The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: rod rosenstein
Former Attorney General William Barr

Barr And Rosenstein Must Answer In Subpoena Scandal

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

When Donald Trump wanted to talk about the investigation being conducted into how his campaign colluded with Russian agents, he used a term that was meant to demean and delegitimize. He called it "spying." Trump also accused the Obama administration of "wiretapping" his offices, which—no matter what Trump says—was in no sense true. But as more information emerges about the efforts of the DOJ to chase down supposed intelligence leaks, it's hard to think of more appropriate terms. The Justice Department may not have been technically spying, and seeking to crack open metadata from cell phones isn't really wiretapping, but the DOJ was absolutely surveilling member of Congress and their families, including their minor children.

Unlike the investigation of Trump, which was begun because the intelligence community was presented with evidence that Trump's team was engaging in efforts to gain Russian assistance in altering the outcome of the election, the effort to obtain phone data from California Reps. Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff, as well as members of their families, seems to have been launched for no reason other than because Trump wanted it so. And, despite spending weeks finding no evidence, subpoenas were issued at least three times. Then the effort was revived months later and additional resources were added.

As might be expected, Republicans are already being dismissive about the whole affair, with multiple claims that investigating Congress over potential intelligence leaks is nothing new. However, attempting to obtain phone records of Congress members without their knowledge is certainly a new thing—much less trying to get the records of their spouses and children. It's clear that the DOJ went to extraordinary efforts to find something they could bring back to Trump as evidence that either Swalwell or Schiff had done something wrong.

But the most extraordinary thing about the whole sorry affair, may be the way that no one seems to be owning it. Former attorney general Jefferson Sessions says he didn't start it. Former attorney general Bill Barr says he didn't know about it. One of these men is absolutely lying. The other may be. But there's a third man who almost certainly was involved in both the beginning and the end of this effort to … sure, why not … to spy on the families of representatives. That man is former deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein.

As the story of the attempts by the DOJ to subpoena Apple into providing phone records of members of Congress unfolded on Friday, Sens. Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin demanded that both Sessions and Barr appear in public testimony before Congress and explain the extent of the leak investigations.

However, according to The Daily Beast, Sessions has already claimed that "he wasn't aware of, nor was he briefed on" the subpoenas, and that he was unaware of the entire leak investigation. On Friday, POLITICO reported that Barr also claimed that he was "not aware of any congressman's records being sought in a leak case."

The statement from Sessions is vaguely possible. Sessions recused himself from DOJ activities related to the Russia investigation in March of 2017, earning Trump's undying rage in the process. Since the information released was connected to that investigation, it's possible that Sessions was not involved. And besides, though his actions were not always in the news, Sessions stayed busy during his time as attorney general. Among other things, he rewrote hundreds of pages of federal guidelines, striking such rules as those which avoided placing excessive fines on the poor. He made it easier to ship guns across state lines. Sessions shredded rules that were designed to make the justice process accessible to the disabled. He also spent a lot of personal time going over drug cases and insisting that prosecutors seek the maximum penalties. He was one busy little elf.

On the other hand, the statement from Barr is, as might be expected, pure bullshit. As has been widely reported, Barr was not only aware of the investigations, he revived them when he took office in 2018. Even though attempts to pin intelligence leaks on Congress had come up dry, and investigators were indicating that the whole thing was a dead end, Barr expanded the investigation. He added more staff and, as CNN notes, brought in a prosecutor expressly to handle the leak investigations. Barr didn't just revive these cases, he "found a set of aggressive career prosecutors" who were "willing to take extraordinary steps to try to complete the probes." Which apparently included taking another crack at getting past Apple.

Like hell, Bill Barr "can't recall."

And then there's Rosenstein. When it comes to the revelations on Friday, The New York Times reports the Rosenstein has "refused to comment." But if there is anyone who needs to be dragged before the Senate and compelled to testify, it might be the former deputy attorney general.

There was a time in the spring of 2017 when Rosenstein seemed like the one person at the DOJ who was holding some semblance of justice together. He authorized the Mueller investigation after Sessions recused himself. The New York Timeseven reported that Rosenstein considered secretly recording Trump, and discussed whether enough Cabinet members could be persuaded to invoke the 25th Amendment. There was genuinely a point where Rosenstein seemed to be the one essential man; the one person in power at the DOJ who saw Trump for who he was.

But by the spring of 2018, Rosenstein appeared desperate to show he was fully on Team Trump. He instructed the DOJ to increase prosecutions of refugee families. As The Guardianreported, it was Rosenstein who argued that children should be separated from parents, even if they were infants. That fall, Rosenstein was reportedly crying after a call to Trump and then-chief of staff John Kelly, in which it appeared he might be forced to resign. He begged for his position, telling Trump that "I can land the plane," and suggested that keeping him in place gave the Russia investigation "credibility."

