If Rod Rosenstein recuses himself, Robert Mueller may be next (Turley)

The Hill ^ | June 16, 2017 | Jonathan Turley

[Golden Eagle]

A news report today sent Washington into another spasm when it appeared that ABC and other news outlets reported that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein confirmed that he might have to recuse himself from any further involvement in the Russian investigation.

While the news account has not been verified, there is actually very good reason for Rosenstein’s recusal. Moreover, any recusal by Rosenstein would add questions about the status of Special Counsel Robert Mueller himself.

[gibsonguy]

Mueller will never recuse himself. Never.

[drypowder]

My take: The dems were crying their eyes out shaming Sessions to agree to recuse himself on this investigation, they succeeded. Their plan was along to remove Sessions from the equations and have Rosenstein hire an independent counsel, the one the establishment wants him to hire, Robert Mueller. The plan was/is for Rosenstein to recuse himself from the investigation once Mueller has his pieces in place so then the only one left who can fire the independent counsel, is Trump. Even though Trump has said he won't fire Mueller, the establishment had to have a plan in place to ensure their desired outcome. As much as I'd like to see Rosenstein get his, if he recuses himself, which I believe he will, I surmise that Trump's stay in the WH will shortly be toast. It's unlikely that Session will ever unrecuse himself.

[Cementjungle]

Well, the whole bunch are all owned by the Russians. We have to bring in someone really fair and independent.. perhaps Eric Holder.

[itsahoot]

Exactly why Mueller is building a solid team of anti-Trump lawyers, someone to take the helm if he has to step down.

Am I the only one that sees this for the Deep State plot that it really is? Fifteen Pro Democrat lawyers some Hillary supporters and not a peep out of the Republican leadership in either House.

Sessions may be the Nicest, Best man in the world for AG but either he was played or he was complicit in this fiasco that allowed allowed Rosenstein to appoint Mueller.

If Sessions does nothing Trump is doomed may be even if he does something. Of course Trump better recognize that all the people that sing his praises are not his friends and that includes more than a few Freepers that call all of us that try to point out the danger in this little dance. #NeverTrumpers.

[grey_whiskers]

Hey, troll-boy. How’s the pay from David Brock’s team?

[itsahoot]

Hey, troll-boy. How’s the pay from David Brock’s team?

This is too deep and too clear to be just a little play, this is full bore all in. Some will see it most won't. But if I am alive when it plays out you can appologize.

The play that they have in motion against Trump makes Watergate look like kindergarten taffy pull. I mean he dems not the Repubs.

I used to listen to Broch's mento Huffington as did every Conservative I know. She was hot on every Sunday show preaching the Conservative message then she became the Huffington post. Which one was real?

Have you noticed how Judge Nappy is suddenly all in for the Independent Council? He thinks Trump is in real trouble. Could getting set down buy Rupert's Kids have shut him down?

It is really easy in three steps.
Get Sessions to recuse.
Get Rozenstein to fire Comey and appoint Mueller
Get Mueller to cover for Comey and begin the witch hunt.

Looks like a plan to me. Oh and covering up all Hillary's foul deals as a bonus.

[Ann Archy]

Rosenstein needs to be FIRED and so does Mueller!! CORRUPT to the CORE!!

[Cboldt]

The assumption that underlies this entire article by Turley (and a similar one by Gregg Jarrett) is that Mueller on his own, or Mueller through or with Rosenstein, picked up investigation of a claim that Trump obstructed justice.

That assumption is nonsense, for many reasons.

If Mueller's investigation into Trump campaign connections into Russia, which is what his authorization loetter has him looking into, why on the world would he add another investigation so as to disqualify himself from the whole thing? Why would Rosenstein do that?

The Trump obstruction claim can stand separate - it is a view into Trump's conduct - from the Trump campaign collusion claim. Mueller is tasked with looking into the collusion claim(s).

[Boomer]

I confess to not hearing about Robert Mueller before he was appointed as special counsel but what I don’t understand is him supposedly having a sterling reputation. How can such a far left tool have a good reputation unless his reputation is to do exactly what his establishment masters tell him what to do?

