is far from over
The investigation that shadowed the first two years of President Trump’s administration began quietly during the 2016 campaign. U.S. intelligence agencies suspected Russia was behind efforts to sway American voters, such as WikiLeaks’ release of hacked Democratic emails. The FBI began examining ties between Trump associates and the Russian government.

[...]

The first test came in late December 2016. Barack Obama was still president. With just weeks to go until Trump’s inauguration, the Obama administration announced it was imposing sanctions on Russia in response to its interference in the campaign.

Trump’s advisers were concerned the fallout would hurt the United States’ relationship with Russia. The president-elect saw the move as an attempt to embarrass him by suggesting his election was not legitimate.

[...]

Michael Flynn, the incoming White House national security adviser [...] spoke by phone to his deputy, K.T. McFarland, who was with the president-elect and other advisers at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private Florida estate.

McFarland told Flynn that the president-elect’s team didn’t want things with Russia to heat up.

Flynn immediately called [Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey] Kislyak.

They discussed the sanctions — and Flynn asked Russia not to escalate the situation. It was a highly unorthodox request. Flynn was not yet representing the U.S. government.

The next day, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a statement saying Russia would not retaliate.

[...]

On Jan. 12, 2017, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that Flynn and Kislyak had spoken on the day the sanctions were announced. Ignatius wrote that it was unclear what they had discussed, but he questioned whether Flynn had said something to undercut the Obama administration.

The revelation caused a stir. Trump was already facing questions about Russia’s interference in the election, and now it appeared his incoming national security adviser might have secretly undermined Obama’s attempts to hold the Russians accountable.

Trump called incoming chief of staff Reince Priebus.



[...]

Priebus called Flynn and told him he needed to “kill the story.” The “boss” was angry about The Post column.

Flynn directed his deputy, McFarland, to call Ignatius and inform The Post columnist that no discussion of sanctions took place.

McFarland made the call, even though she said later that she knew it was not true.

Flynn then told other Trump advisers, including Vice President-elect Mike Pence, that he had not discussed sanctions with Kislyak.

In a round of media interviews, Pence, Priebus and incoming press secretary Sean Spicer denied that Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions.

Senior Justice Department officials were alarmed by their statements, especially the one by Pence. The United States routinely monitors communications of Russian officials. The Justice Department officials knew what Flynn said about his conversations with Kislyak was not true. They feared Flynn’s lies gave Russia leverage over him.

[...]

Four days later, Flynn was interviewed by FBI agents in his White House office.

He lied about his conversations with Kislyak, the agents determined.

On Jan. 26, senior Justice Department officials Sally Yates and Mary McCord met with White House Counsel Donald McGahn at the White House. They warned him that Pence’s public statements defending Flynn were not true and could make Flynn a target of blackmail by the Russians.

Yates also revealed that Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI.

[...]

McGahn immediately told Trump about the Justice Department warnings and that Flynn had been interviewed.

Trump told McGahn, Priebus and senior adviser Stephen K. Bannon to look into the situation — and to keep it quiet.

The next day, Jan. 27, Trump invited FBI Director James B. Comey to dinner at the White House.

[...]

Over dinner, Trump attempted to extract a promise [of personal loyalty].

[...]

Days later, [...] Flynn acknowledged to Trump that he might have discussed sanctions with Kislyak.

On Feb. 9, The Washington Post broke the news that Flynn had in fact discussed sanctions with Kislyak before Trump took office, despite the denials from the vice president and top Trump aides.

[...]

On an Air Force One flight from Mar-a-Lago to Washington on Feb. 12, Trump asked Flynn whether he lied to Pence. Flynn told him that he might have forgotten details, but he did not think he lied.

[...]

The next day, Priebus told Flynn he had to resign.

[...]

The following day, Feb. 14, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came to the White House to visit Trump.

[...]



Toward the end of lunch, Trump asked Christie to call Comey and tell him the president “really” liked him, adding: “Tell him he’s part of the team.” Christie thought the suggestion was a bad idea and would put Comey in an uncomfortable position. He decided not to pass along the message.

At 4 p.m. that day, the president met with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Comey, his son-in-law Jared Kushner and other officials for a homeland security briefing in the Oval Office.

At the end, Trump asked to speak to Comey alone. Sessions and Kushner tried to stay, but the president excused them.

[...]



Comey [...] did not commit to “letting Flynn go” — which he saw as an inappropriate directive to end the investigation.

[...]

About a week later, Bannon and Priebus told McFarland that the president wanted her to resign as deputy national security adviser, but they suggested that she could be appointed ambassador to Singapore.

At Trump’s direction, Priebus asked McFarland to put in writing that Trump did not direct Flynn to talk to Kislyak. She refused, saying she did not know whether that was true. She consulted a White House lawyer for advice, who also urged her not to write the letter. He was concerned it could be seen as a quid pro quo for the ambassador position.

McFarland resigned her White House post as requested, but did not write the letter. Trump still nominated her for the ambassadorship, but she ultimately withdrew her name from consideration amid questions about her interactions with Flynn.
By that point, McFarland must have understood that any position in the Trump administration was going to be fraught with inappropriate and perhaps illegal quid pro quos and requests, but she stayed on, was shuffled out of the National Security position and was nominated by Trump as Ambassador to Singapre in May of 2017. McConnell was smart enough not to bring her nomination to a vote (begging the question: what did McConnell know, and when did he know it?). McFarland withdrew her name from nomination on February 2, 2018.
On March 31, the news broke that Flynn was offering to cooperate with congressional investigators. In exchange, he wanted immunity.

[...]

Around that time, Trump asked McFarland to pass a message to Flynn.

The president felt bad for Flynn, Trump told McFarland. He should stay strong.

Chapter 2: The president fires the FBI director
As FBI Director James B. Comey prepared to testify to Congress in May, Trump saw an opening: The president told his advisers that he wanted Comey to state publicly that Trump was not a subject of the investigation, as the FBI director had previously told him in private. If Comey did not make such a statement, Trump said, it would be the last straw for the director.

[...]

In his May 3 testimony, [Comey] confirmed that the FBI was investigating Russia and the 2016 election [and] under questioning from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), he refused to rule out that the president was under scrutiny as part of the case.

[...]

Later that day, Trump met with White House Counsel Donald McGahn, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Sessions’s chief of staff, Jody Hunt. McGahn told Trump that Comey had declined to answer questions about whether Trump was under investigation. The president grew angry and blamed his attorney general, who had removed himself from overseeing the probe because he and other Justice Department officials believed his role in Trump’s campaign could be a conflict of interest.



[...]

Sessions told the president that he had no choice. If Trump wanted a fresh start at the FBI, Sessions said, he should consider replacing Comey.

[...]

