Missing the Point on Rosenstein

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

23 September 18

he New York Times revelation that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein suggested using audio surveillance to gather evidence against Donald Trump and participated in a discussion of invoking the 25th Amendment seems to have sent shockwaves through polite Washington society and the corporate news media. The question they can’t seem to wrap their heads around is, what’s the big deal?

It’s not clear in what context Rosenstein was speaking when he reportedly suggested that he could wear a wire to surreptitiously record Donald Trump. Some sources, reportedly with direct knowledge, are quoted in other press reports as saying that it was more likely a joke than a plan. Rosenstein himself flatly denies the veracity of the Times reporting. However, even if Rosenstein had been deadly serious, the conduct described in the Times article would have been completely legal and arguably entirely appropriate.

Audio surveillance is a commonly used technique in criminal investigations by law enforcement agencies. A discussion of using audio surveillance in a federal criminal investigation is sensational only because a US president was the proposed target. That caveat notwithstanding, such discussions among law enforcement personnel, both state and federal, take place every day. It is neither unusual nor in any way illegal.

Although a deputy attorney general participating in a discussion about invoking the 25th Amendment while overseeing an investigation into the very president who was the subject is inappropriate, it’s also important to bear in mind that the #TFA discussion is ubiquitous in the nation’s capital. Including, apparently, the author(s) of the last New York Times bombshell highlighting an affront to presidential powers, I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration. So sure, Rosenstein, the very guy Trump is trying to fire to thwart Mueller’s criminal investigation, could be the fall guy for #TFA chatter, but the real question is, should #TFA actually be invoked?

For the record, #TFA requires, as part of its construct and framework, deliberation and collaboration between high-ranking government officials with the intent of removing a president from office. The statute contemplates executive branch officials having those discussions more so than Justice Department officials, but it doesn’t preclude Justice Department officials from discussing it.

The problem here is that polite Washington society, the corporate media, and a significant segment of the American public have allowed the office of the president to effectively be elevated above the law, affording American presidents Pope-like status. Donald Trump is not the Pope.

This is the most serious criminal investigation into the affairs of an American president in US history and it is very serious. Two months ago, having viewed Donald Trump fawning at the feet of Russian president Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the same people who are now calling for Rosenstein’s head were accusing Trump of treason. You can’t have it both ways. If Trump’s conduct was and perhaps still is treasonous, then someone has to confront that.

Right now the job of confronting Trump’s apparently treasonous conduct falls to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Trump can’t fire Mueller directly the way he fired FBI Director James Comey. Rosenstein would have to do so. But Rosenstein’s departure could set the stage for an assault on Mueller.

The New York Times has carefully presented its rationale for publishing the Rosenstein story in manically objective terms. The result, however, could easily be as partisan as anything Trump’s Republican allies have come up with to date.

Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.