Tuesday, October 9, 2018

UPDATED: It's James Baker's Turn To Throw Rosenstein Under A Bus

Not long ago I did a blog with the title: Dems Throw Wray And Rosenstein Under The BusJohn Solomon is now reporting that, according to James Baker in his recent House testimony, that business about Rosenstein maybe wearing a wire against Trump was no joke--or at least not from the perspective of the FBI--Former FBI lawyer: Plot to record, remove Trump not a joke:

Baker told lawmakers he wasn’t in the meeting that McCabe had with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in which the subject came up. But he did have firsthand conversations with McCabe and the FBI lawyer assigned to McCabe, Lisa Page, about the issue.
“As far as Baker was concerned, this was a real plan being discussed,” said a source directly familiar with the congressional investigation. “It was no laughing matter for the FBI.”

Solomon is properly circumspect about what might be behind Baker's statements--after all, this could be simple truth-telling, or it could be payback for Rosenstein's cooperation with Trump in recent weeks? It remains possible, even likely, that Rosenstein wanted nothing to do with McCabe's idea of recording President Trump and seeking to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump, no matter what his personal views on Trump. On the other hand, the FBI leadership--knowing what their criminal jeopardy was should Trump become aware of their shenanigans during the 2016 election--doubtless saw this as a life and death matter. For them. It wouldn't be for Rosenstein, although Rosenstein went on to create his own problems for himself--appointing the Special Counsel, approving the final FISA, all on fraudulent grounds. Solomon rightly stresses the extraordinary implications of all this:

Baker’s story lays bare an extraordinary conversation in which at least some senior FBI officials thought it within their purview to try to capture the president on tape and then go to the president’s own Cabinet secretaries, hoping to persuade the senior leaders of the administration to remove the president from power.
I doubt this is the power that Congress intended to be exercised when it created the FBI a century ago, or the circumstances in which the authors of the 25th Amendment imagined a president’s removal could be engineered.
This wasn’t a president who was incapacitated at the time. He was fully exercising his powers — but in a way the FBI leadership did not like.
And that makes the FBI’s involvement in the tape-record-then-dump-Trump conversations overtly political — even if Rosenstein believed the whole idea was farcical.

Obviously the Deep State, one way or another, is very unhappy with Rosenstein at this point. Trump has complete leverage over Rosenstein and so is willing to protect him--he may yet prove very useful--but Rosenstein would be well advised to look both ways before crossing any streets.

ADDENDUM: It's seems apparent that the meeting of Rosenstein and Scott Schools from DoJ with the FBI's Andy McCabe and Lisa Page was in fact a strategy session. It was intended to address--at a minimum--how to deal with the new president or, more likely, how to hamstring him. What came out of that meeting was not DAG Rosenstein wearing a wire, but it was a Rod Rosenstein--who for all matters involving President Trump was actually the Attorney General (due to the Sessions recusal)--who not only hid from Trump the fact that the FBI was conspiring against him but was also willing to use use fraudulent means to occupy Trump legally and continue to spy on him through FISA.

MORE: IBD has an interesting editorial today: Did Hillary Clinton Direct Deep State's Trump Investigation? The basic idea is straightforward--none of the FBI abuses and crimes would have occurred but for the Hillary Clinton campaign's involvement. The editorial goes into a fair amount of detail, but it is heavily based on the revelation by James Baker--General Counsel of the FBI--that Baker received information relevant to the Carter Page FISA directly from the lawyer for the DNC and the Clinton Campaign, who was paying Fusion GPS: Michael Sussman, of Perkins Coie. And Baker accepted this information knowing where Sussman was coming from. We covered this in James Baker Identifies Another Source Behind the FISA Application. Bottom line: all of this, pre-election, was a Democrat operation. It happened, it was illegal and fraudulent, it was bad.

But Rod Rosenstein has been catching a lot of flack, not only from bloggers and GOP leaning commentators and opinion shapers but very much from House Republicans. And rightly so. As I said above, the appointment of Mueller was fraudulent and the final renewal of the Carter Page FISA was also fraudulent. Both were the acts of Rosenstein. It wasn't wrong for Rosenstein to have gone to the meeting with McCabe, but once he got an idea of what McCabe wanted--Rosenstein's cooperation in taking down Trump via the 25th Amendment--Rosenstein should have gone straight to Trump and told him: You've got a major problem over at the FBI. I say this based on Rosenstein's own statements that his opinion then and now was that there was and is no basis for applying the 25th Amendment. The FBI, as an investigative agency, had no business getting involved to the extent that it did in any such process.

