Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump Should Fire Rosenstein, then Sessions
President Trump should fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, get him replaced with someone trustworthy and competent, and then fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Rosenstein’s replacement would then be the acting attorney general.
Rosenstein is untrustworthy. In one of his first acts after being confirmed to his position by the Senate, he wrote a memo to Sessions in which he advised that the then-FBI director, James Comey, should be fired. Sessions forwarded the memo to Trump, and Trump followed Rosenstein’s advice and fired Comey. Rosenstein then used Trump’s firing of Comey as the reason to launch a special counsel investigation into Trump. Rosenstein, in appointing Robert Mueller, did not bother to cite any potential crimes to be investigated, which is required by the special-counsel law. This is because no crime is being investigated. “Collusion” is not a crime. What is being investigated is Trump.
Rosenstein also signed the extension of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) warrant application, which he had to have known was based on bogus information that had been paid for by the Clinton campaign. Rosenstein later begged Speaker of the House Paul Ryan to block the release of a memo written by the House Intelligence Committee that exposed some of the FISA-warrant abuses.
The special-counsel investigation is threatening our entire judicial system — Mueller has now twice violated attorney-client privilege, all with Rosenstein’s approval. Last year Mueller forced Paul Manafort’s attorney to testify against him in front of a grand jury. Yesterday we learned that the FBI, at Mueller’s behest, raided the office, home, and hotel room of the president’s personal attorney, Michael D. Cohen.
As a side note, in the bogus anti-Trump “dossier,” disgraced former British spy Christopher Steele claimed that Cohen had traveled to Prague to meet with Russians. The only problem with that was that Cohen’s passport showed no such travel to the Czech Republic, and social-media posts by his daughter show pictures of him in Los Angeles at the time Steele claimed Cohen was in Prague.
According to Cohen’s own attorney, as quoted in multiple news sources, the FBI seized “privileged communications between my client, Michael Cohen, and his clients.” Cohen’s clients who have no direct relationship to Trump at all, but merely share the same attorney, now have their records in the hands of crazed partisan hacks whose goal is not the enforcement of the law but finding some bit of information that they can leak to a rabidly biased media, all with the ultimate goal of overturning the results of the 2016 election.
All of this has happened with Rosenstein’s blessing. His actions show that his goal is to bring down Trump at any cost.
Less needs to be said about Sessions, who is simply, and sadly, incompetent. He recused himself (at the “legal” advice of Obama holdovers in the Department of Justice, no less!) from involvement in the broad-reaching and vaguely defined investigation into “Russian involvement” in the 2016 campaigns (both Trump and Clinton). He, therefore, doesn’t have control over his own department and is allowing Rosenstein to usurp his authority.
We’re told that Mueller ransacked Manafort’s home in July 2017. Manafort was Trump’s campaign chairman for about two months in 2017, but Mueller has indicted Manafort over actions Manafort allegedly took dating back to 2006 when advising the former president of Ukraine. In other words, for things that have nothing whatsoever to do with Mueller’s mandate, indeterminate as it is, and certainly nothing to do with Donald Trump.
Not to worry, though, because we found out last week that Mueller went to Rosenstein in August 2016 and got retroactive authority to break down Manafort’s door in July 2016 and busted into his bedroom while he and his wife were in bed in their pajamas (an FBI agent is said to have patted Mrs. Manafort down, while she lay in bed, to make sure she wasn’t concealing a weapon, according to a source cited by the Washington Times).
Ex post facto treatment is no less offensive to the sensibilities of a free people than the evisceration of the right to speak freely with an attorney, but these things obviously don’t mean much to Mueller and Rosenstein, as their actions prove. In addition, Rosenstein exceeded his authority by granting Mueller the retroactive “authority” to investigate Manafort on things entirely unrelated to supposed “Russian collusion.” Sessions didn’t recuse himself from any investigation into financial dealings in Ukraine over a decade ago.
Trump, as well as all future presidents, deserves to have people working for him who will support his agenda, not people actively seeking to destroy his presidency or incompetently and passively allowing others to pursue such a nihilist goal.
Trump should fire Rosenstein immediately, replace him with someone competent and trustworthy, then fire Sessions. The new acting attorney general can then put a leash on Mueller.
Updated post to correct the dates when Mueller raided Manafort’s home and then retroactively got permission from Rosenstein to do so. It was 2017, not 2016.
Long overdue.
No.
Firing Roesnstein and Sessions would lead to removing Mueller and Trump’s impeachment. And the certain loss of the House, maybe the Senate, and a half dozen Governors.
This is the 3rd thread today (I assume there are quite a few more) I have seen you make the claim that actions will lead to wholesale party losses in the midterms. What actions could be taken to not lose the House, maybe the Senate, and half dozen Governers?
Making Xi Jinping change his mind on tariffs? But that would never happen.
