Gregg Jarrett: Rod Rosenstein's coup attempt to depose Trump should not go unpunished

Fox News ^ | September 21, 2018 | Gregg Jarrett

[adorno]

Check out this article in the New York Times!

Every once in a while, the NY Times gets it right.

But, the NY Times might be reporting on something that really happened in order to get Trump to fire Rosenstein, and then, all hell will break loose, with the NY Times being first in line to attack Trump for intrusion of the investigative process in the Mueller investigations.

But, I'm pretty sure that there is "something" behind the Rosenstein report.

It might be that Rosenstein was just testing the waters while in a meeting with others who he thought might have been thinking as he was about removing Trump via the 25th amendment; he now calls it a joke, but, he might have feeling the air to see if somebody else would join in.

[Alberta's Child]

Read the report and Rosenstein's "denials."

It's pretty clear what happened here:

1. Comey approached Rosenstein with a plan to record personal conversations with Trump to hatch a plan to have him removed from office under the 25th Amendment.
2. Rosenstein thought Comey was nuts, and told him so.
3. Rosenstein can't deny that the conversation took place, so he has to make a very legalistic "denial" that is more about the characterization of the conversation than whether or not it took place.

... who he thought might have been thinking as he was about removing Trump via the 25th amendment; he now calls it a joke, but, he might have feeling the air to see if somebody else would join in.

Absolutely not. Rosenstein has been a lawyer in Federal circles for years, and he knows better than anyone that removing a president under the 25th Amendment is a silly exercise. For one thing, the amendment was written to cover a situation where a president would be temporarily incapacitated or out of contact (during a domestic military crisis, for example). Secondly, it's actually easier to IMPEACH the president and remove him from office that way than to do it under the 25th Amendment.

[thinden]

somebody from the FBI cabal was going into meetings with Trump and recording them, and they also tried to organize a 25th amendment removal of him.

New and very interesting Rosenstein statement late tonight which suggests this theory:

““I never pursued or authorized recording the President and any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the President is absolutely false.”

Very specific language. I never pursued OR AUTHORIZED recording the President. This NYT article was clearly damage control for upcoming redacted texts and docs.

Why does Rosenstein deny “authorizing” recording the President? BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE DID.

Somebody is going to be outed in the declassified documents as having gone into a meeting with Trump, recorded it, and they planted this article to try to give themselves cover by saying that Rod Rosenstein authorized them to do so.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I think you’re on to something ALX.

got to toss the bait out there to catch the fish.

[petitfour]

Comey recorded the POTUS? And POTUS has been baiting him about recordings? Just theorizing here. Possibly Comey was recording P-elect Trump and continued recording after the inauguration.

I can’t remember the timelines of what went on in early 2017.

[RegulatorCountry]

In very specifically worded statements, the devil is always in the details. What I see is an explicit denial of direct responsibility, but not a denial of awareness or even involvement in such efforts. These statements are designed in a lawyerly manner to fit the known facts, or to fit the facts suspected to be known. So, he didn’t authorize it, he never came right out and said he was in favor of it; Rosenstein is certain that these statements cannot be disproved. Everything else is still up in the air, but the certainty of the denial gives the appearance of covering those grey areas, which is the intent.

[ridesthemiles]

Follow the money...........

[jazusamo]

Taken as you meant, it would be the right thing to do IMHO.

It would also get the attention of everyone, especially those involved and connected to this cabal.

[adorno]

Absolutely not. Rosenstein has been a lawyer in Federal circles for years, and he knows better than anyone that removing a president under the 25th Amendment is a silly exercise.

So, Rosenstain could not have been plotting against the president and to remove him via the 25th amendment, just because he's a lawyer and knows the law? Yet, there are probably hundreds of lawyers in congress and in government circles, who have actually talked about or thought about the 25th amendment as a means to remove Trump. We see and hear of it all the time in the media, and there are supporters for the idea in politics and government.

The law never stopped the silliness and nuttiness before, and we have plenty of that right now, everywhere. Just mentioning or entertaining the idea of the 25th amendment has given hopes to millions of radicals and thoughtless people around the country, and the main thing that democrats and Trump haters want to do, is to keep the idea and anger against Trump alive, forever if they can.

