“As a general proposition, you have to understand the Department of Justice. We take confidentiality seriously, so when we have memoranda about our ongoing matters, we have an obligation to keep that confidential.”
When asked about releasing the memos in light of those rules, Rosenstein stated “As a general position, I think it is quite clear. It’s what we were taught, all of us as prosecutors and agents.”
That is a pretty damning statements against Comey who did not have to leak the memos in order to have them considered by investigators, as I have previously discussed
One matter that was not discussed was Rosenstein’s much delayed recusal. I believe that Rosenstein has a glaring and troubling conflict given his interactions with Trump before and after the termination of Comey. I am frankly flabbergasted by Rosenstein’s refusal thus far to recuse himself. Presumably the Justice Department Ethics Office said that this conflict is both clear or pressing. If not, the office is a paper tiger. Rosenstein is showing a willful blindness to his conflict. At some point, further delay will look less like sheer stubbornness and more like arrogance in refusing to acknowledge his curious positions as both a potential focus and ultimate authority in this investigation.
88 thoughts on “Rosenstein: Comey Memos Were Confidential and Improperly Leaked”
Reblogged this on kommonsentsjane and commented:
Reblogged on kommonsentsjane/blogkommonsents.
It is hard to understand why AG Sessions has not stepped out of his recusable state and step back into his role as the arbitrium of justice to clear up this matter and quit shirking his oath to the Constitution – he needs to use some common sense.
The American people need his help, now!
The American people’s interest is at stake.
Comments ran off topic again.
Things weren’t totally proper at Abu Ghraib, but I wonder if you could list what you believe were the 3 worst things.
Comey could not “recommend” prosecution of Hillary after delineating the multiple crimes she was
manifestly guilty of, finding “no intent.”
How is it conceivable that Rosenstein, as a pro tem substitute, could not only “recommend” but actually
appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the duly elected President Trump, without an scintilla of probable
cause or “intent” but an overabundance of disappointment by dumbocrats over Hillary’s grave loss.
Can you say corruption as a coup d’etat in America?
Comments are closed.