Eight Days In May–Rosenstein Did Wear a Wire and Discuss Using the 25th Amendment to Remove the President of the United States

 

I had written a slightly sarcastic post about how it was our civic duty as American citizens to rush out and read the latest book by a member of the Swamp, and how their families could probably use the money in the future when all appeal delays  have expired after criminal proceedings have been wrapped up, and then I read Byron York’s piece of this morning, and Powerline’s comment on the same, and saw the book in a whole new light.

I strenuously urge a reading of York’s discussion of the number of suspicions and speculations some of McCabe’s book confirms, such as:

“If it’s all true, that is, if revelations in an upcoming book by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe are accurate. The bottom line on that is that, at least from what we know now, McCabe’s story seems consistent with information congressional investigators have been able to glean elsewhere.”

“It’s just like we thought all along,” said one House Republican upon hearing the news. “If McCabe’s account is true, it confirms what we thought, that Rod Rosenstein was serious when he talked about wearing a wire and invoking the 25th Amendment. Rosenstein should be under oath answering our questions. We need to know who was in the room and what was said.””

There  is a lot more in York’s piece, especially about Rosenstein who is, in my opinion, one of the most dangerous people in government today.

As John Hinderaker concluded on Powerline, “Someone should be doing hard time.”

Indeed.

Sincerely, Jim

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 46 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    The most interesting detail for me is Rosenstein’s suggestion to the President that he fire Comey, and that this firing was then used by this gang of traitors as the spark that lit the fuse on their coup attempt.

    It was a trap.

    I would dearly love to see all of them doing time.

    That’s never going to happen.

    ………………

    From Byron York’s piece above:

    In particular, it intensifies questions about Rosenstein’s behavior in those eight days. Remember that Rosenstein played a key role in the removal of Comey. A few days later, he was talking about removing the president for having removed Comey. The sheer audacity of that has stunned even experienced Capitol Hill observers.

    “The guy who wrote the memo providing the justification for firing Comey is then upset that the swamp is mad at him for helping fire Comey and then comes up with a plan to wear a wire and invoke the 25th Amendment,” said the House Republican.

     

    • #1
  2. Nohaaj Coolidge
    Nohaaj
    @Nohaaj

    I want to “like” this post but really need an “I’m Mad as Hell” icon.

     

    • #2
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    The most interesting detail for me is Rosenstein’s suggestion to the President that he fire Comey, and that this firing was then used by this gang of traitors as the spark that lit the fuse on their coup attempt.

    It was a trap.

    I would dearly love to see all of them doing time.

    That’s never going to happen.

    ………………

    From Byron York’s piece above:

    In particular, it intensifies questions about Rosenstein’s behavior in those eight days. Remember that Rosenstein played a key role in the removal of Comey. A few days later, he was talking about removing the president for having removed Comey. The sheer audacity of that has stunned even experienced Capitol Hill observers.

    “The guy who wrote the memo providing the justification for firing Comey is then upset that the swamp is mad at him for helping fire Comey and then comes up with a plan to wear a wire and invoke the 25th Amendment,” said the House Republican.

    Nope. 

    This is why the Republic is doomed. We have passed the point where the laws apply to everyone. 

    • #3
  4. Clare Day Member
    Clare Day
    @ClareDay

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    The most interesting detail for me is Rosenstein’s suggestion to the President that he fire Comey, and that this firing was then used by this gang of traitors as the spark that lit the fuse on their coup attempt.

    It was a trap.

    I would dearly love to see all of them doing time.

    That’s never going to happen.

    ………………

    ….

    Nope.

    This is why the Republic is doomed. We have passed the point where the laws apply to everyone.

    We have passed the point, but we’re well-positioned for the first time in decades to push forward and regain that essential high-ground. Up to each and all to keep it.

    • #4
  5. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    Clare Day (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    The most interesting detail for me is Rosenstein’s suggestion to the President that he fire Comey, and that this firing was then used by this gang of traitors as the spark that lit the fuse on their coup attempt.

    It was a trap.

    I would dearly love to see all of them doing time.

    That’s never going to happen.

    ………………

    ….

    Nope.

    This is why the Republic is doomed. We have passed the point where the laws apply to everyone.