That Friday night, Trump dined at his golf course in Bedminster, N.J., with son-in-law Jared Kushner, adviser Stephen Miller and other aides and family members.

The president told them he wanted to remove Comey and had ideas about how to announce the decision in a letter. Trump began dictating as Miller took notes.

Based on those notes and further input from Trump, Miller prepared a letter that weekend firing Comey. To avoid leaks, the president was adamant that no one at the White House be told of the plan. He made it clear he wanted the letter to begin by stressing he was not under investigation.



Some of Trump’s aides were concerned. [...] If it appeared Trump was dismissing Comey because of the Russia investigation, it could look like he was trying to meddle with the probe.

McGahn tried to stall. He noted that Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein had also expressed displeasure with the FBI director and would visit the White House later that day. Shouldn’t Trump consult the two Justice Department officials, who were Comey’s supervisors, before moving forward?

At 5 p.m., Trump and several White House officials met with Sessions and Rosenstein. The president said he had watched Comey’s testimony. Something was “not right” with the FBI director. Trump told them Comey should be removed and asked Sessions and Rosenstein what they thought.

Sessions noted that he had previously recommended that Comey be replaced.

Rosenstein said he had concerns with how Comey handled the Clinton email investigation.

Trump distributed copies of the letter he had drafted. McGahn suggested Comey be allowed to resign, but Trump was adamant: He needed to be fired.

Trump asked Rosenstein to draft a memo recommending Comey’s removal; he wanted it first thing in the morning.

Rosenstein said that he did not think the Russia investigation should be mentioned because it was not the basis of his recommendation. Trump said he would appreciate him including it anyway.

[...]

The next morning, May 9, [a letter from Sessions was] delivered to the White House [...] recommending Comey’s removal and a memo from Rosenstein titled “Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI.” The memo argued that Comey had made “serious mistakes” in the handling of the Clinton matter and was unlikely to change his ways.

[...]

[Trump] decided to present Comey’s firing as the result of a recommendation by the department.

[...]

In her daily notes, McGahn’s chief of staff, Annie Donaldson, described a fear that the handling of Comey’s firing could lead to the end of Trump’s presidency.



[...]

Trump asked Miller to draft a new cover letter, but insisted it still have language noting that Comey told the president he was not under investigation in the Russia probe. McGahn and Priebus objected, but Trump insisted.

[...]

Comey learned of his firing while meeting with FBI staff members in Los Angeles. Suddenly, the words “Comey resigns” were stripped across TV screens on the back wall of the room, stopping the FBI director mid-sentence. He initially thought it was a prank.

Then the TV chyrons changed. They read: “Comey Fired.”

[...]

The story exploded. Trump’s critics accused him of trying to hinder the Russia probe, and even his allies seemed worried. Watching the wall-to-wall coverage in the hours after he fired Comey, the president grew unhappy.

Trump called New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and told Christie that he was getting “killed” in the press. What should he do?

Christie encouraged Trump to draft Rosenstein to defend his decision.

That same night, the White House press office called the Justice Department: It wanted to put out a statement saying it was Rosenstein’s idea to fire Comey. Rosenstein told his colleagues that he didn’t want to be involved in putting out a “false story.”

Trump then called Rosenstein directly and said he was watching Fox News. The coverage had been great, he said, but he wanted Rosenstein to do a news conference.

Rosenstein said that would be a bad move. If asked, he said, he would tell the truth: that firing the FBI director had not been his idea.

But the White House pushed ahead. Press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters gathered in the White House driveway that night that the decision to fire Comey had come from Rosenstein.

Privately, Trump told a different story the next day, May 10, when he met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the Oval Office.



The president also told the Russian officials he wasn’t concerned about Moscow’s interference in the 2016 campaign. The United States does the same in other countries, Trump said.

Later that morning, Trump called Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. With Comey gone, McCabe was in charge. Trump told him that he had received “hundreds” of messages from FBI employees supporting his decision to fire Comey.

In a meeting at the White House that afternoon, Trump told McCabe that at least 80 percent of the FBI had voted for him in 2016. Then he asked a strange question: Whom had McCabe voted for in the election?

McCabe was stunned. FBI directors are supposed to be nonpartisan. He dodged the question, responding that he always played it right down the middle.

[...]

It wasn’t true. [Press Secretary Sarah] Sanders would later tell the special counsel’s office that the statements about rank-and-file FBI agents losing confidence in Comey were made “in the heat of the moment” and were not based on fact.

Sessions and Rosenstein each spoke to McGahn and expressed concern that the White House was promoting a false narrative that Rosenstein had initiated Comey’s firing.

[...]

They decided to work with the press office to get out a correct account.

Before they could, however, the president himself explained his real reasons for firing Comey. The next day, in a May 11 interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, Trump said he had the Russia investigation in mind.

[...]

Meanwhile, the New York Times broke the news that Trump had tried to get Comey to pledge him his loyalty.

Now it looked like the president might have fired the FBI director because he rebuffed Trump’s efforts to control the investigation.

Trump, again, was furious.

And by now, Comey's response is famous: "Lordy, I hope there are tapes."

Chapter 3: Mueller's arrival pushes Trump to the brink
Days later, the Russia investigation took a new and more dire turn for the president.

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who had been in charge of the probe since Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, was unnerved by how the president pushed out Comey, and the criticism he and the Justice Department faced in the aftermath. He decided to appoint a special counsel [Robert S. Mueller III, a former FBI director who had served presidents of both parties and was widely respected on both sides of the aisle] to take over the investigation – putting it at arm’s length from the Justice Department and Trump’s control.

[...]

Trump immediately understood the threat posed by a special counsel.

“Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked.”

“How could you let this happen, Jeff?”

“You were supposed to protect me.”

“Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.”

Trump told Sessions he should resign as attorney general. Sessions agreed to submit his resignation, leaving a seething president in the Oval Office.

[...]

[I]nstead of accepting [Sessions'] resignation, Trump asked his attorney general several times whether he wanted to leave his job.

Sessions said he preferred to remain, but that the decision was up to the president. Trump said he wanted the attorney general to stay on.

But the president did not return Sessions’s resignation letter.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and senior adviser Stephen K. Bannon learned that Trump had kept Sessions’s letter. They grew worried the president could use it as leverage over the Justice Department.

Priebus told Sessions that the letter was a “shock collar” that Trump could use whenever he wanted.

Trump has “DOJ by the throat.”

Priebus and Bannon agreed they would try to get the letter back from the president.The following day, Trump left for the Middle East.

Aboard Air Force One, the president took Sessions’s letter out of his pocket and showed it to adviser Hope Hicks and other senior aides, asking what he should do about it.

Later during the trip, Priebus asked the president for the letter so he could return it to Sessions. Trump told his chief of staff that he didn’t have it. Trump said the letter was back at the White House, somewhere in the residence.
Bizarre. He'd told Sessions he wanted him to stay. He was obviously plotting something.
Finally, three days after returning from the Middle East, Trump gave the letter back to Sessions.