Once Barr came on board, Rosenstein was reliably at his elbow, providing cover for Barr's actions. That included signing off on the conclusion that Donald Trump not be charged with obstruction in spite of the mountains of evidence in support of that charge.

Rosenstein left in 2019, but he didn't pass into obscurity. He went to work as a partner at white-shoe law firm King & Spaulding, where he is in charge of "special matters and government investigations." What investigations might that be? As Reuters reported, the firm worked for Trump's campaign in 2020, including working on efforts to block the use of absentee ballots. Far from being sent into exile, ProPublica shows that King & Spaulding was a revolving door for the Trump White House with at least seven people moved from the firm to government positions during Trump's term. In fact, when Rosenstein helped Trump oust Comey, his replacement, current FBI director Christopher Wray, came from King & Spaulding.

Far from being run out of town, Rosenstein was helped into a nice, soft, lucrative position at a firm with deep connections to Trump. A firm which counts the Trump Organization as one of its largest clients. That's quite a feat for the guy who signed off on the Mueller investigation and reportedly tried to get Trump removed from office. Trump still hates Sessions for simply recusing himself, even though Sessions has slathered Trump with praise nonstop. But Trump appears to have forgiven Rosenstein, in spite of both Mueller and the 25th Amendment report. Why is that?

It's obvious that Rosenstein must had done a lot to earn that spot. And it's obvious that he needs to testify.

He can start by answering questions about his knowledge of the effort to secure the phones of sitting representatives and their families. Sessions might claim ignorance. Barr might feign forgetfulness.

But Rosenstein was there for it all.

Saturday, Jun 12, 2021 · 9:50:01 AM EDT · Mark Sumner

Trump Claims He Has Presidential Power ‘That Nobody Has Ever Seen Before’

Trump Claims He Has Presidential Power ‘That Nobody Has Ever Seen Before’

President Donald Trump has many verbal ticks that often act as tells about what he is really thinking or doing. For example, CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale has argued that when the president tells a story in which someone calls him “sir,” he’s usually lying. Another tell is that when Trump refers to a true fact that “no one ever knew” or that “people have no idea about,” it almost certainly means that the president himself just learned about this fact, even though it’s widely known.

Trump indulged in this tick during a gaggle with the press Friday morning when discussing the House of Representative’s ongoing efforts to get witnesses and officials involved in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation to testify.

Yet again, the president tried to argue that all the questions raised by the Mueller report about Trump’s ties to Russia and his potential obstruction of the investigation were moot.

“[Former Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein and [Attorney General] Bill Barr said there’s no obstruction,” Trump told reporters. “And also interesting: Number one, there’s no crime. And how do you obstruct when there’s no crime? Also, take a look at one other thing. It’s a thing called ‘Article II.’ Nobody ever mentions Article II. It gives me all of these rights at a level that nobody has ever seen before. We don’t even talk about Article II. So: They ruled no collusion, no obstruction. Very simple.”

There were many things wrong in these brief comments.

First, you can obstruct justice even if there was no underlying crime to be discovered; the law is written to allow for that possibility. Second, there were many crimes that Trump may have been trying to cover up by obstructing justice, including the criminal lies of his subordinates and his own involvement in a criminal hush money scheme during the 2016 election.

And with regard to “Article II,” Trump is referring to the second article of the Constitution that lays out presidential power. In fact, this is discussed all the time in politics, and it has come up frequently throughout Mueller’s investigation and in the aftermath of former FBI Director James Comey’s firing. Trump’s claim that “nobody ever mentions” it and that it gives him authorities and rights to act that “nobody has ever seen before” suggests that he has only recently become aware of Article II, its provision, and the debates over its scope.

Bringing it up in this context, Trump seems to be referring to an argument made most prominently by legal scholar Alan Dershowitz that presidents cannot obstruct justice by using the powers granted to them in Article II. Dershowitz’ view seems to be relatively idiosyncratic in the legal profession — most scholars likely wouldn’t buy this argument — but it’s worth considering. One person who did consider this argument, though, is Mueller. He argued forcefully in his report that president’s can, in fact, obstruct justice using presidential authorities if they do so with corrupt intent. Moreover, some of the acts of potential obstruction of justice that Mueller describes don’t even involve Trump’s presidential powers, so this argument may not even be relevant to many of the key episodes under scrutiny.