    We have passed the point, but we’re well-positioned for the first time in decades to push forward and regain that essential high-ground. Up to each and all to keep it.

    Excellent point; this is the kind of optimism I strive for each and every single day, quite often quite unsuccessfully in view of developments like this one. But, as I said on another post, the day I no longer have at least a vestige of this kind of hope, it is over for me, and I haven’t reached that point yet. However, if Hillary Clinton, Huma Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Sztrok, Page, Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, the former UN Ambassador under Obama, and so many others are not brought to justice of one kind or another–and, by that, I mean legal , not some kind of societal shaming which would not suffice in my opinion– then I will consider the republic to be lost. How I do hate to say that so plainly, it makes me grieve for just throwing away the gift we were given by our Founding Fathers. 

    • #5
  6. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    The most interesting detail for me is Rosenstein’s suggestion to the President that he fire Comey, and that this firing was then used by this gang of traitors as the spark that lit the fuse on their coup attempt.

    It was a trap.

    I would dearly love to see all of them doing time.

    That’s never going to happen.

    ………………

    From Byron York’s piece above:

    In particular, it intensifies questions about Rosenstein’s behavior in those eight days. Remember that Rosenstein played a key role in the removal of Comey. A few days later, he was talking about removing the president for having removed Comey. The sheer audacity of that has stunned even experienced Capitol Hill observers.

    “The guy who wrote the memo providing the justification for firing Comey is then upset that the swamp is mad at him for helping fire Comey and then comes up with a plan to wear a wire and invoke the 25th Amendment,” said the House Republican.

    Nope.

    This is why the Republic is doomed. We have passed the point where the laws apply to everyone.

    It’s not over til it’s over, but it sure looks like it.  Does anyone anywhere in the government, any serious person, have any idea what this is going to do to the electorate?  If their president was nearly removed and votes don’t count anymore?

    • #6
  7. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    Alan Dershowitz called the discussion an “attempt at a coup d’etat.”  I think that is wrong.  It was maybe plotting a coup d’etat, but attempt requires more than mere discussion.

    Democrats justify the discussion by saying that there was nothing wrong with the discussion because it landed on, “No.”  Really?

    Let’s say there was a real concern that a president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office.” The persons who must make that determination are the vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide.”  (As far as I can tell, Congress has not passed a law designating some other body.)  The Department of Justice has no role whatsoever in that determination.  The Department of Justice has no authority to spend public money (e.g., the time used in research or discussion) on that subject whatsoever.

    By the way, the 25th Amendment would not work for the coup d’etat anyway.  It is available only when the President is unable to discharge duties.  The 25th Amendment further says, “Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that no inability exists, he shall resume his duties….”  Then the Vice President and the majority of the executive officers can object and then Congress may decide the President is unable by two thirds vote of both houses, otherwise the President continues in office. 

    Bottom line:  The DOJ has no role or authority in the process and had no business plotting (er, discussing) it.

    • #7
  8. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    Alan Dershowitz called the discussion an “attempt at a coup d’etat.” I think that is wrong. It was maybe plotting a coup d’etat, but attempt requires more than mere discussion.

    Seems to me that a lot more than a discussion happened. I believe the whole, made-up Russian Collusion and the Mueller investigation is their attempt.

    • #8
  9. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Alan Dershowitz called the discussion an “attempt at a coup d’etat.” I think that is wrong. It was maybe plotting a coup d’etat, but attempt requires more than mere discussion.

    Democrats justify the discussion by saying that there was nothing wrong with the discussion because it landed on, “No.” Really?

    Let’s say there was a real concern that a president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office.” The persons who must make that determination are the vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide.” (As far as I can tell, Congress has not passed a law designating some other body.) The Department of Justice has no role whatsoever in that determination. The Department of Justice has no authority to spend public money (e.g., the time used in research or discussion) on that subject whatsoever.

    By the way, the 25th Amendment would not work for the coup d’etat anyway. It is available only when the President is unable to discharge duties. The 25th Amendment further says, “Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that no inability exists, he shall resume his duties….” Then the Vice President and the majority of the executive officers can object and then Congress may decide the President is unable by two thirds vote of both houses, otherwise the President continues in office.

    Bottom line: The DOJ has no role or authority in the process and had no business plotting (er, discussing) it.

