Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Rosenstein: Most Dangerous Snake in the Pit

 

I’m sure Andrew McCarthy is as much a favorite of many of us as he is of mine, especially considering his vast experience as a Federal Prosecutor in one of the major terrorist cases of our time, the successful prosecution of “the Blind Sheikh” in the first World Trade Center bombing. Another reason he is a favorite of mine is his very cautious approach to so many of these stories, which are addressed with maniacal hyperbole and hysteria by so many reporters. He is the last one to ever say anything overtly critical of many of these major players in the current dramas, and I always admire him for this caution as I can always rest assured that he is not offering anything that he is not satisfied is solid and should be reported and documented with solid supporting evidence.

It is for this reason that I cannot recommend too strongly his recent column, “Rod Rosenstein is Shirking his Duty to Supervise Robert Mueller,” in which he sets forth the dangers posed by an uncontrolled special prosecutor such as Mueller, dangers which I have heard of from those who have been the subject of the exact kind of out-of-control prosecution as that being conducted by the person Rosenstein is statutorily charged with supervising. As the column notes, in a statement which is very rare for Mr. McCarthy’s style of reporting,

Back in May, besieged by Democrats feigning outrage over FBI director James Comey’s firing — the same Democrats who wanted Comey’s scalp for purportedly costing Hillary Clinton the election — Rosenstein preemptively surrendered. In appointing Mueller, he flouted regulations requiring that he specify the crimes that supposedly necessitated the appointment of a special counsel. He promised Democrats that Mueller would have carte blanche — no limits and no supervision from his nominal supervisor, Rosenstein. And now, with Mueller poised to pressure the president to submit to interrogation — despite the absence of a crime, despite the absence of any suggestion that Trump has essential information that Mueller is otherwise unable to acquire — Rosenstein is nowhere to be found, at least when he’s not impeding congressional committees from conducting oversight of the Justice Department’s actions in the Clinton emails and Russia investigations. Without Justice Department supervision, Mueller answers only to his own whim. Well, what if all prosecutors did that? (Emphasis mine)

I cannot urge too strongly that you read this entire piece of very fine reporting of Andrew McCarthy — it is chilling, frightening, perhaps gravely prescient as to what a monstrosity has been loosed upon the American Republic by these denizens of the Deep State (yes, unlike some of our more, shall we say, sanguine observers on this site, I really do believe it exists. Don’t believe it? Just look at Rosenstein’s eyes.) who have abandoned all thought of the good of our Beloved Country in the pursuit of their nemesis, read: anyone who opposes their overturning of the election in which we elected our choice to be President of the United States.

There are 36 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. harrisventures Coolidge

    Jim George: I cannot urge too strongly that you read this entire piece of very fine reporting of Andrew McCarthy

    I agree, read the whole thing.

    Sessions should never have recused himself. He has been missing in action.

    Rosenstein is a bureaucrat practiced at the fine art of CYA, who just wants to keep his head down and avoid the McCabe fate before he retires. And it also looks like he may be implicated in the fishy FISA warrant travesty.

    Mueller is just wanting a final trophy, and all the partisan investigators he hired only want to bring down Trump, because he had the unmitigated gall to win the election.

    McCarthy has been very careful, and only reluctantly come to the conclusion that there appears to be corruption at the highest levels of the Justice Department and the FBI.

    No, Trump should not testify. Yes, heads should roll.

    • #1
    • January 29, 2018, at 6:09 PM PST
    • 16 likes
  2. Hoyacon Member

    Your description of McCarthy’s style is spot on. He exudes credibility.

    But I remain puzzled by Rosenstein. The idea expressed above by Mr. Ventures that this is CYA is a good one, but I keep looking for something more. Rosenstein is pretty close to a blank slate ideologically, and the art of “following the connections” leads, if anywhere, to a slight bias to the right. He should, in fact, be a sitting appellate judge, but was stopped by (liberal) Barbara Mikulski. How does that get us to where we are today?

    • #2
    • January 29, 2018, at 6:20 PM PST
    • 7 likes
  3. Bob Thompson Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    Your description of McCarthy’s style is spot on. He exudes credibility.

    But I remain puzzled by Rosenstein. The idea express above by Mr. Ventures that this is CYA is a good one, but I keep looking for something more. Rosenstein is pretty close to a blank slate ideologically, and the art of “following the connections” leads, if anywhere, to a slight bias to the right. He should, in fact, be a sitting appellate judge, but was stopped by (liberal) Barbara Mikulski. How does that get us to where we are today?