:-D
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china/chinas-xi-renews-vow-to-open-economy-cut-tariffs-as-u-s-trade-row-deepens-idUSKBN1HH084
That is a very fair question. I would recommend that House Republicans all say the following:
“I support the policies of President Trump on judges, taxes and regulations. While I hope and [want to] believe that Trump has nothing to be afraid of from Bob Mueller, it is critical that the investigation run its course. I think that if President Trump tries to remove Bob Mueller, as a practical matter, he will be impeached, and the opportunity for him to do more good work on judges, taxes and regulations, will be lost while we go through the impeachment process. I, Representative _________, am a co-sponsor of the legislation proposed by Senators Thom Tillis and Lindsey Graham that codifies the standards of the Department of Justice for special counsel and provides for judicial review of any attempt to remove any special counsel, including Bob Mueller. Now, let’s talk about judges, taxes and regulations. as the issue of Bob Mueller being removed is speculative, and I hope very, very unlikely.”
Ben Sasse, Bob Corker and Jeff Flake could all say this. For members of the House (and Governors) to survive, they need to also say it.
Sure why not, the sheer entertainment value alone would make for amazing ratings. Pass the popcorn.
The analysts at Citi and UBS arent quite as sanguine about that interpretation of Xi’s speech.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I have a good faith question: can someone please explain how this does not violate Article II, Section 1?
BTW, I don’t consider “SCOTUS said so (Morrison v Olsen)” to be an answer. I’m looking for what Popehat (Ken White) calls a “lawsplainer.”
ETA: I question the whole thing, but the provision for judicial review seems an obviously unconstitutional infringement on the Executive power. How am I wrong?
If you want to know why many, including yours truly, consider the American legal system to be hopelessly corrupt, this witch hunt against President Trump is a prime example. Max is absolutely right.
That was an excellent post. I have one minor quibble. Mueller went to R in August 2017 to get the authority for his July 2017 raid. Trump was president so it’s 2017 not 2016.
Can you explain why R and S being fired would lead to Mueller being fired? Also, do you object to a little more supervision and a little less rubber-stamping of Mueller’s investigatory and prosecutorial activities? Do you recognize Trump’s constitutional authority to fire R and S?
Out of curiosity…is there something Mueller could do or some point at which you would support his removal?
Personally, I’m just about there with the raid on Cohen (who was cooperating) on pretexts having nothing to do with Russian election interference.
I totally agree Max. This is absolutly an absurd case of a prosecutor run amuck at the expense of our country.
Everyone is aware that the recent raid wasn’t conducted by the Mueller investigation and ran through multiple Trump appointees and a magistrate judge for approval prior to execution. So if true Trumps got a lot bigger problems than Sessions and Rosenstein. Apparently the entire justice department can’t be trusted.
The decision on firing is a political one that depends on how you weigh the costs and benefits.
Rosenstein, Sessions, and Mueller deserve to be fired. However, whether it is worth the potential costs is another issue. In fact, I believe Mueller would be happy to be fired by Trump since he believes it will get him the result he wants – either the outright ejection of Trump from the Presidency or completely politically neutering him even if he survives in office. Mueller’s objectives are political, not legal.
So conservatives spent the last 8 years complaining that Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch betrayed the American people by acting as Obama’s personal lawyers and protecting him and now they’re complaining that Jeff Sessions won’t act the same way.
Jeff Sessions was praised because he believes adamantly in the rule of law. I’m not a huge fan of his but of pressed to choose between Sessions and POTUS on the question of competence I choose Sessions without hesitation.
I read the OP to urge firing of Sessions because of incompetence, not because he is refusing to act as Trump’s personal lawyer or because he believes in the rule of law.
And I see no evidence of incompetence. Sessions is by all reports a very competent lawyer. People want him fired because the results they want aren’t being executed. They want a conservative Eric Holder. Well in my opinion Eric Holder was corrupt and awful. I may disagree with Sessions on a lot of issues but he is neither of those things.
Which is why Trump supporters are demanding that they all be fired and replaced with corrupt cronies that won’t investigate the president or his dubious associates. Then they will complain how Obama did it first.
Yah but the incompetence it sights is following department guide lines that would have him recuse himself from the Mullet investigation, because he was part of the campaign which would be a subject of the investigation. The assumption being that if he had not recused himself he would not have done what Rosenstein has done in appointing the special counsel, approving the warrants, etc. In other words being Trump’s flunky.
Mueller referred the matter to a U.S. attorney. To quote noted Trump apologist, Jonah Goldberg, here:
The warning bell for me is the seizing of privileged communications. None of the 3 theories I’ve seen as to why the raid was ok’ed justifies going through privileged communications at this stage.
The whole Mueller investigation is looking more and more like a general warrant to investigate anything remotely related to Trump without any crime in particular mentioned. Every referral Mueller has made has had nothing to do with Russians or collusion. I was under the impression that we investigated specific crimes with specific warrants. Instead it seems we have endless investigations on groups of people for unspecified crimes.