Trump had written across the paper: “Not accepted.”

The president continued to stew about Mueller’s appointment. He repeatedly told aides that the new special counsel had conflicts of interest. Trump noted that attorneys at Mueller’s former law firm had represented Trump associates. And he cited the fact that, six years earlier, Mueller tried to get a refund when his family resigned its membership at a Trump golf course in Northern Virginia.

[...]

Bannon and other Trump advisers pushed back, saying the issues he was raising were not serious.

[...]

Trump urged McGahn to complain to Rosenstein about Mueller’s possible conflicts. McGahn refused, saying Trump could take up the matter with the president’s personal attorney — but advised him against doing so.

McGahn told the president that pushing out the special counsel could be seen as obstruction. And Trump was already at risk because of his request to Comey to lay off national security adviser Michael Flynn, McGahn told him.

[...]

A few days later, Christopher Ruddy, Trump’s friend and Newsmax Media’s chief executive, met at the White House with Bannon and Priebus.

They told him they were worried that the president was strongly considering firing Mueller — and could do so abruptly. Ruddy asked if he could talk about the issue publicly, and Priebus agreed.

[Ruddy reported publicly,] “Well, I think he’s considering perhaps terminating the special counsel. I mean, Robert Mueller, there are some real conflicts.”

Ruddy’s comments drew extensive news coverage. In response, Trump told spokeswoman Sarah Sanders to release a statement saying that while he had the power to fire Mueller, he had “no intention to do so.”

But privately, the next day, a personal attorney for Trump reached out to Mueller’s office and expressed concerns that the special counsel had conflicts of interest, according to the prosecutors’ internal notes. (A Trump lawyer would later deny that Mueller’s possible conflicts were discussed.)

The president’s pressure did not work.

[...]

On June 14, The Washington Post broke a bombshell story.

In “a major turning point,” The Post reported, the special counsel was investigating the president himself for possible obstruction of justice.

What Trump had feared most had come to pass: His own actions were under scrutiny.

[...]

Trump’s anger continued unabated the following day.

This was it. Mueller had to go, the president had decided.

On Saturday, June 17, Trump traveled to the presidential retreat at Camp David.

From there, he called McGahn at home and directed him to have the special counsel removed.

“You gotta do this. You gotta call Rod.”

“Call Rod, tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can’t be the special counsel.”

“Mueller has to go.”

“Call me back when you do it.”

[...]

To get Trump off the phone, [McGahn] left him with the impression he would call Rosenstein. But he had no intention of doing so.

The White House counsel felt trapped. He didn’t know what he would say if the president called again.

He decided he had to resign.

McGahn called his personal attorney, William Burck, to tell him of his difficult decision. He also told his chief of staff, Annie Donaldson.

To try to keep her out of the investigation, McGahn did not want to tell Donaldson exactly what Trump had asked of him. But he said that the president had asked him to call the Justice Department and do something he did not want to do. In one call, he told her, Trump asked him, “Have you done it?”

Donaldson guessed that Trump’s request had something to do with Russia. She decided to resign along with her boss.

That evening, McGahn called Bannon and Priebus and told them he planned to quit.

The president asked me to “do crazy shit.”

Bannon and Priebus urged him to reconsider.

McGahn thought about his options. By Monday, he had decided to try to stick it out and returned to work.

When McGahn saw Trump, the president did not mention his order to get rid of Mueller. And McGahn did not tell the president that he had planned to resign rather than comply.

The crisis had passed — but only for the moment.
Chapter 4:  Trump turns to a loyal ally for help
On June 19, Trump met alone in the Oval Office with his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski.

After some small talk, Trump turned the conversation to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He told Lewandowski that Sessions was weak. The president said Sessions should not have recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation, a decision the attorney general had announced a few months earlier.

“Write this down.”

Trump said he never would have appointed Sessions if he’d known he would take that step. The president then told his former campaign manager to deliver a message to Sessions: The attorney general should give a speech. Trump dictated what it should say.

“I know that I recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas. But our POTUS . . . is being treated very unfairly. He shouldn’t have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel b/c he hasn’t done anything wrong. I was on the campaign w/him for nine months, there were no Russians involved with him. I know it for a fact b/c I was there. He didn’t do anything wrong except he ran the greatest campaign in American history.”

Trump wanted Sessions to limit Mueller’s investigation to examining only future election interference — a move that would prevent the special counsel from scrutinizing the president’s 2016 campaign.

[...]

Trump told Lewandowski that it would be good for Sessions if he gave such a speech.

Sessions would be the “most popular guy in the country.”

[...]

The request was extraordinary. The president wanted his attorney general to interfere in an investigation — one examining Trump’s own conduct and that of his campaign.

Lewandowski decided he wanted to give Sessions the message in person, but he didn’t want to meet at the Justice Department. That was Sessions’s home turf and would give the attorney general an advantage. Lewandowski also didn’t want to sign in to enter the government building, which would leave a record of his meeting.

He called Sessions and the two men agreed to meet the following evening at Lewandowki’s office.

At the last minute, Sessions canceled the meeting.
Old Jeff is not quite as stupid as he looks (and acts).
Lewandowski knew the notes he had taken in the Oval Office were sensitive. He placed them in a safe at his home [and] called Rick Dearborn, a senior White House official, and asked if he could pass a message to the attorney general. Lewandowski figured the message would be better coming from Dearborn, who had been Sessions’s chief of staff and — unlike Lewandowski — worked in the White House. Dearborn agreed — without knowing what the message said. He planned to give it to Sessions at a dinner in late July.

On July 19, Lewandowski was back at the White House. The Russia investigation was heating up.

[...]

As he walked into the Oval Office, Lewandowski handed the speech that Trump had written for Sessions to Hope Hicks, a top communications adviser. He asked her to type it up while he met with the president.

Trump asked Lewandowski if he had spoken to Sessions. Lewandowski promised he would deliver the message soon.

The president told his former campaign manager that if Sessions did not meet with him, Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired.

It was an odd request for Lewandowksi. He was not the attorney general’s boss. He didn’t even work for the government.

Leaving the meeting, Lewandowski ran into Dearborn in the anteroom of the Oval Office and gave him the notes that Hicks had typed.

Lewandowksi explained this was the message for Sessions they had discussed.

Dearborn was wary and did not feel comfortable carrying a message to Sessions. He decided he didn’t want to know any more and threw away the notes without ever speaking to the attorney general.

