Rosenstein Testifies Before The Senate Judiciary Hearing

Screen Shot 2020-06-03 at 11.31.11 AMI have been tweeting on the hearing of former Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. I will continue to update on the blog as newsworthy points are raised. Update: the hearing is now over but further analysis is available here.

Thus far we have had a lively hearing with Rosenstein who admitted that he would not have signed off on the Carter Page FISA application if he knew about the false statements and underlying misconduct from the FBI.

Rosenstein also stated that former Deputy FBI Director, Andrew McCabe, failed to inform him of critical and important information until “just a few hours” before they appeared in the New York Times.

He also acknowledged that there is evidence that the Steele dossier contained disinformation from Russian intelligence or other sources and that the Russians were trying to harm both Clinton and Trump.


Earlier Sen. Cornyn questioned Rosenstein on the reports within the FBI that the Steele dossier may have been a vehicle of the Russian intelligence services to spread disinformation.  He does not disagree with footnote 350 of the IG.  He does not go beyond acknowledging the evidence that it might have been a vehicle for Russian disinformation and that it needs to be investigated.

This was the exchange:

John Cornyn: (59:45)
Well, we know that Bill Priestap, who’s in charge of the counter intelligence division, said they did consider the possibility that Steele was a part of a Russian disformation campaign. But then thanks to the diligence of Senator Grassley and Senator Johnson and the director of national intelligence, we now have a copy of the less redacted footnote 350 to the inspector general report, which points out, if you can see it, that not only did a Steele have regular interaction with Russian oligarchs, but that there was a potential for Russia  disinformation influencing Steele’s election reporting. It did not have high confidence that the sub-sources for Steele’s reporting and assessed that the reference subset was part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate US foreign relations.

John Cornyn: (01:00:50)
Mr. Rosenstein, it strikes me that Mr. Putin must be extraordinarily pleased with how this all played itself out. Not only was Hillary Clinton and her campaign disparaged, not only was President Trump and his campaign disparaged and put through what can only be described as hell for the last three-and-a-half years of an investigation, when in fact the source of some of the information that was used not only to secure a FISA warrant but to conduct a counterintelligence investigation, may in fact have been part of a Russian disnformation campaign. Does that concern you?

Rosenstein: (01:01:33)
It concerns me very much, Senator. I’m in a bit of a disadvantage. As you know, I was in the job for only two years. I’ve been gone now for about 13 months, so I don’t have access to any information that’s been generated through the Durham investigation. I do not know what Attorney General Barr has discovered with regard to that, but I think it’s important, senators, for us to keep in mind that it is established, I believe, that Russia’s efforts included disparaging Hillary Clinton, as you said, that that doesn’t mean Russia is on the other candidate side. Russia is on Russia’s side. I think we should be just as concerned if there’s evidence that they were disparaging or attacking, trying to undermine President Trump as we were about their activities with regard to Secretary Clinton. I don’t know the answer to it, but I am concerned about it.

John Cornyn: (01:02:20)
I agree with you. The point I was trying to make is the Crossfire Hurricane investigation based almost entirely on the allegations of Christopher Steele and the sources he provided, which may have in fact been part of a Russian disinformation campaign, which has successfully divided the country and created a lot of chaos in the ensuing three-and-a-half years.

Rod Rosenstein: (01:02:45)
If I could just follow up on that. Senator, whether it’s Russian disinformation or other disinformation, I think the FBI needs to figure out where did it come from, why was it submitted and were any crimes committed. I think that’s an appropriate area of investigation. I just don’t know what the evidence reflects.


11:40 am

Ted_Cruz,_official_portrait,_113th_CongressSen Cruz just said that he believes Rosenstein was grossly negligent in his handling of the investigation. Rosenstein said that he did not know about the discrediting of the Steele dossier or the fraudulent filings of an agent or the fact that the Steele dossier was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.

Cruz just asked Rosenstein about the Logan Act which he correctly described as a flagrantly unconstitutional act and its reliance by the FBI.  He is right that its use should have been laughable.  I have repeatedly written on the aspect.  

Rosenstein responded that Flynn was targeted because they believed that Flynn had lied to the Vice President. He entirely failed to respond to the Logan Act question.

11:43 am

Sen. Klobuchar is up and vehemently objecting to the comparison of Obama to Nixon by Sen. Cruz.

Klobuchar again refers to the fact that the Russians interfered with the election and former Trump associates were convicted of other crimes.


Sen. Hawley is raising the FISA courts own statements against false statements to the court. Hawley confronted Rosenstein for signing off on an application with at least 17 false statements.

Rosenstein made his first misstep in saying that four judges signed off on the application.  That is hardly an answer.  Those judges do not actively pressed the FBI on whether the facts are true.

Rosenstein said that there is a legitimate question of “why it happened?” That would seem to support the hearing that Democrats are denouncing.

Rosenstein agreed that the conduct of the FBI in the case was “certainly a threat” to the system of justice and court process with regard to FISA.

Rosenstein agreed that “we need to find out what went wrong.”  He did a good job in dealing with Hawley who repeatedly interrupted him in saying that he is appearing today to be “accountable.”  Rosenstein insisted that “yelling at me will not solve the problem.”