[Golden Eagle]

How can such a far left tool have a good reputation

Because he's being graded by the far left media...

[Golden Eagle]

Rosenstein has already made two astonishing admissions to the press, which aren’t being closely covered of course. First, despite the language of the appointment itself, Rosenstein has admitted that he will leave any decisions on whether to expand the investigation to Mueller. He went on to say that if Mueller decides that Rosenstein should recuse himself, Rosenstein would, but is so far appearing to leave that up to Mueller.

It’s as if Rosenstein is star struck, or something more sinister such as being part of a plot, but has basically already recused himself from the process. These admissions would make a very good case for firing Rosenstein for dereliction of duty, and put someone in there who could hopefully keep Mueller on a short leash, if not shut him down completely.

[grey_whiskers]

(Nods. Test passed.)

[mad_as_he$$]

It is the plan and so far they have executed it with no impediments. Which leads me to wonder if Sessions is in on it. He is suppose to be a great lawyer but this needs to be stopped cold.

[Boomer]

Because he's being graded by the far left media...

That has to be it and of course another far left tool hired him saying the same thing. Wasn't that Rosenstein? Damn swamp is full of these vile creatures.

[Cboldt]

-- ... despite the language of the appointment itself, Rosenstein has admitted that he will leave any decisions on whether to expand the investigation to Mueller. --

Sort of true, but with an understanding of how the "scope definition" process works, Rosenstein's remarks are more in the nature of saying "I'll follow the law" than "Mueller can take this anyplace he feels like."

-- He went on to say that if Mueller decides that Rosenstein should recuse himself, Rosenstein would, but is so far appearing to leave that up to Mueller. --

That sort of arrangement (leaving scope entirely up to Mueller - Mueller picking up obstruction) serves neither Rosenstein nor Mueller, even if they WANTED to go after Trump for obstruction. As many article point of, if Mueller picks up obstruction, it opens up a conflict can of worms. Why open it, if you don;t have to? There are thousands of lawyers in DC, pick another one to go after obstruction.

-- It's as if Rosenstein is star struck, or something more sinister such as being part of a plot, but has basically already recused himself from the process. --

It's hard work digging into the details, and the press will NEVER do the hard work for you. However, Rosenstein and Mueller are working with details in mind, and understanding what is going on requires knowing the details of the SC process, the investigative process, and a few basic legal principles.

What you view as Rosenstein's recusal has limits. Sessions recusal, on the other hand, is absolute, but limited as to subject matter, the cases that involve Trump campaign collusion or cooperation with Russian government, as Comey stated in public, on March 20th.

Rosenstein's recusal is likewise complete in certain subject matter, by appointment of Mueller to cover THOSE cases - see Comey's March 20 description and Rosenstein's appointment letter.

There is some detail in the process of assigning and divesting cases, that allows the press to speculate wildly, because Mueller does have the power to "go where that investigation leads." But he does not have the power to pick up any case, he has to analyze how it relates to the cases he was assigned. If it looks like the investigation is getting outside the boundary of pre-election collusion with Russia -- and post election obstruction by Trump is clearly not in the same bucket as pre-election collusion -- Mueller is expected to make his case (that he should be in charge of investigating obstruction) to Rosenstein. All that happens in private, not public.

I just don't see Mueller shooting himself in the foot.

Plus, there are some serious outward clues that Mueller is not handling the obstruction investigation. Check this sequence:

• WaPo puts out an unsourced story that Mueller is handling the obstruction investigation
• Next day, Rosenstein puts out a very oddball press release telling the public not to believe everything in the press, especially when the sources are described "government officials" without even identifying which country's government. The test of the WaPo story fits this.

DoJ puts out 5 to 10 press releases a day. Most of them are about indictments, some are about internal promtions and re-assignments, a press release was put out when Mueller was appointed. But I have never seen a DoJ press release that says "beware of fake news." That press release sticks out like a sore thumb.

Never forget, one function of the press is to mislead the public, to agitate the public toward a political outcome.

[Golden Eagle]

I think Sessions is a good man, and was a great voice in the Senate, but I tend to agree with some of the points in this recent article by Goodwin:

http://nypost.com/2017/06/13/trump-made-a-mistake-naming-sessions-as-attorney-general/

Some of the blame has to go to Sessions.