Dearborn told Lewandowski he had handled the situation.
In case it hasn't been obvious, the Trump administration has been a total mess since the beginning.
Lewandowski would later be asked about the episode on Capitol Hill. “I didn’t think at the time that the president asked me to deliver a message that anything was illegal about it. I didn’t have the privilege to go to Harvard Law. So if you’re telling me that in your opinion, that would have been illegal, then that’s your opinion to it. But I never assumed that, never thought about it at the time and I haven’t thought about it now,” he told members of Congress in September 2019.

[...]

[Trump] brought up the topic in an impromptu interview with three New York Times reporters.

“Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job, and I would have picked somebody else.”

[...]

Hicks was deeply worried about the president’s critical comments about Sessions, which immediately spurred public questions about whether he was trying to bully his attorney general into interfering with the Russia investigation. But later that day, Trump called her to say how happy he was with the coverage.
That's what he said to Rosenstein about the coverage over firing Comey after having fumed about it.

He's nuts.
Three days later, on July 21, The Washington Post reported that Sessions had discussed campaign-related matters with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the 2016 presidential race, contrary to what Sessions had said publicly.

The focus on his interactions with Kislyak made the embattled attorney general even more vulnerable.
So, both Flynn and Sessions had gone to Kislyak inappropriately before Trump was president.
That evening, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus called Sessions’s chief of staff, Jody Hunt, to talk about whether Sessions might be fired or resign.

Hunt told him that Sessions had no intention of resigning — and noted that even if Trump fired Sessions, the special counsel investigation would continue.

The next day was Saturday. Aboard Marine One bound for Norfolk, Va., that morning, Trump told Priebus that the country had lost confidence in Sessions and the negative publicity surrounding the attorney general was intolerable. The president wanted Sessions out.

Priebus warned the president that if he fired Sessions, they would never get another attorney general confirmed by Congress. But Trump suggested he could appoint a replacement without congressional approval. He wanted it done.

Priebus thought Trump’s order was a problem. He called White House Counsel Donald McGahn for advice.

McGahn told Priebus he should not follow the order.

The two men discussed possibly resigning together rather than carry out the president’s demand to fire the attorney general.
You might think they would have realized by this time that the entire Trump presidency was going to be one big legal risk and take the opportunity to quit while they were ahead - or still had heads.
That afternoon, Trump met with Priebus again and pressed him for Sessions’s resignation.

“Did you get it? Are you working on it?”

Priebus believed his own job depended on securing Sessions’s resignation. He told the president he would get Sessions to step down, even though he did not plan on following the directive.

Later that day, Priebus called the president and told him that firing Sessions would be a calamity.

Other Justice Department officials would also resign, he told Trump. Trump would not be able to get anyone else confirmed.

[...]

Trump had backed down and allowed the attorney general to remain in his job. But he kept up the pressure on Sessions in a series of tweets.

For the second time, Sessions prepared a resignation letter.

For the rest of the year, he carried it in his pocket every time he visited the White House — just in case.
Chapter 5: "Maybe I'll have to get rid of him"

In January of 2017, both the New York Times and the Washington Post had printed stories that Trump had ordered Don McGahn to get Sessions to fire Mueller.
The news stories were a problem: They indicated that if not for the reluctance of one of his top advisers, the president would have fired the special counsel – a move that would have been seen as an attempt to impede the investigation.

Publicly, the president denied he had called for Mueller’s firing.

“Fake news, folks. Fake news.”

Privately, Trump began an aggressive campaign to get McGahn to dispute the reports.

The next day, Trump’s personal lawyer John Dowd called William Burck, McGahn’s attorney, and told him that the president wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying he had been asked to fire the special counsel.

[...]

McGahn would not put out a statement.

Trump also asked press secretary Sarah Sanders to contact McGahn about the story. McGahn repeated to Sanders that the thrust of the story was accurate.

Trump knew the special counsel was already focused on whether the president was trying to block the inquiry. Trump also knew Mueller was interviewing White House staffers like McGahn. Pressing a key witness to change his story could look like an attempt to tamper with the investigation once again. But the president wouldn’t let it go.

In early February, Trump complained to White House staff secretary Rob Porter that he had never tried to fire Mueller and that McGahn had leaked the information to make himself look good.

It’s “bullshit.”

The president then gave Porter a job: He needed to get McGahn to write a letter “for our records” stating that the president never directed him to fire Mueller. The letter would prove the reporting was inaccurate, Trump said.

McGahn is a “lying bastard.”

“If he doesn’t write a letter, then maybe I’ll have to get rid of him.”

Later that day, Porter delivered the message to McGahn. But the White House counsel refused to write the letter Trump wanted.

[...]

Porter said the president might fire him if he didn’t write the letter. McGahn dismissed the threat.

[...]

On Feb. 6, 2018, McGahn was set to meet with the president and Chief of Staff John F. Kelly in the Oval Office to discuss the story. Trump’s advisers fretted about what could happen if the president kept pushing McGahn to change his account.

[...]

The president began the meeting by complaining about the New York Times story.

“I never said to fire Mueller. I never said ‘fire.’ This story doesn’t look good. You need to correct this. You’re the White House counsel.”

McGahn responded that while he had not told the president directly that he planned to resign, the New York Times story was otherwise accurate.

Trump

“Did I say the word ‘fire’?”

McGahn

“What you said is, ‘Call Rod, tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can’t be the special counsel.’”

Trump

“I never said that.”

Trump insisted that he had just wanted McGahn to raise the issue of Mueller’s conflicts of interest with Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and let him decide what to do.

McGahn said he heard it differently — that the president said: “Call Rod. There are conflicts. Mueller has to go.”

Will you “do a correction?”

McGahn said no.

Trump asked McGahn why he told the special counsel’s office about the incident.

[...]

He was the White House counsel, not the president’s personal lawyer, so their conversations were not protected by attorney-client privilege, [McGahn] explained. That meant that when federal investigators asked McGahn about it, he was required by law to answer truthfully.

Then Trump asked why McGahn took notes in meetings, creating a record of what went on in the White House that Mueller could review.

Trump

“What about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don’t take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes.”

McGahn

I’m a “real lawyer.”
Ouch.
After the meeting, Kelly and McGahn talked separately.

McGahn told Kelly that he and Trump “did have that conversation” about removing Mueller. Kelly responded that he had pointed out to the president that McGahn was not backing down.

Trump had pushed and pushed, but he wasn’t able to get McGahn to retract his account. Stymied, the president gave up.

His personal attorney, Dowd, called McGahn’s lawyer, Burck, with a new message: Trump was “fine” with McGahn.
Chapter 6: The president goes after Mueller's witnesses
[S]pecial counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his team of prosecutors moved forward. Beginning in 2017, they quickly uncovered possible crimes committed by several of Trump’s advisers, including some acts unrelated to the 2016 campaign.

With his own associates in jeopardy, the president blasted those who cooperated with Mueller and left open the possibility of pardons for those who did not.

[...]