Sen. Coons did a better job in getting Rosenstein to say that he does not agree that the Russian investigation was a “witch hunt” and that he does believe that it has a valid purpose.

Rosenstein contradicted Coons on his statement that there is no precedent for withdrawing a plea like Flynn.  He said that he did not know on specific precedent but that there have been prior cases of withdrawing from prosecutions. I have written on that point.

I thought Coons did well but I will do not understand the opposition to the hearing given Rosenstein’s own testimony that he believes that there is still a need to get to the bottom of these issues, including new information released after the IG investigation.


Sen. Tillis is up.  He is now defining “hoax” under the Oxford dictionary as well as a “witch hunt.”

Tillis noted that Page, Strzok and others were on what he described as his “hand-picked teams.” Rosenstein says that those people should be “held accountable.”

Tillis is again pressing on Rosenstein calling McCabe’s omissions as a lack of candor.  Rosenstein did not respond beyond saying that he would not speculate on McCabe’s state of mind.


Rosenstein just told Sen. Blumenthal that “he is open to the possibility” that he might not have appointed Mueller but, what he knows today, he would still have appointed him.

What is interesting is that Blumenthal noted that he did not vote for Rosenstein because he refused to say that he would appoint a Special Counsel at his confirmation.  He was the only vote against Rosenstein in Committee. His position at the time was entirely improper. He was demanding, as a condition for confirmation, that Rosenstein agreed to take an official action without knowing the full facts.  Later he would appoint a Special Counsel.  However, Blumenthal’s position at the time was outrageous given the need to review the record before making such a decision.


Sen. Ernst is up.

She raised his extension of surveillance on Page on June 29, 2017 but the fact of the surveillance was already in the media and Page knew it.  Yet, the FBI continued the surveillance.  Rosenstein just said that “it is a valid question” but that he was told that they still believed the third extension of the original warrant was needed. He confirmed that he raised that fact that they would be continuing to monitor and surveil despite that fact that Page was fully aware that he was being monitored and surveilled.

Rosenstein said that he did not view Page’s surveillance as intruding into political discussions because Page was no longer working on the campaign.


440px-Mazie_Hirono,_official_portrait,_113th_CongressSen. Hirono is up.

She is discussing the Floyd case.

Hirono raised reports that he discussed wearing a wire or using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump.

Rosenstein denied he was involved in any conspiracy against Trump but Hirono cut him off to ask about specific statements.

Rosenstein denied secretly recording President Trump and “never in any way suggested the President could be removed under the 25th Amendment.”

Hirono seems to be making a case for the Administration.  She just prompted Rosenstein to say that he agreed with the view that there was no evidence of obstruction of justice.  She then dug deeper and Rosenstein just said that “he agrees that there was no evidence of a crime” by Trump.

Hirono continued to dig deeper.  She pressed Rosenstein on how a 1000 prosecutors disagreed with him. Rosenstein just said “we have a lot more than 1000 former prosecutors.” He said that while they did not know the full record, he did.  Hirono cut him off again.  Rosenstein said it was unfair.  “Nobody was in favor of prosecution.”


Sen. Crapo is up.

He got Rosenstein to agree that the Inspector General did in fact find bias but that he could not prove that bias was the reason for decisions.

Crapo noted that the IG could only ask the people if their bias impacted their decision and there is obviously no documentary evidence to prove how the bias impacted decisions.  Crapo noted that the IG said it was “inapplicable” that all of these errors could occur without bias.

Rosenstein agreed that this was “an important issue.” He then deflected the question on his view.  He agreed that bias was found.  Rosenstein said that he felt Attorney General needs to still address the issue.


Sen. Booker is up.

He is also opposing any continuing inquiry into the misconduct in the Russian investigation. He is questioning Rosenstein on whether he watched the Floyd killing and prior task forces.


Sen. Kennedy is up.

He is going through the emails on hostile writings against Bernie Sanders and Trump form Page and Strzok.  Not a family show on the language.

He has said that they were decision makers “navel deep” in Crossfire Hurricane. Not sure I would call Page a decisionmaker or even particularly “senior.”

Kennedy noted it is “easier to divorce a spouse than get someone fired.”  However, he pressed Rosenstein on why he did not ask harder questions.  Rosenstein said that he is correct on Horowitz’s conclusion on bias.  He said that when he saw the evidence, they transferred Strzok and Page left the department voluntarily.

Sen. Graham followed up on why there was no “Woods procedure.” [A Woods Procedures (named for Michael Woods, the FBI official who drafted FISA rules) are designed for a review to “ensure accuracy with regard to … the facts supporting probable cause” after recurring instances.]

Rosenstein said it was a fair question but that they did conduct some review.

Kennedy returned with a question about Flynn and the threat of Mueller to indict Flynn’s son to pressure him to plead guilty.  Rosenstein said that he was under the impression that Flynn had lied. He said he was unaware that the agents actually said that they did not believe that Flynn intentionally lied to them. He said that this is something for Barr to investigated.


Sen. Blackburn is up.

She went to McCabe and the finding that he lied three times according to career investigators.  She asked why McCabe was not criminally charge like Flynn. Rosenstein refused to give an opinion.

She then turned to Flynn. Rosenstein said that he does not accept that Flynn was a target because he was a close adviser to Trump.

