The New York Times – Page 8

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s expected departure may not feel exactly like a surprising news story. There was speculation during the summer that Trump might fire Rosenstein after the FBI raided the home of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer. What stands out at this point about the possibility of Rod Rosenstein’s leaving is the recent alternating news about his mode of departure.

First, the news came over the weekend that Rod Rosenstein was about to be fired in the aftermath of a story that appeared in The New York Times. According to the Times, after Trump’s firing of former FBI director James Comey in early 2017, Rod Rosenstein had allegedly suggested invoking the 25^th Amendment to remove Trump from office. Rosenstein also reportedly talked about secretly recording Trump’s conversations. Rosenstein has denied both allegations.

Later, on Monday, it was reported that Rosenstein was going to resign because he expected to be fired. He visited the White House on Monday, and met with Chief of Staff John Kelly, as well as speaking with Donald Trump, who was in New York when they spoke.

At the end of Monday, however, Rosenstein’s job was still intact. He will meet in person with Trump on Thursday, September27.

In anticipation of Rod Rosenstein’s expected departure one way or the other, is the White House trying to blur the public’s impression about whether Rosenstein was fired or whether he resigned?

Something important to remember is this, from The Atlantic: “If the president can browbeat Rosenstein into resigning—or even plausibly misrepresent the firing as a resignation—Trump gains the power to bypass the Senate confirmation process under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. He can replace Rosenstein with any serving official previously confirmed by the Senate to any other job.”

In the summer of 2017, when Trump ordered the firing of Robert Mueller, and Don McGahn refused, some predicted that Trump would next try to fire Rod Rosenstein, who also indicated that he did not intend to fire Mueller. This, some said, would remove the block (Rosenstein) to ending the Russia investigation.

If Donald Trump’s current chance to get rid of Rod Rosenstein plays out, Trump would be able to control who steps in at the Justice Department to run the Mueller probe. That person would have to be confirmed by the Senate, but with a Republican-dominated Senate, most of which either strongly backs Trump or has been largely sluggish, it’s likely the Trump appointee would be confirmed. That person would then direct Robert Mueller, and could effectively put an end to the investigation into Russia’s influence on the 2016 presidential election. Thursday may not only be a big day for Rod Rosenstein, it could be a fateful day for our country.

Napolitano on potential fallout if Trump fires Rosenstein | Fox News [2018-09-24]

Rod Rosenstein speaks with Trump about recent news stories, will meet Thursday | CBS News [2018-09-24]

What if we discovered who wrote the recent anonymous New York Times op-ed piece about what it is to work daily for Donald Trump? What if it’s indeed true that the author is a White House “senior administration official”? Since tales of Trump’s incompetence and the White House chaos are nothing new, would the identity of the person who penned the New York Times op-ed matter as much as the motivation behind writing it?

The letter begins: “I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”

The author goes on to say that he or she is not alone among the White House officials who are working to, in effect, save the nation from the president.

“To be clear, ours is not the popular ‘resistance’ of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

“But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

“The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.”

Is this New York Times op-ed piece indeed the story of a group of “unsung heroes” who stay in a detestable situation for the grander purpose of thwarting the potential damage Donald Trump could cause to our nation? If so, then why not look into invoking the power of the 25^th Amendment? If damage control and prevention are regular White House staff responses to Donald Trump’s erratic and impulsive behavior, why not drop the anonymity and band together to speak out?

Is the letter simply a publicity stunt to draw attention to the new Woodward book? The media has made much about the coincidental timing of the publication of this op-ed in the New York Times and the release of Bob Woodward’s book, Fear: Trump in the White House.

Or is this New York Times op-ed piece an attempt by the GOP on a larger scale to cover all GOP bases at once (from “We, too, support the administration’s policies and want it to succeed, Trump supporters,” to “We know he’s incompetent and amoral, but we we’ve got your backs, moderates”)? Maybe (and this may be a stretch) at the same time, it’s even an attempt to toss one to the Democrats (“We know things are in a state of bedlam in the White House, but don’t get your hopes up that this administration or the GOP are going down”).

Even if the op-ed’s author came forward with solid evidence of the piece’s veracity, would Donald Trump’s supporters be swayed by truth about Trump? Would moderate Republicans feel reassured and trust the integrity of someone who claimed to be the resistance, yet remained in the Trump White House? What did the author of this op-ed piece in the New York Times hope to accomplish?

Opinion | Trump is right. The anonymous op-ed is ‘gutless.’ | Washington Post [2018-09-06]

‘Senior official’ pens anonymous op-ed blasting Trump | Fox News [2018-09-05]

Category: The New York Times

Rod Rosenstein: Will He Resign? Will He Be Fired? Will We Know?

New York Times Trump Op-Ed: What Was the Goal?