The first to feel the pressure was former national security adviser Michael Flynn. When Flynn was forced to step down in February 2017 after lying about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, Trump publicly offered warm remarks about the retired general.

[...]

Nine months later, Flynn began cooperating with the special counsel’s office. On Nov. 22, 2017, Flynn’s attorney informed the president’s lawyers that Flynn was withdrawing from an agreement to share information with the president’s legal team. It was a sign that Flynn was switching sides and planned to help Mueller.

That night, Trump’s lawyer John Dowd left a voicemail for Robert Kelner, an attorney for Flynn.

“Maybe, I — I’m sympathetic. I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t state it in starker terms. If you have — and it wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with, work with the government — I understand that you can’t join the joint defense; so that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, there’s information that implicates the president, then we’ve got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don’t know — some issue that we’ve got to deal with, not only for the president but for the country. So, uh, you know, then we need some kind of heads-up — just for the sake of protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any confidential information. So, and if it’s the former, then, well, remember what we’ve always said about the president and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains. Well, in any event, let me know, and I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, pal.”

[...]

Dowd later said the special counsel did not provide the full context of his message in his report and changed “the tenor and the contents” of what he said.
Sure. Because that's what they would do, rather than offer the transcription of the phone call.
The next day, Flynn’s attorneys returned the call. They repeated that they could no longer have confidential communications with the president’s team. Dowd was indignant. He told Flynn’s lawyers that he planned to tell the president Flynn was now hostile toward him.

[...]

Trump expressed sympathy for Flynn. The president suggested he hadn’t ruled out using the powers of his office to pardon him.

[...]

In the days that followed, the president left the door open to a possible Flynn pardon.

“I don’t want to talk about pardons for Michael Flynn yet. We’ll see what happens. Let’s see. I can say this: When you look at what’s gone on with the FBI and with the Justice Department, people are very, very angry.”
A reminder: Flynn has still not been sentenced.
Meanwhile, the president had two other former aides to worry about. Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, were charged in October 2017 with conspiracy to defraud the United States and other crimes related to their work as political consultants in Ukraine before joining Trump’s campaign.

A few months after they were indicted, Manafort told Gates that he had spoken to the president’s personal lawyer. It would be stupid to plead guilty, Manafort said.

“We’ll be taken care of.”

“Sit tight.”

Gates asked Manafort whether anyone had specifically mentioned that the two would be pardoned. Manafort responded that no one had used that word.
Gates is obviously no dummy. He recognized the vagueness of the "taken care of" statement.
On Feb. 22, 2018, additional charges were filed against Manafort and Gates in Virginia. The next day, Gates pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

[...]

[Trump]
He never liked Manafort. Ha! I guess "hardly knew him" wasn't going to fly here.
In June 2018, prosecutors accused Manafort of trying to tamper with witnesses in his case. They asked a judge to revoke his bail and send him to jail while he awaited trial. On the day of a hearing in the matter, Trump spoke publicly about the case.

Trump was asked if he was considering a pardon for Manafort. He demurred — but did not rule it out.

“I feel badly about a lot of them because I think a lot of it is very unfair. I mean, I look at some of them where they go back 12 years. Like Manafort has nothing to do with our campaign.”
I take back that "hardly knew him" statement. Trump is literally saying his first campaign chairman had nothing to do with the campaign.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of Washington agreed with prosecutors, revoking Manafort’s bail and ordering him to jail while he waited for his trial.

In interviews, Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani seemed to reassure Manafort that Trump was on his side. While the president shouldn’t issue any pardons during an ongoing investigation, he said, Trump might pardon Manafort at some point in the future.

“When it’s over, hey, he’s the president of the United States. He retains his pardon power. Nobody is taking that away from him.”
Impeachment could. I wonder how many of his cronies who are holding out for that pardon might start singing once Trump is impeached, which at this writing, is coming up likely by the end of the month.
But nothing, it appeared, got [Trump] as worked up as the investigation of Michael Cohen, his longtime personal counsel. Cohen had been at his side for more than a decade and was intimately familiar with Trump’s personal and financial dealings. In 2016, the lawyer had led failed negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow — an effort that persisted through much of the campaign, even as Trump said he had no business interests in Russia.

[...]

In a May 18, 2017, meeting, Trump told Cohen to cooperate with Congress. Cohen entered into an agreement to share information with the president’s legal team and began to speak frequently with them. At the same time, Cohen’s legal bills were being paid by the Trump Organization.

Cohen later recalled that one of Trump’s attorneys, Jay Sekulow, told him that he would be protected as part of the group, but he would not be if he “went rogue.”

“The president loves you.”

Cohen recalled that he was told that if he stayed on message, the president would have his back. Sekulow has denied Cohen’s account of their conversations, calling Cohen a liar whose “instinct to blame others is strong.”

Cohen spent 10 days in August 2017 drafting his statement for Congress. Phone records show that he and Sekulow spoke nearly every day.

[...]

In late October, Cohen testified to lawmakers behind closed doors. Cohen later admitted his testimony included key falsehoods about the negotiations for the Moscow Trump Tower and how long they lasted.

Cohen said later that he was adhering to a “party line” designed to obscure Trump’s ties to Russia and that his statement was reviewed by the president’s lawyers before its submission.

[...]

The pressure on Cohen soon escalated dramatically. On April 9, 2018, FBI agents investigating his finances and the payment to [Stormy] Daniels, among other issues, raided his home, hotel room and office in New York.

Trump was enraged.

“So, I just heard that they broke into the office of one of my personal attorneys — a good man.”

“It’s an attack on our country, in a true sense. It’s an attack on what we all stand for.”

A few days later, Trump called Cohen to check in and ask whether Cohen was okay.

“Hang in there.”

“Stay strong.”

But after the raid, the New York Times reported that Cohen felt isolated and could turn on the president.

Outraged, Trump insisted that would never happen.

[...]

Cohen decided he should stay on message, believing if he did so, Trump would protect him.

Several weeks later, Trump was asked if he might pardon Cohen or Manafort.

“It’s far too early to be thinking about that. They haven’t been convicted of anything. There’s nothing to pardon.”

As Cohen’s legal woes intensified, the president’s words were not enough.
He knew Trump very well.
On July 2, he publicly turned on his longtime boss. Cohen told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that he would cooperate with the government and that he had hired a new lawyer.

[...]

Aug. 21, 2018, was a grim day for the president. A jury in Washington found Manafort guilty on eight felony counts — increasing the pressure on him to cooperate with Mueller in the hopes of getting a reduced sentence.

Minutes later, in Manhattan, Cohen pleaded guilty to bank and tax fraud, as well as campaign finance violations related to hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and another woman.