    My hope is that between the ‘memo’ and the IG Report there will be something that can be presented to Rosenstein that will send him somewhere else voluntarily so that he can be replaced by someone to hold Mueller to a proper investigation related to why he was appointed to start with.

    • #3
    • January 29, 2018, at 6:29 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  4. Stina Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    Rosenstein is pretty close to a blank slate ideologically, and the art of “following the connections” leads, if anywhere, to a slight bias to the right.

    Unless his attempt to keep his head down had him gambling with vipers…

    If he thought Hillary would win, was there incentive to keep heat off himself in a Clinton Administration?

    But that’s supposition. I don’t get the same queasiness with R that I get from M & C but I have less information about him.

    M & C have been involved in several high profile investigations that relied on obstruction charges on things unrelated to the original investigation.

    • #4
    • January 29, 2018, at 6:32 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  5. DocJay Inactive

    Rosenstein is either scared to provide oversight for political reasons, or he’s part of the FISA fiasco which is about to blow up.

    He also is clearly aware of all of the scandals and what they mean but he just sits there with his wee beady eyes.

    • #5
    • January 29, 2018, at 6:50 PM PST
    • 9 likes
  6. Rodin Member

    It’s an absolute clusterfark. I don’t think even 60% of the people will agree on what the facts were, this “investigation” has been so screwed up and spun. The American people have been poorly served.

    • #6
    • January 29, 2018, at 8:50 PM PST
    • 11 likes
  7. Old Bathos Moderator

    Rosenstein appears to be mostly a careerist. When Democrats howled about Russia, he gave Mueller carte blanche. If he reins in Mueller now, he will be called controversial, a Trump apologist etc. Better to be seen as an establishment guy for his eventual smooth transition into a big law firm. Criticism from the Right is probably perceived as less damaging than from the left. By covering for Mueller’s excesses he with be seen by those who matter as bravely protecting the process and the rule of law against the ignorant hordes. That fact that he rolled over for the ignorant hordes to appoint Mueller in the first place will not be held against him when it’s time to cash in.

    • #7
    • January 30, 2018, at 11:42 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  8. Hoyacon Member

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    Rosenstein appears to be mostly a careerist. When Democrats howled about Russia, he gave Mueller carte blanche. If he reins in Mueller now, he will be called controversial, a Trump apologist etc. Better to be seen as an establishment guy for his eventual smooth transition into a big law firm. Criticism from the Right is probably perceived as less damaging than from the left. By covering for Mueller’s excesses he with be seen by those who matter as bravely protecting the process and the rule of law against the ignorant hordes. That fact that he rolled over for the ignorant hordes to appoint Mueller in the first place will not be held against him when it’s time to cash in.

    This pretty much works for me. It strikes me that a “knowable” unknown is how he came to be appointed by Trump in the first place. Water over the damn, but it would be good to know and I don’t recall any of our intrepid reporters digging this up while they’re busy ferreting out minutiae in the Administration.

    • #8
    • January 30, 2018, at 12:02 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  9. Gary Robbins Reagan

    It appears to me that the move to investigate the investigators is a collateral effort to derail the Mueller Investigation by a slow-moving Saturday Night Masacre.

    If this scheme is successful, I predict that we will guarantee the House and Senate going to the Democrats in 2018, and we will have deserved it.

    • #9
    • January 30, 2018, at 12:15 PM PST
    • Like
  10. Front Seat Cat Member

    Everyone with experience in this is advising Trump not to do it – but you know Trump – he’ll probably do it – which will open more hypothetical doors and lead to more investigations. Seems we have been having too many investigations, going back to Bill Clinton, and I am sick of them – they take too much time, repeatedly ask for the same info, ask the same questions – subpoena the same people – how many times has Atty. Gen Jeff Sessions been questioned? They take up taxpayer money, and distract from the bigger picture – it’s very unbalanced in the snake pit – I hate, and I repeat – I hate snakes….

    • #10
    • January 30, 2018, at 12:19 PM PST
    • Like
  11. Hoyacon Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It appears to me that the move to investigate the investigators is a collateral effort to derail the Mueller Investigation by a slow-moving Saturday Night Masacre.