She raised the Stevens case that we previously discussed.  Rosenstein refused to discuss what should be done in Flynn.

Blackburn said that she still does not know if the Obama Administration intercepted her calls in working on the transition team.

Graham did say that he does not believe that Rosenstein was part of a conspiracy but asked him to respond to a statement from McCabe.  McCabe called Rosenstein’s claims of being mislead are “completely false” and that Rosenstein was “fully briefed.” McCade calls it a “sad attempt” using Rosenstein as a “willing accessory.’

Rosenstein said that he has not accused McCabe of “misrepresentations” but that he was “not forthcoming” and withheld important information. He stands by the statement that “for whatever reason” he withheld information that he (Rosenstein) had a “right to know.”  Graham said that he will ask McCabe to testify.

Graham gaveled the hearing to a close at 1:17.

Ironically, the most damaging testimony against the Justice Department came from the questioning by Sen. Hirono who is proof of the long-standing rule in litigation to avoid questions that you do not know the answer to.

440px-Sheldon_Whitehouse_2010It was also curious to have Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse criticizing the holding of a hearing on the conduct of the Justice Department while criticizing the lack of transparency at the Justice Department. I have long taken a simple approach to oversight. The more the better.  The motivations of oversight may be partisan but these hearings (as with today’s hearing) offer needed insights into alleged abuse.  Whitehouse is entirely correct that his own questions and inquiries need to be answered. However, that point would be more powerful if he was steadfastly opposed to pursuing these very allegations of bias and abuse, even as the witness says that there is more to be investigated and resolved.

111 thoughts on “Rosenstein Testifies Before The Senate Judiciary Hearing”

  1. “Hirono cut him off”

    “Hirono cut him off again”

    of course that’s what the lying Democrats do: cut people off so that they can push their narrative.

    Where is ANTIFA when you need them to lodge Molotov cocktails at infidels? Probably looting black businesses so that Democrats can say it was the Russians

  2. It looks like bias, it tweets like bias, it lets McCabe off for real actual lying but punishes Flynn for not-really lying, as if it was bias …
    but there’s no document admitting it was bias.
    So Rosenstein claims it’s not bias.

    Both Rosenstein and McCabe were playing “nod & wink”, where one implies a lie but avoids saying it, and the other accepts the lie as truth but does a CYA excuse to avoid that nod & wink reality.

    Most of the top FBI & DOJ are guilty, to greater or hugely much greater extents. But who watches the criminal watchers?

    It looks to me like “criminal referrals” are for PR, not to get to indictments.

    When Rosenstein says “more investigation”, I hear: yeah, I might be guilty, but I don’t think there’s any proof, so I walk out as innocent

    1. “punishes Flynn for not-really lying”

      If the FBI 302 is accurate, he really lied.

      For example, that 302 says “FLYNN noted he was not aware of the then-upcoming actions. … FLYNN did not know about the Persona Non-Grata (PNG) action until it was in the media. … he did not know the expulsions were coming.” But Flynn did know about the upcoming actions because he’d texted and spoken with senior Transition Team members about the sanctions prior to speaking with Kislyak. There’s testimony about this and also copies of text messages, such as Flynn texting “Tit for tat w Russia not good. Russian AMBO reaching out to me today.”

      Similarly, the 302 says “The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he made any request of KISLYAK to vote in a particular way [re: the U.N. Security Council vote on Israeli settlements] or take any action. FLYNN stated he did not. … The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he made any comment to KISLYAK about voting in a certain manner, or slowing down the vote, or if KISLYAK described any Russian response to a request by FLYNN. FLYNN answered, ‘No,’” but that is contradicted by the call transcripts.

      He’s made clearly conflicting statements in the various situations where the statements were made under penalty of perjury. They can’t all be true.

      The declaration he filed in January (made under penalty of perjury) says “I believe my resignation letter stated quite accurately what happened.” His resignation letter says “I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador.” Was “I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador” “quite accurate[]”?

      Here’s what VP-Elect Pence said at the time (this is a partial transcript of a 1/15/17 Face The Nation interview):

      JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask you about it was reported by David Ignatius that the incoming national security advisor Michael Flynn was in touch with the Russian ambassador on the day the United States government announced sanctions for Russian interference with the election. Did that contact help with that Russian kind of moderate response to it? That there was no counter-reaction from Russia. Did the Flynn conversation help pave the way for that sort of more temperate Russian response?

      MIKE PENCE: I talked to General Flynn about that conversation and actually was initiated on Christmas Day he had sent a text to the Russian ambassador to express not only Christmas wishes but sympathy for the loss of life in the airplane crash that took place. It was strictly coincidental that they had a conversation. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.

      JOHN DICKERSON: So did they ever have a conversation about sanctions ever on those days or any other day?

      MIKE PENCE: They did not have a discussion contemporaneous with U.S. actions on–

      JOHN DICKERSON: But what about after–

      MIKE PENCE: –my conversation with General Flynn. Well, look. General Flynn has been in touch with diplomatic leaders, security leaders in some 30 countries. That’s exactly what the incoming national security advisor–

      JOHN DICKERSON: Absolutely.

      MIKE PENCE: –should do. But what I can confirm, having spoken to him about it, is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions. [end transcript excerpt]

      So was Pence lying about what Flynn had told him?
      Or was Pence telling the truth, and Flynn had lied to Pence about it?