    I think Dershowitz is right in spirt but wrong otherwise. Disability under the 25h is whatever the cabinet says it is.  Just like an impeachable offense is whatever the House says it is. 

    However, the 25 th is in fact for disability, and impeachment is for crimes. When the president is able to protest it, as Trump was,  impeachment is easier than the 25th Amendment route. What McCabe and company were concerned about were crimes. So why were they even thinking about the 25 th at all, when it really didn’t apply AND was more difficult than the other route? 

    • #9
  10. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    Alan Dershowitz called the discussion an “attempt at a coup d’etat.” I think that is wrong. It was maybe plotting a coup d’etat, but attempt requires more than mere discussion.

    If even one of them took an overt act, then it was a conspiracy to commit an coup.

    • #10
  11. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    That’s a pretty big “if” regarding Rosenstein.  We now know what McCabe claims he did and we know what McCabe claims Rosenstein did, but that doesn’t mean we know what Rosenstein did.  And McCabe is not the most credible source – he lied to the FISA Court and was fired from the FBI for lying. 

    • #11
  12. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    That’s a pretty big “if” regarding Rosenstein. We now know what McCabe claims he did and we know what McCabe claims Rosenstein did, but that doesn’t mean we know what Rosenstein did. And McCabe is not the most credible source – he lied to the FISA Court and was fired from the FBI for lying.

    Which is why “Rosenstein should be under oath answering our questions. We need to know who was in the room and what was said.”

    • #12
  13. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    That’s a pretty big “if” regarding Rosenstein. We now know what McCabe claims he did and we know what McCabe claims Rosenstein did, but that doesn’t mean we know what Rosenstein did. And McCabe is not the most credible source – he lied to the FISA Court and was fired from the FBI for lying.

    Which is why “Rosenstein should be under oath answering our questions. We need to know who was in the room and what was said.”

    That I agree with.

    • #13
  14. WI Con Member
    WI Con
    @WICon

    Much of the discussion of this book I’ve seen/heard centers around McCabe’s actions after the Comey firing. Perhaps the book goes further back to the FISA warrants and the spying on the Trump Campaign, I haven’t heard but as bad as these revelations are, it still seems to be a distraction away from multiple Clinton & Obama centered scandals and the FBI/DOJ’s willful blindness to investigate those more serious crimes. 

    Nice to have some confirmation of what was suspected, especially that snake Rosenstien, but we need to see their fortunes drained by having to defend themselves and see similar SWAT pre-dawn raids and Manafort-like solitary confinements. 

    • #14
  15. Theodoric of Freiberg Member
    Theodoric of Freiberg
    @TheodoricofFreiberg

    Bob W (View Comment):
    What McCabe and company were concerned about were crimes. So why were they even thinking about the 25 th at all, when it really didn’t apply AND was more difficult than the other route?

    Maybe because they knew the “crimes” were a fabrication?

    • #15
  16. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    We have a new AG now.  Will he be has deep state friendly as Sessions?  Or will he be a patriot?  If McCabe lives a life of fame and fortune, we know it is the former.

    • #16
  17. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    It’s a coup.  It’s arguable, but I argue it was — and still is — a coup.  The problem is that it was a soft coup, not done by the experts at the CIA, but by the FBI, and they stumbled and struggled and tried one thing after the next, and then got exposed, and now with the coup still on, still underway in many quarters, it’s going on under the nose of the public, so PR and propaganda are as much  apart as are the back-room framing and spying and impending court room displays (in the House).  There’s one way that this might not definitively be a coup, and that’s the time frame, but coups can take a long time to plan and organize, as I said, this coup started at the same time they started planning it just about.

    FWIW:

    Coup: 1- a blow, shock; shock of a blow, engagement or combat. 2- a fall, upset, overturn. 5- coup d’état, [which is what we mean] a sudden and decisive stroke of state policy; spec. a sudden and great change in government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.

    It’s still an illegal removal of a head of state by the government, and to in effect overturn the election.

    But this one is not over yet. The build-up and trials and stumbles we’re seeing now, is nothing other than the accidental revelation of the existence of and the back-scene workings of an illegal removal of a head of state by government actors, many of whom are top-level foreign agents and nationals.