I say that because of the one important fact that did emerge from the Senate hearing — that Sessions knew almost from day one that he would have to recuse himself from any investigation of the campaign because of Justice Department regulations.

That fact alone should have persuaded Sessions to turn down the job, or persuaded Trump to name someone else.

Sessions said his recusal was required by regulations because he had been a campaign adviser and a Trump surrogate, and the ethics rules prohibit him from involvement in any investigations of the campaign.

With that knowledge, he and Trump should have re-thought his taking the job. But given Trump’s reported anger at Sessions for the recusal — he didn’t think it was necessary — it seems likely that Trump didn’t know about the rules and that they never discussed the implications of Sessions’ role in the campaign.

[Golden Eagle]

Rosenstein's remarks are more in the nature of saying "I'll follow the law" than "Mueller can take this anyplace he feels like."

I appreciate your analysis, but I don't agree with that point. Here is exactly what Rosenstein is quoted as saying:

In an interview separately Friday with the AP, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein acknowledged that Mueller could expand his inquiry to include Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ and Rosenstein’s own roles in the decision to fire Comey, who was investigating the Trump campaign. The AP asked Rosenstein specifically whether Mueller’s investigation could expand to include examining Sessions’ role. “The order is pretty clear,” Rosenstein responded. “It gives him authority for the investigation and anything arising out of that investigation, and so Director Mueller will be responsible in the first instance for determining what he believes falls into that mandate.”

As many article point of, if Mueller picks up obstruction, it opens up a conflict can of worms. Why open it, if you don;t have to?

Because they're trying to handle everything under this one SC, who according to the media has impeccable credentials, despite his obvious conflicts of interest.

Plus, there are some serious outward clues that Mueller is not handling the obstruction investigation.

There is basically one clue, the memo from Rosenstein, however it is completely indeterminate in whether that applies to the reports of Mueller looking into obstruction. Some have even speculated, that it is related to some information that is still yet to be released, since is specifically mentions bogus leaks coming from foreign countries, which do not seem to apply to the article regarding Mueller's potential investigation into obstruction.

I don't think we know anything for sure, but I'm not willing to give Mueller or Rosenstein the benefit of the doubt, based on Mueller's obvious conflicts of interest, his appointment of a Clinton Foundation lawyer to his staff, etc.

[Cboldt]

-- Because they're trying to handle everything under this one SC --

I think you are biased to that conclusion, which is your right of course. I don't know who the "they" is, as you make that assertion, but don't need to know or understand.

It's fine that we disagree by the way. My goal isn't to persuade you to abandon your point of view, it is only to express and justify mine. You have done the same thing, and I thank you for that.

[Golden Eagle]

Thank you for you comments as well. To be specific, “they” would be the DoJ, to include Sessions input. One special counsel with free reign to ferret through the President and his associates is more than enough, when there doesn’t seem to be any underlying crime.

Special counsels should only be appointed when there is already evidence of a crime, of which there still is none. To have a second one appointed, when there is still no evidence of a crime, would double the outrage of one being appointed at all, and clearly indicate the intentions to unfairly persecute the President.

[Cboldt]

-- One special counsel with free reign to ferret through the President and his associates is more than enough, when there doesn't seem to be any underlying crime. --

Sure, I'd combine them if that was more efficient, but I wouldn't be hidebound to use one SC.

-- Special counsels should only be appointed when there is already evidence of a crime, of which there still is none. --

I agree with that. This is a total witch hunt. To that end, I don;t believe for one second that the FBI has opened an obstruction case against Trump. The press and Congress might spin up enough to force an SC on that question, but so far it isn't happening.

I think letting the press talk up obstruction, but not officially dealing with the accusation, is a legitimate and smart strategy. The alleged acts of Trump are ambiguous at best, and taken in a charitable way, are POSITIVE acts, aimed at getting the truth out to the public and ending a witch hunt.

I think it is a good strategy because if Mueller comes out with a clean bill and a report that whiffs "this was a witch hunt," the call for an obstruction prosecution is going to fall apart.