      (Personally, I’m leaning towards Pence having lied to the public here. I’d love for him to be questioned about it under oath, Trump too.)

      1. 302s are after the fact self serving memos that are best taken with a grain of salt

        put everybody under pressure and produce some lying is an old tactic

        in this case the thing to understand, is that they should have been putting the pressure on in the first place.

        you keep missing that point but it’s key to advancing your narrative so you simply wont allow it. so keep on rehashing the details and taking up space on the screen.

        which is itself another sophmoric internet cheerleader method along with trolling, false premise questions, and the usual assortment of rhetorical stunts.

        we’ll settle these questions in the end, via politics. and politics as we have seen the past week, does very much include things along the spectrum of violence.

        thanks rioters for reminding the average person about this, I understood this now for decades, but for the average Republican it may have taken nationwide chaos for the understanding to set in firmly.

        1. I think your opinions are also “best taken with a grain of salt.”

          You say “in this case the thing to understand, is that they should have been putting the pressure on in the first place. you keep missing that point.”

          But your “point” — “they should have been putting the pressure on in the first place” — is ambiguous. Who is “they”? and “putting the pressure on” whom?

          I’m not sure how you expect anyone to get such an unclear point.

          “we’ll settle these questions in the end, via politics”

          Actually, my questions will largely be settled in court.

          Oral arguments for the writ of mandamus are on June 12. It’s unclear how long the CADC will take to rule, and I suspect that either way they rule, there will be a request by one or another party for an en banc review.

          Meanwhile, in the District Court, the following schedule applies unless it’s interrupted by the CADC ruling:
          “(1) the Court-appointed amicus curiae shall file the amicus brief by no later than 12:00 PM on June 10, 2020; (2) any motion seeking leave to file an amicus brief by non-Court-appointed amicus curiae shall be filed by no later than 12:00 PM on June 10, 2020; (3) the government and Mr. Flynn shall file their responses to the amicus brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae by no later than 12:00 PM on June 17, 2020; (4) the Court-appointed amicus curiae shall file a reply brief by no later than 12:00 PM on June 24, 2020; (5) the government and Mr. Flynn shall file any sur-reply briefs by no later than 12:00 PM on June 26, 2020; and (6) the government, Mr. Flynn, and the Court-appointed amicus curiae shall file a consolidated response to any amicus brief of non-Court-appointed amicus curiae by no later than 12:00 PM on July 2, 2020. … the Court schedules oral argument for July 16, 2020”

          Since the June 10 deadline for Mr. Gleeson’s amicus brief is before the June 12 CADC oral arguments, at the very least we’ll soon see what Mr. Gleeson has to say about the 3 issues Judge Sullivan asked him to address, and his points may come up at oral arguments for the Writ. I think the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss is full of holes, and I look forward to reading what he has to say about why the Motion shouldn’t be granted. But you seem disinterested in details, so I suspect you don’t share my anticipation.

          1. Your opinions too. Given how long it took the clearly biased FBI agents to craft a 302 to their liking, why should we believe any part of it. I forget, Saint Strozk said he never let his bias affect his work. Was was Page doing helping to edit a 302 for an interview that she didn’t participate in?

            1. Yes, absolutely, my opinions can always be dismissed as opinions. But my comments also include a lot of facts. And facts aren’t opinions.

              You don’t present any evidence that the agents were “clearly biased” against Flynn. You believe it, but the question is: is your belief *true*?

              You say “Given how long it took … to craft a 302…”

              The 302 is dated February 15, 2017 (for an interview carried out on 1/24), and Mr. Flynn also received “relevant information about the pre-interview discussions and the post-interview debriefs, including: (1) the interviewing agents’ interview reports; (2) Mr. McCabe’s memorandum describing his telephone conversation with Mr. Flynn on January 24, 2017; (3) the interviewing agents’ notes; (4) drafts of the January 24, 2017 interview reports in its possession; and (5) summaries of the interviews from the FBI and DOJ officials who participated in the discussions and debriefs” (quoting from ).

              The Court looked at all of those documents and judged the 302 to be consistent with the notes, etc. I haven’t looked at all of those (I don’t even know if they’re all public), so I’ll go with the Court’s ruling about it.

              Keep in mind that Flynn and his lawyers received a copy of the 302 before he signed the plea agreement. If he thought it wasn’t accurate, he could have challenged it at the time and chosen not to plead out. But he didn’t do that.

              I’ll ask my question above of you too:
              Do you think Pence was lying about what Flynn had told him?
              Or was Pence telling the truth, and Flynn lied to Pence about his discussions with Kislyak?

              1. The Court looked at all of those documents and judged the 302 to be consistent with the notes…
                Keep in mind that Flynn and his lawyers received a copy of the 302 before he signed the plea agreement. If he thought it wasn’t accurate, he could have challenged it
                You don’t seem to comprehend how these two statements are at odds with eacj other.

                The judge relies on the fact that the legal process is adversarial.
                The court assumes that when certain facts were not challenged by a competent defense that it is not the courts place to second guess the position of the defense for making that decision.

