Jay Sekulow may be an attorney who is working for Donald Trump, but he's not functioning as his attorney when he appears on a TV show and makes arguments to a TV audience. It's a TV show, not a courtroom. If he's confident enough to say there's no investigation, then I'm willing to take his word for it.
That's not what I said at all, I said you were making the assumption that they were above reproach, and following DoJ protocol correctly, in order to further assume there is no investigation.
I know how lawyers work. Even if I didn't trust Rosenstein and Mueller, I'd tend to believe that they'd conduct himself within the limits of their professional responsibilities in a case like this. Donald Trump gets more popular with every pile of mud that is slung at him, so it doesn't do them any good to throw mud without any evidence behind it.
Rosenstein's statement was completely nondescript with regard to the context.
It had to be completely nondescript with regard to its context. The U.S. Department of Justice is not permitted to make public statements about its investigations. That not only means meets it can't leak information to the media about its own investigations, but it can't confirm or deny the accuracy of information that is being reported in the media.
The only reason the DOJ would ever issue a press release like the one you saw the other day is that it knows damn well that a bunch of lies have been reported in the media, but it can't come right out and say this. The general "don't believe everything you hear" message is the best they can do without breaching their own legal responsibilities.
I'm afraid the matter isn't completely settled.
In that case, you might want to turn off the TV, the radio and the internet for the rest of your life -- because you're always going to be seeing crap that isn't true but is put out there simply to cause you to live in a constant state of alarm.
Heheh. But it wasn't completely nondescript. The June 15 Press Release included this descriptive prose: "... anonymous `officials,' particularly when they do not identify the country - let alone the branch or agency of government".
Check the WaPo "Trump is being investigated for obstruction" article against that description. Check some other articles that cite anonymous sources, and see if the anonymity is narrowed.
Trump lawyer insists there is no obstruction investigation - but then hedges
Sekulow referred to The Post story as "a fake report" during an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday."We stand by our story, which President Trump confirmed Friday in a tweet acknowledging he is under investigation for obstruction of justice," Post executive editor Martin Baron said in a statement.
Other news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and CNN have had similar reports since The Post broke the news Wednesday night about Trump being under investigation.
Now the press is going to have to take a stand on one side or the other. WaPo swears that Trump is under investigation for obstruction of justice. Their contention, up to them to prove it. In other words, Trump has no obligation to confirm, deny, or remark on the subject at all; although his lawyer has directly denied it.