What is your proof that it isn’t being properly supervised? Other than Trump’s own personal melodrama about the investigation which is being fanned by the personal melodrama of Democrats. I dont see what Muller has done that is out of line. It seems that Trump and his cheerleaders are conflating everything together in a rather cynical or deluded fashion. Conveniently skipping all the facts that disagree with their selfpitying persecution complex.
It is kind of amazing how many bases the OP manages to steal in crafting its narrative. Not the least one being that the scandal over Comey’s firing came because Trump himself, on television no less, said he fired Comey not because of the memo but because of the investigation into Russian interference in the election. There is a special prosecutor because Trump gave every reason in public for everyone but his most fevered of supporters that he was trying to kill the investigation in to illegal Russian interference in our election.
This is the investigation that Muller seems to be conducting, and it is one that I and other patriotic Americans would like to know the answer to. But I guess defending our elections against Putin’s machinations isn’t a priority for the American Greatness crowd.
This raises an interesting issue. In my view the entire Mueller investigation is outside the rule of law as Andrew McCarthy has repeatedly pointed out. He’s acting under an improper grant of authority from Rosenstein. Mueller has his own conflict of interest given his relationship with Comey, as well as his personal interest in protecting his fiefdoms at DOJ and the FBI, yet he refused to recuse himself. He hired a bunch of Clinton supporting lawyers to let loose on a hunting expedition. From everything we can tell he has refused to examine Russian efforts to influence the Clintons and collude with them.
Perhaps we have to reluctantly agree that in 21st century America, Eric Holder is right and the AG needs to be, in his own phrase, the president’s “wingman”. It worked for Obama. GW Bush played by “the rules” and Comey launched his friend Patrick Fitzgerald right at the administration in order to wreak havoc. You can argue Session played by “the rules” and ended up with an investigation outside the rules. I find all of this discomfiting, but this is the second GOP administration in a row to follow the rules, which resulted in disruption from those working outside the rules, while Obama avoided disruption altogether by not following the rules. What is the solution?
It all brings to mind this from No Country For Old Men:
Good question. Off of the top of my head, I would think lack of mental capacity by Mueller (dementia), taking bribes, sloth, or alcoholism for starters. The types of grounds required for removing an employee covered by Civil Service rules.
As for Cohen, Mueller referred the issue of Cohen to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York for investigation and prosecution. He could have kept the issue of Cohen, like Starr kept the issue of Lewinski who had nothing to do with the Whitewater land deal, however he opted to refer it back to the Justice Department.
[Note: it is possible that the Southern District U.S. Attorney is being used as part of the so-called taint team, after when the cleaned up allegations could go back to Mueller but that is far out of the scope of knowledge of this simple country family lawyer.]
This is an exaggeration and a misunderstanding of the nature of appointing a special prosecutor. As someone who is not running a fever, I really have no idea what you mean by “kill the investigation,” but what Trump did or did not do “in public” is irrelevant. The issue is the absence of evidence of underlying criminal activity that should be a predicate for a special prosecutor appointment. I would not fire any of the three because of the fall-out, but, of them, Rosenstein is the most deserving.
This patriotic American thinks that it’s taking way too long to produce anything of note, leading to the reasonable assumption that the minnows will be sacrificed as justification because there’s nothing against the whale. It seems that anyone truly concerned with Putin’s machinations should be wondering at this point where’s the proverbial beef.
Holy cow. Mueller has a raft of guilty pleas, more indictments, and a sentence of incarceration. Mueller is moving quickly and promptly.
Since a President cannot be constitutionally removed by a “no confidence” vote which would make sense in the nuclear age, we are left with the Mueller investigation.
As far as your questioning of the whole thing: It is a good thing to question it. Especially given that back after the near decade of good old Ken Starr investigating the Clintons, there was legislation passed, which is still there on the books, that stipulates that no special counsel can overreach the mission statement of the initial investigation. So the mission statement for this investigation, under Mueller, was supposed to be regarding Trump and/or his associates colluding with Russia to bring about a hack such that Trump was given an advantage in the 2016 election.
So far they don’t have a thing regarding Trump and collusion with Russia. Except for one supposed lie that Gen Michael Flynn told. (We don’t know if he really lied – it has since come out that the FBI agents were instructed, from Up High, to fudge and make up whatever they wanted to for records relating to the the 320 reports.)
The only way that the recent raid on Cohen’s office might be justified is if any of Trump’s payments to Stormy Daniels were mis-reported in some way relating to Trump’s election’s campaign spending. (Which is what John Edwards got in trouble for. He intertwined his expenditures on his mistress with campaign monies.)
Ah I see now, Gary. This does seem like an excellent way to recapture the youth, minority and female votes we were speaking of earlier, and keep the House, maybe the Senate, and half a dozen Governorships.
Trump has done a massive amount of damage, but this helps stop the bleeding, and we could have a “normal” off year, and not a 1974 wipe-out.