                There is nothing new that was presented to the court that the defense did not have when it chose to plead guilty. This is not a case where new evidence emerged that clears the defendant. The thing that is very disturbing about this case is that the same evidence that was once accepted by the defendant and his lawyers as not exculpatory is now being presented as exculpatory. To the judge that looks a lot like the defense and prosecution have been jerking the court around for years.

              2. The 302 Comey said was written immediately is still denied.

                You can take that fact and include the counter intel entrapment get to lie notes and stuff it all up the patootie –

                as far as what “the court” decided matched, “the court” also decided “treason matches !”

                The court is criminal the prosecution is criminal, and swearing to not being coerced while the court is fully aware of the threat made to your family is a JOKE OF INJUSTICE.

                “Your honor, yes Mr. Comey testified the 302 was immediately written after the interview, no we don’t have it. Yes the other 302’s um… we can’t say if they are from the original or just from all the fired employees who got canned for massive misconduct with all the massive edits and playing around. Same for all the notes and discussions and all the rest mr honesty just quacked about, yes all from the liars and fired and our goons who concocted this whole scheme. Thank you, your honorable honor.Yes your dishonored, we violated Brady up and down for years until the white supremacist CIS gendered racist nazi Trump loving Sidney Powell stepped in doinga defense job instead of working with us the prosecution like AG Holder’s firm Flynn’s former,. when we got away with all this together. Please remember Flynn is also CIS white privileged male racist nazi klan type who Obama your borther hated, thank you your Honorably Oppressed by the defendant treasonist you honor.”

      2. For example, that 302 says “FLYNN noted he was not aware of the then-upcoming actions. … FLYNN did not know about the Persona Non-Grata (PNG) action until it was in the media. … he did not know the expulsions were coming.” But Flynn did know about the upcoming actions because he’d texted and spoken with senior Transition Team members about the sanctions prior to speaking with Kislyak. There’s testimony about this and also copies of text messages, such as Flynn texting “Tit for tat w Russia not good. Russian AMBO reaching out to me today.”
        How is any of that evidence of a lie? The story had been in the media the day Flynn made his call. The point Flynn is probably making is that as incoming NSA he should have been informed in advance by the Obama administration long before it was announced to the media. .
        The evidence in the 302 was not used to prosecute Flynn. It was given to the defense because the Brady rule requires the prosecution to give the defense all exculpatory evidence.

  3. Rose Stone … Came home…to his wife and family!
    After serving with Trumpster in the sea.
    And the time that he served..
    Has shattered all his verbs…
    And left a little schrapnel in his knees.

  4. “Ironically, the most damaging testimony against the Justice Department came from the questioning by Sen. Hirono who is proof of the long-standing rule in litigation to avoid questions that you do not know the answer to.”

    This isn’t litigation; it’s a Congressional hearing, and the goal should be to learn something, so asking questions you don’t know the answer to should be quite common. Otherwise it’s simply performance art. Some legislators do aim for political theater, not learning and oversight. But they should be criticized for it.

    1. This isn’t litigation; it’s a Congressional hearing, and the goal should be to learn something, so asking questions you don’t know the answer to should be quite common
      Yes bravo for pointing that out.
      Turley clearly thinks everybody has the same job he does – getting paid to defend something indefensible

      1. Jinn:

        “Turley clearly thinks everybody has the same job he does – getting paid to defend something indefensible.”
        Yeah, he defends your right to blather on every day.

        1. Yeah, he defends your right to blather on every day.

          Yes fe does. Turley gets my approval for allowing anybody and everybody to comment about everything and anything. I sense you don’t approve.

  5. Meanwhile In The House,

    Fired State Department Watchdog Testifies

    The State Department inspector general who was fired last month amid investigations of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s conduct will be interviewed Wednesday by lawmakers probing his dismissal.

    Steve Linick, the ousted watchdog, is scheduled to appear in a virtual closed-door interview before members and staff of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, according to a congressional aide working on the investigation. The virtual arrangement will accommodate members who are not in Washington and follows coronavirus social distancing guidance.

    In a brief opening statement obtained by The Washington Post, Linick spoke indirectly to charges by Pompeo that his office leaked and was politically motivated.

    Pompeo has acknowledged that he asked Trump to oust Linick, who was abruptly fired on the night of May 15. But Pompeo has denied that it was an act of retaliation and said he did not know about investigations of allegations about his potential abuse of power.

    Linick was looking into internal State Department complaints that Pompeo asked a low-level political appointee to run personal errands, including walking his dog, and into travel expenses the State Department paid when Susan Pompeo accompanied her husband on trips abroad.

    In addition, lawmakers had asked Linick to look into the State Department’s role in sidestepping Congress to approve a multibillion-dollar arms sale to Saudi Arabia. Pompeo has conceded that he was aware of that investigation, because he provided written answers to questions to the inspector general about the transaction. That report, said to be in draft form, with results already briefed to the State Department, has not yet been released.

    Edited From: “Fired State Department Watchdog Who Was Probing Pompeo Appears Before Congress”

    Today’s Washington Post

    I don’t believe Professor Turley has ever addressed the 4 Inspector Generals fired these past few weeks.

    1. “I don’t believe Professor Turley has ever addressed the 4 Inspector Generals fired these past few weeks.”