    • #17
  18. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    Bob W (View Comment):
    What McCabe and company were concerned about were crimes. So why were they even thinking about the 25 th at all, when it really didn’t apply AND was more difficult than the other route?

    Maybe because they knew the “crimes” were a fabrication?

    This is exactly what was going on.  Remember that in May 2017 when McCabe’s FBI buddy, Peter Strozek was considering a job offer to join Mueller’s new team, he texted Lisa Page that he was concerned about doing so because “there’s no big there there“.  They knew there was no collusion.  Apart from the phony stuff regarding the Steele Dossier by then they’d also had months of wiretaps under the FISA warrant and were coming up empty. 

    • #18
  19. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Is it time for conservatives to march on Washington to demand these people face consequences for their crimes?

    Why should the left always be the ones to protest? Isn’t it time we learned from them how to do a citizen uprising?

    People in the FBI/DOJ should hang for this. It’s a coup attempt — no question.

    • #19
  20. Quietpi Member
    Quietpi
    @Quietpi

    Bob W (View Comment):
    …impeachment is easier than the 25th Amendment route.

    In law, yes.  In fact, no.  Who is going to resist the FBI marching into the White House?  The Secret Service?  Even if Pence is against the whole thing, what are his alternatives?  And McConnell’s? And (shudder) Pelosi’s? And who is going to announce it to the public?  the Mainstream Media?  Who in government is going to resist?  Congress?

    I recall vaguely ( I was in high school) when the 25th Amendment was proposed, that a major concern was just such a situation – a capricious application by political opponents.  This whole affair, cloak & dagger & all, should lead us to look again at the wisdom of the 25th Amendment even existing.  

    • #20
  21. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    The media who likewise aided and abetted these criminals with their lies and propaganda also need to be held liable.

    Who on our side has the will to bring them to account?

     

    • #21
  22. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Quietpi (View Comment):

    Bob W (View Comment):
    …impeachment is easier than the 25th Amendment route.

    In law, yes. In fact, no. Who is going to resist the FBI marching into the White House? The Secret Service? Even if Pence is against the whole thing, what are his alternatives? And McConnell’s? And (shudder) Pelosi’s? And who is going to announce it to the public? the Mainstream Media? Who in government is going to resist? Congress?

    I recall vaguely ( I was in high school) when the 25th Amendment was proposed, that a major concern was just such a situation – a capricious application by political opponents. This whole affair, cloak & dagger & all, should lead us to look again at the wisdom of the 25th Amendment even existing.

    The 25th Amendment: One more thing brought to us by the Democrats abusing power. 

    • #22
  23. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    The big mistake that was made is not demanding resignation letters from all political appointees that fell under the authority of the President on Inauguration Day. Those that submitted letters could have been vetted, those that did not submit letters should have been packing up their personal belongings under the watchful eyes of Federal law enforcement officers.

    Clapper and Brennan perjured themselves in their testimony before Congress. FISA warrants were obtained by lying by omission to a Federal Judge. I’m not sure that coup would be the correct term. Perhaps it was an attempt to establish the Federal Bureaucracy as the coequal Fourth Branch of the Federal government, and to nullify an election. None the less the method and actions taken were far from legal.  

      

    • #23
  24. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    Bob W (View Comment):
    What McCabe and company were concerned about were crimes. So why were they even thinking about the 25 th at all, when it really didn’t apply AND was more difficult than the other route?

    Maybe because they knew the “crimes” were a fabrication?

    I know, but the point is that if they could succeed with the 25 th Amendment route, then they could have succeeded even more easily through impeachment. Stated another way, if they knew impeachment wouldn’t work because there was no crime, then the 25 th definitely wouldn’t have worked, because you need even more support in Congress for that than for impeachment. 

    • #24
  25. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    Quietpi (View Comment):

    Bob W (View Comment):
    …impeachment is easier than the 25th Amendment route.

    In law, yes. In fact, no. Who is going to resist the FBI marching into the White House? The Secret Service? Even if Pence is against the whole thing, what are his alternatives? And McConnell’s? And (shudder) Pelosi’s? And who is going to announce it to the public? the Mainstream Media? Who in government is going to resist? Congress?