    Your recollection of that event must be different than mine. In this case, there is tangible evidence that something was/is being politicized at the Bureau. Admittedly, some of that evidence is subject to interpretation, but I assume that you’ve read Andy McCarthy on the subject. My point is that there is some basis for suspicion unrelated to politics, whereas the SNM was essentially all politics.

    • #11
    • January 30, 2018, at 12:39 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  12. cdor Member
    cdor Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Thanks for bringing Mr McCarthy’s latest article to my attention @jimgeorge. I read most everything he writes because of his solid knowledge of the field of justice and between Powerlineblog and elsewhere, like here, he gets mentioned all the time. After reading this latest article, it seems evident to me that McCarthy has given POTUS the out he needs to avoid questioning by Mueller’s team of prosecutors. As was mentioned in the article, Mueller’s team is filled with bad intentioned pit vipers. Otherwise, why would he have sought a special warrant allowing for a predawn raid with guns drawn of the residence of former Trump associate Paul Manafort? They actually got both Manafort and his wife out of bed and searched them both. Pretty intense stuff. So Trump’s lawyers should ask, if Mueller requests an interview…why? What crime have you discovered that only the President can provide the information you seek. Now that Trump has already said he would be happy to speak with Mueller, which I believe was a mistake, he will catch all kinds of grief if he doesn’t. But he gets all kinds of grief no matter what he does. He would get zero “atta boys” from the press if he runs the Mueller gauntlet. Stay away Mr President, it’s a trap.

    Another campaign associate was on TV last night on Tucker, I believe. This guy is a lawyer from Buffalo, NY. He has had to testify before one Congressional committee and has been asked to appear before two or three more. Each time it costs him about $30K in legal fees. He says by the time it’s done he will have spent a years earnings. This stuff is pretty scary. Who wants to get involved in political campaigns?

    • #12
    • January 30, 2018, at 1:28 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  13. Jager Coolidge
    Jager Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It appears to me that the move to investigate the investigators is a collateral effort to derail the Mueller Investigation by a slow-moving Saturday Night Masacre.

    If this scheme is successful, I predict that we will guarantee the House and Senate going to the Democrats in 2018, and we will have deserved it.

    I guess that depends. IF the investigation of the investigators shows actual provable wrong doing then Republicans shouldn’t be hurt.

    The Saturday Night Massacre presumes that Trump did something wrong and that the FBI did nothing wrong. I don’t feel I have enough information to grant, or frankly to deny, either of those ideas.

    • #13
    • January 30, 2018, at 1:40 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  14. Franco Member
    Franco Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It appears to me that the move to investigate the investigators is a collateral effort to derail the Mueller Investigation by a slow-moving Saturday Night Masacre.

    If this scheme is successful, I predict that we will guarantee the House and Senate going to the Democrats in 2018, and we will have deserved it.

    Who is “we”? I do not have common cause with you. Whatever you are, I am most definitely something else.

    According to your other posts hoping for Trump’s speedy removal from office, why do you lament losing both houses? You would get your President Pence.

    • #14
    • January 30, 2018, at 2:11 PM PST
    • 1 like
  15. Bob Thompson Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It appears to me that the move to investigate the investigators is a collateral effort to derail the Mueller Investigation by a slow-moving Saturday Night Masacre.

    If this scheme is successful, I predict that we will guarantee the House and Senate going to the Democrats in 2018, and we will have deserved it.

    You are endorsing the actions of the intelligence and counter-intelligence components our government? I don’t see you suggesting there are any issues to be investigated with regard to how spying access on Americans is granted. And it appears you are not of the view that Hillary Clinton has committed any infractions worthy of prosecution. Yes, you are a steadfast Republican.

    • #15
    • January 30, 2018, at 3:04 PM PST
    • 1 like
  16. Rodin Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It appears to me that the move to investigate the investigators is a collateral effort to derail the Mueller Investigation by a slow-moving Saturday Night Masacre.

    @garyrobbins, please be clear. Do you believe that Nunes, Ryan and Gowdy are disingenuous in their concerns about the lawfulness of wiretapping Trump campaigners? Do you think that whatever Trump has done (in your mind) is worse than violating the constitutional rights by federal law enforcement and weaponizing NSA assets for domestic political ends?

    If this scheme is successful, I predict that we will guarantee the House and Senate going to the Democrats in 2018, and we will have deserved it.

    I think this is essential to not losing the House and Senate.