Watch the clip of Trump’s comments below:

Troubling Conclusion To Rosenstein’s Tenure At Justice

Troubling Conclusion To Rosenstein’s Tenure At Justice

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has been seen as a steadying force and source of integrity within the Justice Department under President Donald Trump’s tumultuous tenure, with his credibility bolstered by the action he’s most likely to be remembered for: appointing Robert Mueller to be special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation.

But as his time at DOJ is expected to soon come to an end, his credibility is beginning to crumble.

Indications that Rosenstein might not be quite the Boy Scout he’s portrayed himself as began to emerged when Mueller’s investigation wrapped up and Attorney General Bill Barr sent a letter to Congress summarizing its “principal conclusions.” The attorney general wrote that though Mueller had declined to conclude that Trump committed obstruction of justice — and also declined to exonerate the president — Barr and the deputy attorney general saw it as their role to step in. And they declared the evidence insufficient for such a charge against Trump.

Rosenstein’s role in this decision was presumably intended to give Barr additional credibility, since the new attorney general has already shown himself to be a deeply partisan figure. But Rosenstein’s input raised questions about the deputy attorney general, too. Why did he think it was OK to usurp the special counsel’s role and essentially reverse Mueller’s lack of exoneration? And perhaps more importantly — wasn’t such a decision wildly inappropriate, given that Rosenstein played a central part in firing former FBI Director James Comey, the key event in the obstruction investigation?

There have been no good answers to these questions.

And Rosenstein’s credibility has only tanked from there. Barr’s letter and the press conference he delivered ahead of the report’s release, with Rosenstein at his shoulder, have now been shown to be clearly deceptive by a full examination of Mueller’s findings. Mueller’s report was much more damning for Trump than Barr had let on. In some cases, it looks like Barr outright lied about it.

Yet Rosenstein has defended Barr.

“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 told the Wall Street Journal before the report was released. Even if it hadn’t turned out Barr was as deceptive as he was, there was still reason to doubt Barr’s credibility given what was known at the time. Rosenstein’s incredulity was purely performative and only more damaging to his own case.

All this looked even worse Friday, when the Washington Post dropped a bombshell report about an incident in which Rosenstein was almost fired. Back in late September 2018, The New York Times had broken the story, since confirmed by former Acting FBI Director Andy McCabe, that after Comey was fired, Rosenstein suggested he might wear a wire when talking to the president. (Rosenstein has tried to cast doubt on the story.)

According to the new Post report, Rosenstein called Trump after the Times’ story broke and tried to save his job:

“I give the investigation credibility,” Rosenstein said, in the words of one administration official offering their own characterization of the call. “I can land the plane.”

…

Trump ended the call with Rosenstein thinking he was “on the team after all,” one senior administration official said, adding that the president has been further swayed by Rosenstein’s deference in meetings and other settings.

Rosenstein also told Trump he wasn’t a “target” of the probe. Trump was, however, a subject of the probe, and it is now clear that he would have been a target had he not been a sitting president.

The deputy attorney general tried to push back against the characterization of the Post’s account, denying any suggestion that he was capitulating to the president.

But in addition to the evidence discussed above that Rosenstein is less credible than he once was seen to be, the deputy attorney general delivered a speech Thursday night giving the impression that he really is on Trump’s team.

For example, he lashed out at the media:

A republic that endures is not governed by the news cycle. 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. It quickly fades away. The principles are what abide.

And then he criticized the Obama administration for its choices in response to Russia election interference, while ignoring the fact that the sitting president has denied (and encouraged) the attacks:

Some critical decisions about the Russia investigation were made before I got there. The previous Administration chose not to publicize the full story about Russian computer hackers and social media trolls, and how they relate to a broader strategy to undermine America. The FBI disclosed classified evidence about the investigation to ranking legislators and their staffers. Someone selectively leaked details to the news media. The FBI Director announced at a congressional hearing that there was a counterintelligence investigation that might result in criminal charges. Then the former FBI Director alleged that the President pressured him to close the investigation, and the President denied that the conversation occurred.

There, too, he conveniently elided how James Comey became the “former FBI director.”

He also favorably cited Trump on the “rule of law”:

We use the term “rule of law” to describe our obligation to follow neutral principles. 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.”

This was absurd on its face, given that the Justice Department just published a report that shows how extensively Trump tried to obstruct justice and undermine the rule of law. And of course, Rosenstein and Barr are helping Trump get away with his subversion of democratic principles.

In perhaps the strangest section of the speech, Rosenstein even seemed to get in a dig at Mueller himself, saying:

It is not our job to render conclusive factual findings. We just decide whether it is appropriate to file criminal charges.