      He had his nails done for his upcoming event. That he chose not to have you do them at your nail salon is on you

      1. FF is just another loser Trumper who cant understand why Trump is held in such low regard.

        1. Trump is held in low regard by his adversaries who hate him because he has won a surprise in the 2016 election and contrary to your frequent predictions is still here doing his work on behalf of the entire nation including yourselves

          but you don’t think of the nation as a whole, you think of your faction only. of your narrow views and your narrow beliefs about your own interests and those whom you deem to share them; and you could give a fig about those outside your circle

          that’s both the great strength and the great limitation of the Democratic party.

          the Republican party is becoming more like the Democratic party, however. this is just human nature, an evolutionary instinct which responds to resource competition.

          Did you think that only Democrats were human beings with all of the instincts that we humans have as social animals?

          Do you think only Democrats have the right to organize and protect perceived interests?

          If you do think that, then you have moved on to the thinking of a one party state.

          if you do not think that, then maybe you are still a liberal. but crisis makes this sort of thing wear thin quickly

        2. I want to share for you guys a video of cops assassinating a white man who was fully complying with police orders and posed no danger to them at all?

          did anybody ever here of this?

          it’s an old one. but there’s more out there. its been done, it happens, it will happen again.
          will white people riot? maybe we should

          I may just start posting them for you apologizes for all these rioters, claiming it’s all about racism. get an eyefull of a white cop killing a white civilian in cold blood

          He had a name. His name was Philip Brailsford. He was shot in cold blood on camera. Watch this and you will watch a murder.

          1. Yeah I saw it at the time. I went out protesting, then BLM types showed up and started throwing rock and bottles and infiltrating, some had out of state plates, so I broke windows on a pimp my ride auto shop and then torched sammie’s bar-b-que for social justice while stealing 20 pounds of prepped BBQ tub. On my way home we broke every window on MLK drive and torched the shovel ready jobs center, no justice no peace.

  6. Did Rosenstein explain who wrote the “scope” memo for the special counsel investigation?

  7. Turley treats this fake SENATE (i.e., Republican-controlled) hearing like it’s major news that the American people care more about than the ongoing pandemic and the protests over the murder of George Floyd. We don’t.

    Just like Rosenstein will downplay the truth or lie, because the real purpose of this “hearing” is to provide fodder to Fox News for talking points and help him get reelected, since Trump is screwing up so badly and proved his cowardice by hiding in a bunker, Trump keeps on lying. Knowing that the public is outraged over his walk through Lafayette Park to pose with a bible in front of a church, now he claims he did NOT ask for protesters to be cleared. Then, how did this happen? Is he going to get those in charge to lie for him and claim it was their idea? Did those 35 or so men with assault rifles, hiding on rooftops and behind trees to try to help restore Trump’s image as a macho man materialize from nowhere, as if this wasn’t planned? Today’s fake “hearing” is just one more attempt to create “alternative facts” so Fox News can continue serving up slop to the disciples as a diversion away from Trump’s incompetence, lack of leadership and incompetence. Americans know better.

    They’re also trying to claim no tear gas was used. Maybe the National Guard didn’t use tear gas, but they weren’t the only ones there, and, according to members of the Episcopalian clergy who were there handing out bottled water and snacks to protesters, tear gas and rubber bullets were used. I believe the Episcopalians. We all saw the helicopter hovering low to intimidate American citizens from exercising their First Amendment right to protest. According to Esper, he doesn’t know who gave this order. Does anyone believe this fake photo op just happened somehow without being orchestrated by Trump?

    1. And why would anyone doubt that the 25th amendment hasn’t been discussed since the advent of the Trump administration? Trump’s ham handed manipulation of Comey would have a logical outcome of Justice Department talk of wiring up when speaking to him. Trump’s a grifter. It would be inconceivable to not wonder if he needed to be recorded.

      1. Hey, I know you guys want to keep that 25th amendment ready in case Joe wins. Maybe hire Rosenstein back, maybe he can get it ready for you

        I bet Kamala Harris gets the VP slot. She has the backing of the Hillary machine.

        she may end up our next president, if Joe is elected, and then removed!

        If it happens you guys owe me lavish praise. Benson, book mark this one!

        1. You’re right, Kamala Harris is the most likely pick for VP and has been for quite awhile. And Biden won’t do anything impeachment worthy, much less have to contend with a Republican house or senate at least the first half of his term.

          Kamala will run in ’24.

          1. You’re right, Kamala Harris is the most likely pick for VP and has been for quite awhile.

            Sure why not. It’s not as though Democrats have learned anything from electing a President based on the color of their skin. Might as well double-down on the identity politics and choose a woman of color.

            And Biden won’t do anything impeachment worthy,

            Well he certainly won’t be expected to do anything election worthy.

    2. Natacha aka Karen checking in

      She wants to speak to Turley’s manager.

    3. Point Number 1: How do you justify the fact that almost all former Obama Admin key officials 5 in all under oath testified that there was no Russia Collusion, yet immediately thereafter told the MSM that there was?

      Point number two: Just how Trump has screwed things up before and after Corona?

      Point Number three: What did Obama Admin during its 8 years do for the African Americans?


      1. How do you justify the fact that almost all former Obama Admin key officials 5 in all under oath testified that there was no Russia Collusion, yet immediately thereafter told the MSM that there was?
        Lying to Congress will get you in trouble while lying to the public is expected mehaviort.