But here's the larger point: all that was basically a Republican operation--not a Democrat operation, even though Democrats were overjoyed at what was going on. Rosenstein was a Republican appointee serving a Republican administration--with oversight from Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. That being the case, what would be the likelihood that Rosenstein would have taken the steps he did--appointing the SC, approving the final renewal of the FISA--just because Andy McCabe at the FBI, of all people, wanted him to? I would say that the likelihood would have been just about zero. As I said above, Rosenstein is basically a cautious bureaucrat--but a highly intelligent cautious bureaucrat. He would have been a fool to have taken those steps without some tacit understanding with the major players in the GOP establishment that they agreed with him that those steps needed to be taken. After all, when we talk about a Special Counsel in this context, we're talking about attacking the very legitimacy of the Trump Presidency. It's hard for me to believe that Rod Rosenstein took that decision without consulting with people like Senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan.

I think that the lay of the land has changed substantially since those early days of the Trump presidency. The Republican party has become the party of Trump. An understanding has been reached. And for that reason I expect that after a successful midterm election vigorous action will be taken to put all this to rest. The big question will be: Will the Republicans take aggressive legal action against the Democrats who set all this in motion? The Kavanaugh nomination fight and the Republican reaction to it suggest that the Republicans may decide to pursue this to the end.

BREAKING 10/10: I've just noticed a long blog by Jeff Carlson: The Running Battle Between Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe. For those who may not be familiar with Jeff, he has done, IMO, yeoman work in covering the Russia Hoax. In his current blog he reviews most of the known facts surrounding two of the central players: McCabe and Rosenstein. It's interesting to read this in light of today's revelation by the WaPo that McCabe actually opened an investigation on President Trump for Obstruction of Justice in re the firing of James Comey. Obviously such an investigation would go absolutely nowhere without DoJ's support--and that means Rod Rosenstein's support. It seems clear that that was what led to the famous meeting in which Rosenstein is alleged to have offered to wear a wire against President Trump. It seems clear to me that this story is driven by McCabe's desire to hit back at Rosenstein. IMO, Rosenstein's version is almost certain to be closer to the facts than McCabe's version.


  1. It's obvious to me that Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller to the Special Counsel position with an open-ended mandate for several reasons:

    * to cause trouble for Donald Trump's relatives and associates

    * to cause trouble for President Trump

    * to provide an excuse for DOJ/FBI to refuse to provide info to Congress

    * to whitewash the DOJ/FBI

    Investigating Trump-Russia collusion was not a major goal.

    Rosenstein was a key member of the seditious cabal in DOJ/FBI.


    According to Ashton Gray, Robert Mueller and Aaron Zebley were invited on March 22, 2016, to the White House to talk with Stefanie Osburn, the Executive Director of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB).

    Two days after that invitation, George Papadoplous met with Joseph Mifsud in London. This London meeting was where Papadoloulos though that he was being introduced to Vladimir Putin's niece.

    Although Mueller and Zebley were invited on March 22, their meeting with PIAB Executive Director Osburn did not take place until April 13.

    On April 18, Mifsud arrived in Moscow, where he introduced George Papadopoulos via e-mail to the “Russian MFA Connection” — Ivan Timofeev, who supposedly had “connections” to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA).

    Unfortunately, I cannot figure out Ashton Gray's source for his information about Mueller and Zebley visiting Osburn in the White House.

  2. Agreed, Mike. What I should have added in the Addendum--I will later--is what I believe is a high likelihood and a key one at that: that Rosenstein almost certainly only went ahead with the Mueller appointment after consulting with key Washington players, especially in the Senate but also including Speaker Ryan. Can't prove it, but it seems inconceivable that an essentially cautious bureaucrat like Rosenstein would have taken such a momentous step with support from the majority party. The good news, I think, is that Republicans are coming to realize what they have in Trump. We'll see.

    I saw that about Mueller and Zebley and was fascinated by it, but as you say ... sourcing.