Mueller’s report, in fact, showed that he took it as a responsibility of his investigation to create a thorough factual and analytical record of Trump’s obstruction efforts without recommending charges. What’s particularly strange about Rosenstein’s point on this matter, though, is that he knew what Mueller was doing all along and knew that Trump wasn’t going to be indicted. If he thought what Mueller was doing was somehow contrary to the Justice Department’s mission, why did he let it continue?

In his time at the Justice Department, Rosenstein has been criticized by people on both sides of the aisle. Much of the time, in fact, he was taking heat from Republicans and even the president himself for his role in the investigation. But at the close of the special counsel’s probe, and as his time as deputy attorney general comes to an end, Rosenstein seems to be undermining the whole point of appointing an independent special counsel in the first place by inserting himself and ingratiating himself to the president. It will leave him with a complex legacy to explain.

What Happened To Rod Rosenstein — And When Will He Testify?

What Happened To Rod Rosenstein — And When Will He Testify?

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to lead the Russia investigation, and he oversaw the probe until his boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, was forced to resign from the Justice Department.

But as the end of the investigation becomes ever more mired in controversy — driven by the actions of Attorney General Bill Barr and his lack of transparency — Rosenstein’s absence from the public stage is growing increasingly conspicuous.

Some of Barr’s most controversial decisions involve Rosenstein directly. In his letter summarizing the “principal conclusions” of the investigation, Barr said that Mueller had declined to reach a decision about whether President Donald Trump had committed the crime of obstruction of justice in the course of the probe, the special counsel left “it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” (It is far from clear this is what Mueller intended, however; many suspect he wanted Congress to make the final judgment.)

Barr said that he and Rosenstein together reached the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude Trump obstructed justice.

Since this letter has come out, though, we have yet to hear publicly about Rosenstein’s thoughts on the matter from the man himself. (The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.)

This is significant for several reasons. Rosenstein, as the official who deemed it necessary to appoint Mueller in the first place, has more credibility than Barr in the investigation.  He was also a much more bipartisan pick to supervise the investigation — he was confirmed by a vote of 94-6 in the Senate, while Barr’s nomination was approved in a divisive 54-45 vote. The deputy attorney general consistently defended the investigation even as Republicans and the president maligned and attacked him. From this perspective, if he spoke out and affirmed Barr’s decisions, it could give them more credibility.

On the other hand, Rosenstein is in some ways even more conflicted than Barr. Arguably, Barr should have recused from the investigation because he drafted a memo attacking Mueller’s investigation the summer before he was appointed to the head of the Justice Department. But there’s an even clearer reason why Rosenstein should have been recused from the obstruction investigation: He is a key witness in any case against the president.

That’s because it was Rosenstein who wrote the justification that Trump used to fire former FBI Director Jame Comey. Comey was then overseeing the Russia investigation in May 2017, and while Rosenstein’s memo argued for his ouster because of his actions during the Hillary Clinton email case, Trump later admitted on TV that he fired the director because of “the Russia thing.”

This act triggered the obstruction investigation. But while Rosenstein was involved in this central act, he still oversaw the investigation for nearly two years, and we have now learned that he was a part of making the final decision about whether Trump’s behavior was criminal.

“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. “It compromises the conclusion that they did not find a criminal act, because it gets Rosenstein off the hook in several ways.”

While this issue had been discussed in media, few major figures publicly called for Rosenstein’s recusal — perhaps because, for the reasons mentioned above, he was viewed as being almost uniquely credible. Now that assessment must be revisited. (Sessions, the attorney general at the time of Mueller’s appointment, was recused because he was involved in Trump’s campaign. For that very reason, though, it seems he shouldn’t have been involved in Comey’s firing, as he was.)

And in recent days, multiple outlets have reported that members of Mueller’s team are fuming about Barr’s handling of the investigation’s final report, believing he has misled the public about how damaging the findings are for the president. In response, Barr’s Justice Department appears to be going on offense. This only makes the fact of Rosenstein’s absence from the public stage even more troubling — is he really going to sit back while his boss and the vital investigation he oversaw are feuding?

This is particularly perplexing because Rosenstein was initially expected to leave the Justice Department in March. CNN reported in mid-March, though, that he decided to stay on longer to be a “heat shield” for any “fallout” from the Mueller probe.

Right now, he doesn’t seem to be absorbing any heat. So why did he stick around?

All of these circumstances surrounding the still developing conclusion of the Russia investigation make it paramount that Rosenstein come forward, address the concerns, and provide satisfactory answers. Congress is already preparing to have Barr testify, and Mueller will almost certainly be called before lawmakers. Rosenstein, too, must make an appearance and explain his actions to the American people.