  8. Rod Rosenstein is the very model of a modern Asststant Attorney General. He doesn’t seem to have bucked the tide of lies except that one occassion he took exception to McCabe concealing un-named information Rosenstein felt he was entitled to know.

    Otherwise, Rosenstein seems to have been very careful to have played along with the people who ignored all the money the Clintons took from Russia to vanish down the rabbit hole of imaginary Trump collusion with Russia. I don’t believe he was ignorant of the threats his appointee Mueller made to prosecute Flynn’s son. That dog won’t hunt.

    1. I don’t believe he was ignorant of the threats his appointee Mueller made to prosecute Flynn’s son. That dog won’t hunt.
      You should not believe it,
      The FARA thing was just as much BS as was the Flynn lied to the FBI thing.

      Mueller was appointed by the Trump administration to be a pied piper that led all the stupid Democratic children off into the weeds were they became terminally lost.

      All Trump had to do is declare that Mueller investigation was a witch hunt and a coup attempt and all the stupid democratic children followed like zombies every stupid thing that was leaked out of the Mueller investigation. The morons were convinced that Mueller was going to frog march Trump off in hand cuffs. Only the profoundly stupid would believe such a story.

  9. “Senator Blackburn asked why McCabe was not criminally charged like Flynn. Rosenstein refused to give an opinion.”

    He is a weasel. Flynn didn’t lie and was charged with lying. McCabe did lie and was not charged.

    We can have no confidence in the integrity of the FBI or DOJ; probably not even now. The corruption is too deep and too well established.

  10. Please comment on Durbin pulling statements from witnesses interviewed in the Mueller investigation and representing them as factuak findings by Mueller.

  11. The FBI has asked the public for tips on those inciting violence during ‘peaceful protests’. I would not tell those creeps anything. I suspect at least some of those inciting violence work for the agency. If local law enforcement can’t handle it, nobody can.

  12. He’s a weasel, and it’s a reasonable wager that explains how he got promoted within the ranks. Please recall that he’s spent over 95% of his law career as an employee of the Department of Justice. The Mueller crew’s scamming around is his baby. He just insulated himself from accountability by installing a man with early-stage dementia in the nominal supervisory slot.

  13. I told you somone would claim this: Riots Caused by Climate Change

    STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — An interfaith group working to slow climate change says there is a link between ending reliance on fossil fuels and the protests taking place across the country.

    The COVID-19 pandemic and protests over the police killing of George Floyd, an unarmed African-American man in Minneapolis, have eclipsed many other major news stories. But according to the Rev. Alison Cornish, executive director at Pennsylvania Interfaith Power and Light, the long history of systemic racism sparking nationwide protests is part of the climate crisis, too.

    “We know that people with fewer resources and less power and who are more oppressed are going to be people deeply affected by climate,” Cornish said.

    1. IIRC, Susan Rice is blaming the Russians. I am surprised she didn’t blame a youtube video. The Democrats and their Propaganda arm in the MSM are not going to blame people of color. Even though every time some thug gets offed by the police, the people of color start stealing shoes and TV sets and booze.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Squeeky– Soon it will be space aliens storming out of Area 51 to unleash the dogs of idiocy. And the ‘people of color’ will still steal shoes.

        Why can we say ‘people of color’ but not colored people?

        Shouldn’t the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People be changed to the National Association for the Advancement of People of Color?

        Shouldn’t Indian Summer be Native American Summer? And how about Indianapolis? NativeAmericanapolis? Indiangiver to NativeAmerican giver?

        It’s getting so hard. I know I can’t say ‘watermelon’ without being racist but is ‘basketball’ still okay?

        1. Ha! Ha! I totally agree. Lately, I’ve felt guilty ordering a black Russian…

      2. Well of course the Russians are posting embarassing videos on RT but guess what. Russians have free speech too.

        And so do the Chicom allies of Silicon Valley Hollywood and the Democratic party. They have been circulating all kinds of stuff on Chinese media. And a lot of it is just to scare the bejeezus out of their people from wanting anything remotely like the sort of anarchy we have seen the past week in America.

        What they say in their English language garbage is one thing, and what they say in the Mandarin language social media and captive state media and managed media of Wechat and so forth is another. I happen to monitor all three.

        Pause for a moment. Think about that one. Think hard. Oh, I doubt they are behind this chaos, but they are reporting the hell out of it.

        Can you blame them? if this doesn’t show the weaknesses of America I am not sure what would.

  14. You know, Jon, America is at a crisis, with an election cheater occupying the White House, who ignored warnings of a pandemic, with the result that the US has the highest number of cases by population. Another black man was murdered by the police, with the result that there are daily and nightly demonstrations. The fat reality TV show host had peaceful protesters tear gassed and threatened with a helicopter to clear a path so he could get campaign photos to try to make him look manly after it was revealed that he hid in a bunker like the total coward he is.