  3. I believe Trump & Sessions knew going in how dirty RR is. Knowing RR's penchant for bureaucratic skullduggery, Trump & Sessions decided Sessions' 'recusal' would be the best way to ensnare a significant number of dirty bureaucrats.

    I believe Sessions, Horowitz & Huber are going thru FBI & DoJ with fine-tooth combs. I would not be surprised when (should Trump succeed in being re-elected) the same fine-tooth inspection is applied to every other dept of the Executive branch.

    Draining a swamp as big as the federal bureaucracy is slow, painstaking, thankless work. It amazes me that Trump is generous enough to spend 4 to 8 of his golden years doing such a hard job.

  4. Londonbach, there's no doubt that a fine toothed comb is what's needed for that job!

  5. Ryan's departure from Congress may be a result of having been a covert member of the Trump Resistance and an enabler of the Mueller SC appointment. The Mueller investigation has always been about gaining leverage over Trump, and Ryan/McConnell would be the main beneficiaries. I also wonder if Nikki Haley's abrupt departure may be a similar exit; could she have been the anonymous author of the recent NYT hit piece editorial on Trump? The Kavannagh attack was a desperate Hail Mary attempt to derail the Trump presidency, and if it had succeeded, I suspect Mueller would have produced an October Surprise. Last, I wonder if the reason Baker was comfortable throwing McCabe and Sussman to the wolves was because he now believes that the fix is in and Sessions has approved a plea bargain agreement that lets all the culprits off the hook in exchange for token censure and toothless DOJ rule changes.

  6. Unknown, I think a lot of what you say is valid speculation. Ryan has remained a NeverTrumper throughout, although I suspect his departure may have a lot to do with cashing in on his Establishment connections. However, I'm reluctant to believe that "the culprits" will be let off the hook. I think there will be significant sentences. However, I will admit my concern over how high up this will go. For example, we hear nothing these days about the unmasking.

  7. I think it is pretty clear James Wolfe sent Ali Watkins of the Times the FISA warrant he received 3/17/17 on the same day he received it. That means the Times, and others, know exactly what is in it. The silence on this is deafening. Given Mr. Trump's proclivity for destroying his enemies,I am struck by how vulnerable these outlets are by their failure to try to mitigate this. Clearly Mr. Wolfe being only charged with 'lying to the FBI' and not charged with disclosing classified information could only mean one of two things: 1) he was given barium meal or 2) he is being used for leverage too.

  8. Anon, that's a remarkable situation that I've often wondered about, but have nothing to offer.

  9. The evidence that Mueller and Zebley met with Osburn in the White House on April 13, 2016 is here.

  10. I have not found a source for the claim that Osburn contacted Mueller and Zebley on March 22, 2016, in relation to a White House meeting that eventually took place on April 13. Assuming that both dates are correct, here is how they fit into the sequence of events.

    * March 21 = Papadopoulos and Carter Page publicly named as Trump's advisers.

    * March 22 = Osburn calls Mueller and Zebley to arrange a White House meeting

    * March 24 = Papadopoulos meets with Mifsud in London, where Papdopoulos is introduced to "Putin's niece".

    * April 13 = Mueller and Zebley meet Osburn in the White House

    * April 18 = Mifsud meets in Moscow with Ivan Timofeev, who subsequently will become Papadopoulos's alleged connection to Putin's government.

    April 18 - NSA Director Mike Rogers terminates all access to the NSA databases for FBI contractors. (Rogers had discovered the contractors' abuse of the database on March 9.)

    April 19 = Mary Jacoby, wife of Glenn Simpson (co-owners of Fusion GPS), visits the White House for two hours.

    April 22 = Timofeev sends Papadopoulos an e-mail thanking him "for an extensive talk" and proposing to meet him personally in Moscow or London. Papadopoulos responds by e-mail that he has arranged a meeting with "the ambassador" in London in order "to discuss a process moving forward".

  11. Mike, great find. I'd been wondering whether Gray had checked the WH logs and somehow forgot to mention that. Amazing that this was known months ago and nobody's made anything of it. Of course it's circumstantial, but that's often how good investigation gets started. And did you notice Greg Jarrett's tweet just above?

  12. I like your fleshed out timeline, going back into March, better than the one posted on Twitter.