    I recall vaguely ( I was in high school) when the 25th Amendment was proposed, that a major concern was just such a situation – a capricious application by political opponents. This whole affair, cloak & dagger & all, should lead us to look again at the wisdom of the 25th Amendment even existing.

    Trump would have resisted. If the cabinet and Pence invoked it, he would have protested it whereupon he would remain as president until 2/3 of both houses approved removing him. Which is more difficult than removing through impeachment. 

    • #25
  26. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    Alan Dershowitz called the discussion an “attempt at a coup d’etat.” I think that is wrong. It was maybe plotting a coup d’etat, but attempt requires more than mere discussion.

    Seems to me that a lot more than a discussion happened. I believe the whole, made-up Russian Collusion and the Mueller investigation is their attempt.

    One could reasonably take the view that the Mueller appointment was the overt act in furtherance of the coup and the 25th Amendment route was simply a plan that was considered and rejected in favor of the Russia probe to accomplish the coup d’etat. 

    • #26
  27. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    Maybe they considered the 25 th because, even though it would have been harder to ultimately carry out, it would be easier to start than impeachment, needing only a handful of people to agree. But I still don’t know what purpose they thought that would serve. 

    • #27
  28. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    Bob W (View Comment):

    Maybe they considered the 25 th because, even though it would have been harder to ultimately carry out, it would be easier to start than impeachment, needing only a handful of people to agree. But I still don’t know what purpose they thought that would serve.

    Perhaps, but ultimately, it requires 2/3 of both houses of Congress to override the President saying he (or she) is able to continue.  Not so easy in a hostile takeover.

    • #28
  29. Sweezle Member
    Sweezle
    @Sweezle

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    Alan Dershowitz called the discussion an “attempt at a coup d’etat.” I think that is wrong. It was maybe plotting a coup d’etat, but attempt requires more than mere discussion.

    Seems to me that a lot more than a discussion happened. I believe the whole, made-up Russian Collusion and the Mueller investigation is their attempt.

    It does seem like Dershowitz got it right. Then again, considering the paranoia among the power elites in D.C. about Trump running & later winning was slightly encouraged by a lot of things Trump said (jokingly) at his rally’s.

     

    • #29
  30. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Is it time for conservatives to march on Washington to demand these people face consequences for their crimes?

    Why should the left always be the ones to protest? Isn’t it time we learned from them how to do a citizen uprising?

    People in the FBI/DOJ should hang for this. It’s a coup attempt — no question.

    Protests from the right are ineffective, unfortunately because of the media.

    Protests, historically are designed to bring attention to something and here is where a ‘normal’ media would disseminate the grievances.

    We saw what happened with massive Tea Party protests. They were mocked and misrepresented by the Fourth Estate relentlessly. Had there been a hint of violence, or had they not dutifully picked up their own trash, it would have been even worse. 

    The US media is fully controlled by the powers we would be protesting. The CIA is known to have operatives and agents in the media, notably the Washington Post. Even if one doesn’t believe this ( but, tell me, why wouldn’t they?) reporters are dependent, sometimes beholden, and in some cases owe their careers to associates in intelligence agencies leaking info to them. Jeff Bezos owner of the WaPo and Amazon, has a contract for 600 million with the NSA storing data (on American citizens so we are “safe”) this is real money even for him.

    The New York Times supposedly is the go-to leaking outlet for the FBI. This isn’t just stuff about Trump, it’s about anything and everything. Unidentified sources. I bet at least half are from intel people – authorized for the most part.

    Besides having a direct stake in this fight, the corporate media has an indirect stake in siding with Democrats. There is, and has been an obvious corporate/political alliance that makes the BigOil alliance with Republicans look like kindergartners holding hands. 

    The news media is but the public relations and political lobbying branch of very large multinational corporations that own movie studios, record companies radio stations newspapers and magazines that produce non-political content and make money from eyeballs and ads. 

    This media sector is so consolidated with large corporate alliances ( big advertising clients who are increasingly multinational) many of whom have interests in dumbing down the public and maintaining the status quo, it’s a no-brainer they will side against anything remotely nationalist, or upsetting to the current system.

    Boycotts won’t work. But awareness of this must first be understood by our side before effective action can be taken.

    We have seen the awesome power of the media laid bare in the last few years. This is the real fight that’s going on. 

     

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.