Why would the idea even get mentioned and/or entertained by people in the FBI high circles, if the thought didn't occur to them that, perhaps there was something they could do to remove the president, even if nutty as it sounds?

[Alberta's Child]

My point is: Why would anyone with half a legal brain even discuss this as a serious matter instead of just discussing this silly strategy to remove him under the 25th Amendment? It's HARDER to remove him under the 25th Amendment than through an impeachment.

That's probably the extent of Rosenstein's involvement in the conversation. It probably ended like this: "Hey, Comey -- I understand how someone as dumb as you can get a law degree, but I'm wondering how you passed third grade math."

[Georgia Girl 2]

Duh! The guy should be fired yesterday.

[adorno]

My point is: Why would anyone with half a legal brain even discuss this as a serious matter instead of just discussing this silly strategy to remove him under the 25th Amendment? It's HARDER to remove him under the 25th Amendment than through an impeachment.

It's not about the legality of the idea, and it's not about the seriousness of using the 25th amendment to undo the Trump presidency.

The idea behind the thought was to put out the "feelers" to see who or how many thought the same. No doubt that if there were other takers, that they would have pursued the idea, even if they were never going to get it done legally and through a republican-controlled congress. The idea was to get enough people who felt the same, and then put it out into the public and the media, which would have then provided a narrative of a president hated by his staff who wasn't trusted or wasn't equipped to do the job of the presidency. That's the narrative which the democrats have been presenting to the public for 2 1/2 years about Trump, and getting a bunch of people on the FBI and DOJ and in Trump's staff to back up the narrative, might have presented bigger problems for Trump than he's had to put up with otherwise. When McCabe and Rosenstein did not get enough others to present their "Trump is not trusted and Trump is not equipped to run the presidency" narrative, then, their defense for their original discussion became, "it was only a joke". It was not a joke initially. Never mind the legality; they were never going to get Trump out of the White House. It was all about getting most of the country to believe that Trump was ill-equipped and untrustworthy and too crooked to run the government.

[Alberta's Child]

Sorry -- I'm really just not getting through to you.

If this was all supposed to be part of a "coup" attempt, then why would they discuss the strategy that was MORE DIFFICULT to implement?

Option #1 (Impeachment): Simple majority vote in the House and a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate.

Option #2 (25th Amendment): Two-thirds majority vote in BOTH houses of Congress.

Why would you even be discussing Option #2 if it would have been EASIER to get the necessary votes under Option #1?

There's only one reason the 25th Amendment scenario ever came up in the first place: because there were a bunch of partisan dingbat talking heads discussing it all over the media, and not one of them knew his ass from his elbow when discussing it.

I could see Comey pursuing a strategy based on nothing more than half-assed media coverage that wouldn't stand up to any legal scrutiny -- because he's a moron. I don't think Rosenstein is dumb enough to even consider it.

[adorno]

If this was all supposed to be part of a "coup" attempt, then why would they discuss the strategy that was MORE DIFFICULT to implement?

Sorry that I'm not getting through to you

It was not about getting Trump out via a coup attempt, nor about invoking the 25th amendment, nor about whether there were enough votes in congress to get Trump out.

None of that matters.

It was about the already existing narrative that the democrats and the left-wing media have been using for more than 2 1/2 years against Trump. But, since the narrative is a lie, it was about creating the atmosphere or environment where that narrative could be sold to most Americans, where Trump would be seen as "corrupt and untrustworthy and mentally incapable of executing the job of the presidency". He wasn't about to be "voted" out by congress, but, if enough dumb-asses could be convinced about how Trump was unsuited for the presidency, the hope of democrats was that, perhaps Trump would resign on his own and let Pence take over, or congress might even be forced to consider removing him. Legally, there was/is nothing the subversives can do, but, an aura of incapable and crooked and untrustworthy and mentally incapable and lack of judgment, might have been what the subversives were after.

[nhbob1]

Those memos need to be made public in fully unredacted form. They would seem to detail a lot of the coup. No wonder Mueller is trying to cover it up.

[Chickensoup]

He should hang if found guilty

to protect our government.

[1Old Pro]

hmm, Rod is resigning.