    Because this is a SENATE hearing–i.e., run by McConnell, Graham, et al, it already has no credibility. The entire purpose of this hearing is an attempt to help Trump get reelected by creating some Fox News talking points, but America doesn’t care at this point. Rosenstein is a puppet and will say whatever he is told. Turley is clearly pro-Trump, and like others I wonder whether he is on the campaign payroll. Flynn pleaded guilty and was convicted of lying. The Russians did misuse social media by colluding with Trump’s campaign to direct lies about Hillary Clinton in key districts that could turn the Electoral College. Trump has still never captured even 50% approval of the American people. He has proven what a complete and total loser he is, and that the majority of Americans, those who voted against him, were right.

    1. the arrogant and presumtuous poster which calls itself Natacha, aka “Karen of the Democratic Cheerleader squad,” always comes on her whining about Professor Turley and calling him “Jon.”

      She wants to talk to the manager, now!

      1. Hard not to be arrogant when the main opposition here can’t nut up to debate anything.

            1. I read Storm of Steel and thought it was great. Intend to read it again.

    2. No tear gas was used. White smoke was. Also, those protesters are the same ones who inflicted injuries requiring medical care on 60 Secret Service uniformed and plainclothes personnel. It tear gas had been used, it would have been proportionate and countervailing force. You can put the “peaceful protester” meme back in the dark, smelly place where you found it.

      1. They should have been surrounded, scooped up, and interrogated to find out who motivates them and who all their contacts are and who in Congress they are in touch with. Destroy Antifa root and branch.

    3. Natacha – we are still waiting for your BMI. However, it is clear you are getting or copying the DNC talking points every morning. How does it feel not to have an original thought? Do you think original thinking is like original sin? Get back to us when your masters give you the answers.

      1. Anonymous:
        She said something? Usually it’s just a bleat, talking point, bleat, and ends up with a heehaw. I wouldn’t know since I scroll past her screeds but good to know she’s talking English again though animal sounds suited her content better.

  15. Oh, Prof. Turley… we have loved your willingness to speak the truth and call it like it is even if bad for liberals, all the way back to the Clinton days. But there is something in that sharp brain of yours that blocks important truth, which is why you somehow are still a liberal! “I will [sic] do not understand the opposition to the hearing given Rosenstein’s own testimony that he believes that there is still a need to get to the bottom of these issues.” LOL!!! Really? You don’t understand that the Dems don’t care about the truth, or abuse, as long as they cover their crimes and further their agenda? You are way smarter than that comment!

    Break your tie to the Dark Side! I’m not saying become a Republican–they have plenty of issues and I’m not one either. But embrace truth fully, and you’ll realize that liberalism can only hold up because of these kinds of coverups.

  16. Could be that Rosenstein is innocent, but only if he is a potted plant. He had more than enough to see things were wrong and he just sat in his office waiting to be watered.

    Fire all of them. Prosecute every provable case. Shrink the agency and move it out of Washington. Americans no longer trust them. An FBI badge is a badge of shame.

    1. Rosenstein claims he would have preferred Mueller have a more politically diverse team. Now why would that have been his preference? Didn’t he have confidence in his DOJ? It reminds me of Susan Rice’s inauguration day email saying Obama wanted things done by the book. Did she and/or Obama have any doubts that the FBI/DOJ would do things by the book?

    2. Rosenstein has a ratlike face. Hes’ a rat

      he’s part of the criminal plot of sabotage against the incoming adminstration. arrest him and charge him accordingly. he deserves a fair trial as do all accused. but he is a rat anyhow

        1. Terrible body language. Shifty eyes, looking away on tough questions, fidgety with objects, shifting in his seat — al the marks of deception.

      1. And not only is he a rat, who is his wife? DC is nothing but an incestuous plot to bilk the taxpayers and it’s working. You think 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is funny, but make a map of who these people are and you will be shocked. Rosenstein is probably Mueller’s illegitimate son…

    3. Young, I had the opportunity of listening to Rosenstein speaking to a large group. I went to hear who he was. He was a fluent advocate of the law, chapter, book and verse. My wife and I came to the same conclusion that he didn’t indicate he was anything more than an obedient rubber stamping clerk. Of course he could be a most devious player in the games that are now under investigation but that is not something yet proven.

      For the present, in retrospect pending more information at best I think you are right. He is little more than a decorative potted plant.

      1. Allan– Very interesting. I should have liked to hear him too. I don’t doubt that he is hrilliant and eloquent. I would have been taken in by his spoken devotion to the rule of law. But I think his sense of career preservation is stronger than any impulse to act on those beautifully expressed beliefs. He may be a coward.

  17. I am waiting for the perp walk down Pennsylvania Ave at President Trump’s second inaugural day parade…Rosenstein will look great in the orange jumpsuit that all of these people who lied for so long about what they were really doing to interfere with America’s governance and security should be wearing that day. I hear that have a ready supply for both men and women.

    1. Mairbair– I like that image. Make the inaugural parade like a Roman Triumph with the defeated dragged through the streets in chains behind the victor before they are sent to private prisons in Afghanistan. Are there any chariots the President could use in the parade?

      1. It’s not the defeated I want to see in orange…its the criminals…those who have lied and led the events trying to collapse our country.

        1. Not the defeated but the criminals you want to see in oramge. Same people.

      1. Orwell said that at 50, you have the face you deserve. He’s 55.

      2. I wonder if Rosenstein’s picture is as corrupted and decayed as Dorian Gray’s.

        Did Rosenstein surreptitiously sell his soul to maintain a false public image?

Comments are closed.