    • #16
    • January 30, 2018, at 3:12 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  17. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Franco (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It appears to me that the move to investigate the investigators is a collateral effort to derail the Mueller Investigation by a slow-moving Saturday Night Masacre.

    If this scheme is successful, I predict that we will guarantee the House and Senate going to the Democrats in 2018, and we will have deserved it.

    Who is “we”? I do not have common cause with you. Whatever you are, I am most definitely something else.

    According to your other posts hoping for Trump’s speedy removal from office, why do you lament losing both houses? You would get your President Pence.

    I am a Reagan Republican, and a former Precinct Committeeman.

    I would love President Pence. But if we all line up and appear to be enablers for Trump, we will be wiped out.

    • #17
    • January 30, 2018, at 3:47 PM PST
    • Like
  18. Jim George Member
    Jim George

    For an excellent piece along the same lines, see “Rosenstein — Agent of the Deep State Coup”, in which the author makes a very helpful point, that being the fact that this denizen of the deep state was confirmed by a vote of 94-6, which should have set off many warning flags, in view of the way the Democrats have vowed to stonewall any appointee nominated by President Trump. It is an excellent read and I heartily recommend it, even to our “dyed in the wool” Never-Trumpers. Who knows? You might accidentally stumble upon some new knowledge; never hurts.

    Sincerely, Jim.

    • #18
    • January 30, 2018, at 4:38 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  19. The Reticulator Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It appears to me that the move to investigate the investigators is a collateral effort to derail the Mueller Investigation by a slow-moving Saturday Night Masacre.

    If this scheme is successful, I predict that we will guarantee the House and Senate going to the Democrats in 2018, and we will have deserved it.

    So you’re in favor of obstruction of justice. Good to know.

    • #19
    • January 30, 2018, at 7:39 PM PST
    • Like
  20. The Reticulator Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It appears to me that the move to investigate the investigators is a collateral effort to derail the Mueller Investigation by a slow-moving Saturday Night Masacre.

    If this scheme is successful, I predict that we will guarantee the House and Senate going to the Democrats in 2018, and we will have deserved it.

    Who is “we”? I do not have common cause with you. Whatever you are, I am most definitely something else.

    According to your other posts hoping for Trump’s speedy removal from office, why do you lament losing both houses? You would get your President Pence.

    I am a Reagan Republican, and a former Precinct Committeeman.

    I would love President Pence. But if we all line up and appear to be enablers for Trump, we will be wiped out.

    Maybe you should worry more about supporting those who are doing the right thing and less about being wiped out.

    • #20
    • January 30, 2018, at 7:41 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  21. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    Great article, and great post.

    Victor Davis Hansen also has an incitefull article on the FBI’s recent misadventures:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455885/expected-clinton-victory-explains-federal-employee-wrongdoing

    I would like to see more heads roll… Not just at FBI, but across the entire administrative state – IRS to OSHA.

    • #21
    • January 30, 2018, at 10:01 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  22. Rodin Member

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):
    Great article, and great post.

    Victor Davis Hansen also has an incitefull article on the FBI’s recent misadventures:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455885/expected-clinton-victory-explains-federal-employee-wrongdoing

    I would like to see more heads roll… Not just at FBI, but across the entire administrative state – IRS to OSHA.

    Sorry, but [redacted] knows that VDH has it all wrong. No, its Trump-Russia collusion, not Obama-Clinton corruption. [The rest of the comment redacted because I am trying to follow @susanquinn ‘s sage advice to just ‘let it go’.]

    • #22
    • January 30, 2018, at 11:57 PM PST
    • Like
  23. Gary Robbins Reagan

    First he came for Comey, and they did not speak out because they were Trump apologists.

    Then he came for McCabe, and they did not speak out because they were Trump apologists.

    Next he’ll come for Rosenstein, and they won’t speak out because they are Trump apologists.

    Last, he’ll come for Mueller…

    —Ana Navarro

    • #23
    • January 31, 2018, at 1:08 AM PST
    • Like
  24. Hoyacon Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    First he came for Comey, and they did not speak out because they were Trump apologists.

    Then he came for McCabe, and they did not speak out because they were Trump apologists.

    Next he’ll come for Rosenstein, and they won’t speak out because they are Trump apologists.

    Last, he’ll come for Mueller…

    —Ana Navarro

    There’s loony and then there’s cable news pundit loony

    Becket Adams

    • #24
    • January 31, 2018, at 3:51 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  25. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    First he came for Comey, and they did not speak out because they were Trump apologists.