Cohen implicated Trump directly, telling the judge he committed the campaign finance violations “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office.” He agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

Trump immediately began contrasting Cohen, who was assisting the government, with Manafort, who was proving more difficult for prosecutors.

[...]

Days later, Giuliani told The Washington Post that Trump had asked his lawyers about pardoning Manafort. Trump was advised against considering a pardon — but not necessarily forever, Giuliani said. The president was told he should put the idea on hold until the investigation had ended.
The investigation ended months ago, and Trump has still not pardoned Manafort.
Mueller would ultimately indict or convict six Trump associates for a wide variety of crimes — though none were charged with conspiring with Russia to interfere in the 2016 campaign.

Along with Cohen, there was former Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, who served 12 days in prison for lying to the FBI. Manafort was sentenced to 7½ years in prison. Longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone was convicted of lying, obstruction and witness tampering. Gates, who had assisted the government, was still awaiting his sentencing as the end of 2019 approached.

[...]

As for the president himself, the special counsel stopped short of declaring whether he had broken the law.

“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,” Mueller wrote, “it also does not exonerate him.”




Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Who leaked this addendum



And I want to know why they were willing to risk their reputations and possible legal repercussions to do it.  Are they really just completely without integrity?  Or is there something they need to hide at all cost?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.










LOL.  If only Mueller had actually said that.





UPDATE:




After several false starts, Rod Rosenstein finally manages to resign

In a letter to Trump, Rosenstein echoed two of Trump's signature phrases on Monday, writing that he helped staff the department with officials "devoted to the values that make America great" and adding that "we always put America first".

According to the letter, he will leave his post on May 11.

[...]

In February, Trump nominated former litigator Jeffrey Rosen to replace Rosenstein, who had often been the subject of the president's ire.

[...]

"Our nation is safer, our elections are more secure, and our citizens are better informed about covert foreign influence efforts," his resignation letter said.

In it he thanked the president for "the opportunity to serve" and said the Department of Justice "bears a special responsibility to avoid partisanship".

  alJazeera
Really, Rod? So what happened?
"We enforce the law without fear or favor because credible evidence is not partisan, and truth is not determined by opinion polls. We ignore fleeting distractions ... because a republic that endures is not governed by the news cycle."
Wishful thinking or just lying?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:



Pathetic, Rod.  Pathetic.



Friday, April 26, 2019

Rod Rosenstein seals his legacy - Part 2

Part 1
Right at the bell on Friday, the Washington Post provided the definitive answer to the question that had been plaguing the nation. To wit:

Rod Rosenstein: Inanimate Lump of Play-Doh or Careerist Poltroon?

(Pro Tip: Both.)

It is impossible to come out of a newspaper story worse than Rosenstein does here. He is now marked as some weird hybrid of L. Patrick Gray and Uriah Heep, with a dollop of Ottoman eunuch in there somewhere. Gaze in awe.

  Charles P Pierce
The New York Times had just reported that — in the heated days after James B. Comey was fired as FBI director — the deputy attorney general had suggested wearing a wire to surreptitiously record President Trump. Now Trump, traveling in New York, was on the phone, eager for an explanation.

Rosenstein — who, by one account, had gotten teary-eyed just before the call in a meeting with Trump’s chief of staff — sought to defuse the volatile situation and assure the president he was on his team, according to people familiar with matter. He criticized the Times report, published in late September, and blamed it on former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, whose recollections formed its basis.

  WaPo
I wonder if that was the beginning of Trump's hatefulness toward McCabe.
Then he talked about special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and told the president he would make sure Trump was treated fairly.

[...]

“I can land the plane.”
Hm?
To keep his job, the deputy attorney general has worked to mollify an often angry Trump, while at the same time protecting the special counsel’s investigation of the president and his campaign.

[...]

In a statement for this article, Rosenstein said: “The only commitment I made to President Trump about the Russia investigation is the same commitment I made to the Congress: so long as I was in charge, it would be conducted appropriately and as expeditiously as possible. Everyone who actually participated in the investigation knows that.”

[...]

“My relationship with the President is not one-dimensional. The Russia investigation represents only a fraction of my work and the work of the Department of Justice. I talk with the President at every opportunity about the great progress we have made and are making at the Department of Justice in achieving the Administration’s law enforcement priorities and protecting American citizens.”

[...]

“One silly question that I get from reporters is, ‘Is it true that you got angry and emotional a few times over the past few years?’ Heck yes! Didn’t you?” Rosenstein said, deviating from his prepared script [in a speech in New York last night].

[...]

[T]he president has been further swayed by Rosenstein’s deference in meetings and other settings.

On multiple occasions, according to people familiar with the matter, Rosenstein told Trump he was not a “target” of Mueller’s investigation — using law enforcement jargon that can refer to people about whom the Justice Department has gathered substantial evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Mueller’s report makes clear that investigators focused on Trump; his attorneys were informed he was a “subject,” a different bureaucratic term meaning his conduct was being investigated.

[...]

Rosenstein also told the president more than once that he agreed Trump was being treated unfairly — though one person familiar with the matter said Rosenstein was probably referring to media coverage rather than the investigation itself.

[...]

In his speech Thursday, Rosenstein launched a blistering attack on the media, an offensive likely to hearten Trump.

“Some of the nonsense that passes for breaking news today would not be worth the paper it was printed on, if anybody bothered to print it,” he said.

He also criticized the Obama administration for not publicizing the “full story” about Russian hacking and social media influence operations and cited a quote from Trump to make a point about the rule of law.

[...]

At the end of Mueller’s probe, though, Rosenstein might have been able to avoid some punches, since the ultimate decisions would be up to Attorney General William P. Barr.

Instead, he leaned in.

In rare public comments in recent weeks, Rosenstein has lauded Barr to Time magazine and derided as “bizarre” allegations that Barr was trying to mislead the public about Mueller’s work by glossing over the most serious findings about Trump’s behavior, as Democrats have argued.

[...]

Defenders of the special counsel’s probe had long viewed Rosenstein as one of the last bastions guarding the investigation. But Barr’s comments, in their view, misrepresented Mueller’s full report and seemed designed to protect the president. And Rosenstein was at least willing to go along with them.

Former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuade, who served with Rosenstein when he was a U.S. attorney in the Obama administration, said she considered Rosenstein “honorable.” But she said she was mystified that he would sign on to Barr’s decision that there was not a prosecutable obstruction case against Trump when Mueller pointedly would not say that.

“His name is included in the letter, and he stood by his side at the press conference, so somehow he got on board with that decision,” McQuade said. “It seems really strange to me.”

[...]

“I think Rod’s intentions were largely in the right place, but he was weak too many times when the country needed him to be strong,” said Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman during the Obama administration. “He didn’t have to allow the attorney general to use his name in his letter and the press conference, but he has too often been willing to sacrifice his reputation to please people above him.”

[...]

