Latest in Rod Rosenstein
The former acting FBI director’s account doesn’t change the fundamentals of the story, but it puts a lot of flesh on the bones.
Is Whitaker’s appointment constitutional? Does the president have authority in this case to make an appointment under the FVRA? Does Whitaker have any recusal obligations related to the special counsel’s investigation?
Once the midterms are past, Americans can resume their reveries about a hypothetical report from the special counsel’s office. There’s no telling how much Robert Mueller knows, but onlookers can speculate about how much the country is likely to find out and how it’s likely to do so. A Mueller Report? A Rosenstein Report? An Impeachment Report? All three?
Back in 2002, I published a book entitled Starr: A Reassessment, which took a nuanced look at the history of Kenneth Starr’s service as independent counsel. The book focused on Starr’s understanding of his role under the now-defunct independent counsel law, specifically his ambitious understanding of that role not as a traditional prosecutor but as a kind of truth commissioner.
Unless something changes again in the mercurial mind of Donald Trump, it looks like Rod Rosenstein will survive the day. He survived last Friday, Sept. 21, when the New York Times published a report that he had raised the possibility of wearing a wire in the White House and had discussed invoking the 25th Amendment against the president. He survived Monday, Sept.
Reps. Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan have introduced articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for what they allege are failures to accede to congressional document requests regarding the Russia investigation. The articles are available in full below.
Reports that a group of House conservatives—led by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus—are advocating the impeachment of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein have been circulating for months, but conflict over the issue has escalated.
As part of the analysis we do on Lawfare, we often express our best professional judgment on an issue. I like to think that my judgment is pretty good and that a review of what I've said in the past tells the story of relative accuracy and thoughtfulness. But part of establishing credibility is acknowledging error—and the past couple of days have shown that I've not been that accurate on at least two occasions (at least two big enough to warrant acknowledgment like this). Here they are:
Yesterday morning, President Donald Trump tweeted:
A Rigged System - They don’t want to turn over Documents to Congress. What are they afraid of? Why so much redacting? Why such unequal “justice?” At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved!
The defense of democratic institutions, norms, values and culture does not always involve standing up for people who have acted heroically. Stories feel better, of course, when it does—when honor goes to those to whom people rally because they have behaved admirably; when the music swells in our minds and it all feels like a screenplay. But democracies don’t function like neatly-ending screenplays. The characters on whom democracies depend may perform erratically; citizens may not fully understand their conduct or motives; people may not trust them.