    Then he came for McCabe, and they did not speak out because they were Trump apologists.

    Next he’ll come for Rosenstein, and they won’t speak out because they are Trump apologists.

    Last, he’ll come for Mueller…

    —Ana Navarro

    Mueller should never have been allowed to take the job.

    He was announced on a Friday afternoon, Saturday morning someone from the white house counsels office should have gave him a quick call and told him his services would not be required, because he is disqualified by the special counsel act. (being a person with close relationships with people already involved in the mater under investigation) …

    Then someone from the AGs office should have phoned Rosenstein and fired him for being so wreckless as to appoint someone for a position they where disqualified for. From May 22, 2017:

    As Fox News’s Gregg Jarrett has pointed out, Mueller’s long and close personal and professional relationship with James Comey — someone who will be a key witness in the investigation — poses a serious conflict of interest.

    The two worked together as colleagues at the FBI and Department of Justice. Mueller and Comey threatened to resign together in 2004 in an act of solidarity.

    “Comey regards his predecessor as a mentor, while Mueller considers Comey his protégé,” Jarrett wrote. “When Comey was appointed to succeed Mueller as FBI director, both men appeared together and were effusive in their praise of one another.

    “Their relationship is not merely a casual one. It is precisely the kind of association which ethical rules are designed to guard against,” Jarrett added.

    Despite his impressive credentials, in the rush to heap praise on the choice of Mueller for this powerful position the media and political class ignored serious questions about his past performance and relationship with Comey that pose obstacles to his ability to serve the public interest in an impartial manner.

    Read Full Article Here Past Performance Disqualifies Mueller as Special Counsel | Newsmax.com
    Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!

    • #25
    • January 31, 2018, at 4:57 AM PST
    • 1 like
  26. The Reticulator Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    First he came for Comey, and they did not speak out because they were Trump apologists.

    Then he came for McCabe, and they did not speak out because they were Trump apologists.

    Next he’ll come for Rosenstein, and they won’t speak out because they are Trump apologists.

    Last, he’ll come for Mueller…

    —Ana Navarro

    It’s interesting to see that @Garyrobbins now believes the end justifies the means. Maybe somebody could write an article on that subject.

    • #26
    • January 31, 2018, at 5:39 AM PST
    • 1 like
  27. Rodin Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    First he came for Comey, and they did not speak out because they were Trump apologists.

    Then he came for McCabe, and they did not speak out because they were Trump apologists.

    Next he’ll come for Rosenstein, and they won’t speak out because they are Trump apologists.

    Last, he’ll come for Mueller…

    —Ana Navarro

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    First they came for Al Capone….

    You do know that just putting different names in the saying doesn’t make it a true philosophical moment?

    [Sorry, @susanquinn, I tried but he kept pulling me back in.]

    • #27
    • January 31, 2018, at 5:53 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  28. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Funny, I recall how much praise there was from both sides of the aside for Rosenstein and Mueller, and how Trump had interviewed Mueller about coming back as FBI Director.

    • #28
    • January 31, 2018, at 6:29 AM PST
    • Like
  29. Bob Thompson Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Funny, I recall how much praise there was from both sides of the aside for Rosenstein and Mueller, and how Trump had interviewed Mueller about coming back as FBI Director.

    Gary, it’s not even worth the time it would take here to explain to you (since that seems necessary) why the Special Counsel position and the object of the investigation is totally different from any consideration for FBI Director absent any Special Counsel.

    • #29
    • January 31, 2018, at 6:48 AM PST
    • 1 like
  30. Hoyacon Member

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    First he came for Comey, and they did not speak out because they were Trump apologists.

    Then he came for McCabe, and they did not speak out because they were Trump apologists.

    Next he’ll come for Rosenstein, and they won’t speak out because they are Trump apologists.

    Last, he’ll come for Mueller…

    —Ana Navarro

    It’s interesting to see that @Garyrobbins now believes the end justifies the means. Maybe somebody could write an article on that subject.

    It’s rather hard to tell what someone believes who quotes, with apparent approval, the appropriation of a Holocaust-related poem to criticize “Trump apologists.” If I considered myself one, I’d think an apology was in order.

    • #30
    • January 31, 2018, at 8:11 AM PST
    • 2 likes

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.