Trump was already incensed at Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia case, and he would soon turn his ire on the deputy attorney general — deriding him as a “Democrat from Baltimore.” Rosenstein had been the U.S. attorney in Maryland during the Obama administration, but he is a Republican and lives in Bethesda, Md., a suburb of Washington.

Conservative allies of the president, led by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), pushed Rosenstein to turn over information on the Russia investigation and last April drafted articles of impeachment against him. Meadows and others also privately complained to Trump about his deputy attorney general.

[...]

For his part, Rosenstein publicly fought back, declaring at an event last May that the Justice Department was “not going to be extorted.”

But while he was sparring with Trump’s allies, the deputy attorney general was also maintaining the kind of workplace diplomacy that wins bosses’ favor. He frequently called and wrote letters to White House aides when they were in the news, or when they celebrated their birthday, people familiar with the matter said. He was recently spotted hugging the president’s personal assistant and other aides at the annual Gridiron Club dinner, and on Monday he was photographed at the White House Easter Egg Roll, waiting in line to greet one of the president’s closest advisers, Kellyanne Conway.
Sucking up.
Rosenstein's credibility, such as it ever was, is now completely in tatters. I suspect that his future includes many appearances before many House committees and perhaps, as my pal, Bill Livingston, the Commodore of the Cuyahoga, once put it, riding every ride at Depositionland. The credibility of the Department of Justice is in even worse shape. We're very likely to hear more and more about Rosenstein's relationship with Robert Mueller and his prosecutors, and I suspect that will not be pretty. At least now we know what accounts for Rosenstein's animatronic mien at William Barr's pre-Mueller press conference.

  Charles P Pierce
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Rod Rosenstein seals his legacy

Rosenstein’s speech [at the Public Servants Dinner of the Armenian Bar Association], probably one of his last as a senior Justice Department official, marked his first public comments since the release of the [Mueller] report, and he did not hold back in discussing his tumultuous two years as the No. 2 at the Justice Department. During that time, he was castigated by both Republicans and Democrats for a variety of decisions. In the speech, Rosenstein reflected on his time on the job, spoke positively of Trump’s commitment to the rule of law and criticized the press.

  WaPo
Trump's commitment to the rule of law? Why did they not laugh him out of the room? What is the Armenian Bar Association doing with Rosenstein as a speaker?  What is the Armenian Bar Association?
Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel in May 2017, and has overseen the investigation since. Now that Mueller’s work is over and Trump has nominated someone else to be the No. 2 official at the Justice Department, Rostenstein is expected to leave the job as early as next month.

[...]

“The bottom line is, there was overwhelming evidence that Russian operatives hacked American computers and defrauded American citizens, and that is only the tip of the iceberg of a comprehensive Russian strategy to influence elections, promote social discord, and undermine America, just like they do in many other countries,” Rosenstein said.

[...]

“I do not care how police officers, prosecutors and judges vote, just as I do not care how soldiers and sailors vote. That is none of my business. I only care whether they understand that when they are on duty, their job is about law and not politics,” said Rosenstein, who has worked at the Justice Department for decades.

“There is not Republican justice and Democrat justice. There is only justice and injustice,” he said.
And justice is not being served as long as Trump is in the White House and Barr is his AG.
“The rule of law is our most important principle,” Rosenstein said. “As President Trump pointed out, ‘We govern ourselves in accordance with the rule of law rather [than] … the whims of an elite few or the dictates of collective will.’ ”
What does Trump know about the rule of law, other than it pays to break it? Also, it seems to me "the dictates of collective will" should determine law in a democracy.
Rosenstein insisted the investigation had been conducted fairly and conscientiously, and that as a result, “our nation is safer, elections are more secure, and citizens are better informed about covert foreign influence schemes. But not everybody was happy with my decision, in case you did not notice.”

He denounced what he called “mercenary critics, who get paid to express passionate opinions about any topic, often with little or no information. They do not just express disagreement. They launch ad hominem attacks unrestricted by truth or morality. They make threats, spread fake stories and even attack your relatives.”
Jesus Christ, Rod. Have you met Donald Trump?
He also tried to joke off questions that emerged over his appearance last week at Barr’s press conference ahead of the release of the Mueller report, in which he appeared ashen-faced.

“Last week, the big topic of discussion was: ‘What were you thinking when you stood behind Bill Barr at that press conference, with a deadpan expression?’ The answer is: I was thinking, “My job is to stand here with a deadpan expression.’ ”

The audience applauded.

[...]

The evening’s other honoree was Robert Tembeckjian, administrator of New York State’s Commission on Judicial Conduct. Rosenstein chatted with the others at his table and checked his phone as Tembeckjian unleashed a steady stream of criticism against the administration’s immigration policies. The crowd applauded as Tembeckjian warned of the path to tyranny and celebrated his own family’s history as undocumented immigrants from Armenia.

Tembeckjian also earned some laughs at the president’s expense, after mentioning Rosenstein’s pending departure from government.

“I can tell by the absence of Secret Service,” he said, “that the person most eager to see him leave is not here tonight.”
UPDATE:
Right at the bell on Friday, the Washington Post provided the definitive answer to the question that had been plaguing the nation. To wit:

Rod Rosenstein: Inanimate Lump of Play-Doh or Careerist Poltroon?

(Pro Tip: Both.)

[...]

He is now marked as some weird hybrid of L. Patrick Gray and Uriah Heep, with a dollop of Ottoman eunuch in there somewhere. Gaze in awe.

  Charles P Pierce
Continued here.

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Rosenstein plants himself firmly in the Trump protectorate camp

Outgoing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Thursday defended Attorney General William Barr against allegations that he is misleading Congress and the public about the special counsel’s Russia report.

“He’s being as forthcoming as he can, and so this notion that he’s trying to mislead people, I think is just completely bizarre,” Rosenstein said in a rare interview with The Wall Street Journal.

[...]

Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller as special counsel on May 17, 2017 and oversaw the probe, said that Barr revealed as much information as he could. He also defended the review process taking place ahead of the release of the report.

[...]

“It would be one thing if you put out a letter and said, ‘I’m not going to give you the report,'” Rosenstein told The Journal.

“What he said is, ‘Look, it’s going to take a while to process the report. In the meantime, people really want to know what’s in it. I’m going to give you the top-line conclusions.’ That’s all he was trying to do.”

  Daily Caller
Sure, Rod. Sure. When exactly did you sell your soul?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Thursday, April 4, 2019

Rod Rosenstein is a conflicted and unreliable character

I think Rosenstein is lacking in character, as evidenced by his bending to the demands of the president to write a memo justifying the firing of James Comey on pretenses.  Then I wondered why he appointed Robert Mueller as a special counsel to investigate the firing of James Comey, among other things, assuming he was trying to mitigate the heat he took for that memo.  But maybe felt confident doing it because he knew the report would have to come back through the AG's office where he would have some control over it.  At any rate, nothing he's done since has changed my estimation of him.
It’s still unclear whether Rosenstein was ordered to write the memo, as McCabe has claimed, or volunteered to write it—he has said that he stands by it and believes what he wrote. But Rosenstein was distraught that his memo was being used as the justification for Comey’s firing, according to the Times, and reportedly considered wearing a wire in the Oval Office to record the president’s interviews with candidates to replace Comey. Rosenstein also discussed invoking the Twenty-Fifth Amendment against Trump to remove him from office, McCabe told The Atlantic, prompting Trump to tweet that Rosenstein and McCabe were planning a “very illegal act.” Rosenstein said in a statement last year that he never “pursued or authorized” recording the president, and that “any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the President is absolutely false.”

In any case, Rosenstein’s involvement in the conversations and events surrounding Comey’s firing made him a key witness in Mueller’s obstruction probe, experts say—and raised immediate and ongoing questions about whether Rosenstein should have continued overseeing the investigation. “It is very odd for someone to be supervising the investigation for which they are a witness, let alone a central witness to the underlying act,” Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham Law School, told The Atlantic in an interview.

“It compromises the conclusion that they did not find a criminal act, because it gets Rosenstein off the hook in several ways,” Shugerman added. “It means he’s not a witness anymore, and that he didn’t participate in criminal activity, because there was none.”

  The Atlantic
Why the lawyers at the DOJ did not recommend Rosenstein recuse himself from the probe from the start is beyond me. Maybe because Sessions was compromised and recused they didn't want to go any further down the line to find someone to oversee it. Or maybe they did and Rosenstein failed to follow their advice. I can't remember.
Daniel Hemel, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said, “The notion that Rosenstein’s involvement legitimizes the ‘no obstruction’ finding is an idea straight out of Alice in Wonderland. Adding a second conflicted decision maker to the process makes it worse, not better.” (The first “conflicted decision maker” Hemel was referring to is Barr, who wrote an unsolicited 19-page memo to the Justice Department last year, calling Mueller’s obstruction probe “fatally misconceived.” He was then appointed to oversee that probe by its main target—the president.)

[...]

Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney in Pennsylvania who also served as deputy assistant attorney general under former President Bill Clinton, said, “From the start, Rosenstein has obviously been a witness in the key episode—the Comey firing.” But the bigger question, Litman said, is whether Rosenstein “was enlisted to bolster a very anomalous move” by Barr—namely, his decision to clear Trump of obstruction, despite Mueller’s reluctance to do so.

[...]

Rosenstein was slated to leave the Justice Department in March, but will now stay on indefinitely, according to NBC. The hearings for his replacement, Jeffrey Rosen, are scheduled for later this month.
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Sunday, March 24, 2019

Trickle down reportage, and a travesty of justice

The letter raises many questions and is *not* the full report. But it does tell us many things that are very important. First, it sets forth the sheer amount of work that went into the Mueller investigation. He issued 2,800 subpoenas and interviewed 500 witnesses.
That is an amazing amount of work to complete in under two years, and it suggests that he thoroughly investigated these matters, even though there appear to be many remaining issues that he handed off to other components of the Justice Department.
For better or worse, the Mueller investigation has been wrongly turned into an exercise in whether "collusion" can be proved. 
But Mueller *did* reach a conclusion, and the letter from Barr purports to directly quote Mueller's report: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." 

In the words you've heard a jillion times in the past two years, "NO COLLUSION!"  Let the MAGAhead crowing and trashing begin.  Or continue.

Trump's allies are right to point to this conclusion by Mueller as a "victory," although I suspect that when lawmakers dig into the weeds underlying this conclusion, the evidence will appear less conclusive to a layperson than the overall conclusion suggests.
That's not unusual. When I was a federal prosecutor, at times I declined cases where there was a lot of evidence that appeared very troubling, simply because I lacked sufficient evidence to prove a key element beyond a reasonable doubt.
But one thing that prosecutors always do is reach a conclusion, one way or another. And that makes the other piece of Barr's letter very troubling and bizarre. He said that Mueller "did not draw a conclusion--one way or another" regarding whether Trump obstructed justice. 
According to Barr, Mueller said that there were "difficult issues" of law and fact surrounding obstruction of justice, which is why Mueller decided not to reach a conclusion. For what it's worth, I agree with Mueller that there are difficult issues of law and fact. 
For one thing, Trump's best defense to an obstruction of justice charge would be his own very complicated state of mind. I've long said it is likely Mueller *would* conclude Trump obstructed justice, because of Trump's many statements and actions.
But unlike Mueller, I have not seen the underlying evidence or listened to witnesses. And no one would dispute that Trump's state of mind is complicated. He may lie so much that it's hard to separate what he truly believes from what he does not believe.
The legal issues are also complex, because there has never been a case in which a president has obstructed justice by using his official functions. 
There is no question that lawmakers have a right to find out exactly what evidence Mueller gathered regarding obstruction of justice, and question him regarding his judgment and interpretation of that evidence. After all, obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. 
I expect no one will rely on Barr and Rosenstein's separate judgment that Trump did not obstruct justice. Barr's memo on the subject, written prior to joining the Trump Administration, reveals his bias on the subject. So expect a fight about obstruction of justice ahead.

I should hope so.








Barr's letter says "Special Counsel referred several matters to other offices for futher action.  The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public."

So, that's me disappointed in our government and justice system once again.

And, just so we can all still fight with each other over whether Trump is a criminal or not - at least in regards to obstruction of justice - Mueller passes the buck:




And, of course, Barr clears Trump.







And, beyond a reasonable doubt, reasonable people can see that in fact, Trump did intend to obstruct justice.  He fired Comey.  He asked Whitaker to get someone in the SDNY favorable to himself.  For two years he tweeted constant claims against the people investigating him.  Beyond coming right out and saying, "I'm trying to obstruct justice here," Trump could hardly have done anything more to prove his intent.


This is a complicated and problematic decision for both of them. Before he took office, Barr wrote a memo preemptively attacking the obstruction component of Mueller's investigation. Rosenstein was part of the conduct (firing Comey) that the investigation would have examined.
Both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, in other words, had highly compelling reasons to recuse themselves from making any decision about whether Trump obstructed justice. They made the decision anyway, and in a manner that appears to serve their own interests. 

And Jerry Nadler, to his credit, is not taking it sitting down.



And that needs to be a public hearing.

And impeachment proceedings need to be undertaken immediately.  As Trump feels exonerated, and knows his DOJ and GOP Senate have his back, he'll be doing even more autocratic and unconstitutional things as fast as he can think of them.

UPDATE:




Gee, Kevin, you know the guy.




UPDATE: