If the DAG had probable cause to investigate Trump, isn’t it his duty to do so? Not out of partisanship or deep state prejudice but to uphold his *duty.*
DAG works for the American people not Trump who repeatedly thinks the executive branch is there to protect him rather than the Constitution.
106
Attention NYT readers: If you want unbiased reporting, this is one of the places to get it. Stories like these are what make this a great institution. Report the truth, not just what we might want it to be. This from someone who hates Republicans with the heat of a thousand suns.
61
It’s fairly stunning—and pretty disturbing—to see how many people either don’t know how stuff works, or don’t care.
Newspapers have no responsibility whatsoever to back up your chosen candidate, cause, or view. Arguably their job is to give everybody and everything a hard time, either because facts need to come out or because that’s what the Editorial Page is for. And in any case, the whole idea is that they’re competing to get stuff out there, to a) make a buck, and b) give voters what they need to make an informed choice.
Anonymous sources? Often they’re the only sources there are. You simply get several, not a prob in this White House, or otherwise confirm. And boy, howdy, did folks flip fast on this topic! Half the Trumpists are now fine with them, because they want Mueller gone; half Le Résistance is furious this time around the barn, because they think this all helps Trump fire Mueller.
And above all. While it’s disturbing that Mueller discussed this at all, it’s perfectly understandable given that Trump really is a “moron,”and an unstable one at that. You really want high officials NOT to notice Mad King Ludwig, or be unable to discuss what’s to be done?
I suspect that this was leaked by guys like Stephen Miller, who want Mueller stopped. But I don’t know, and neither do you.
Take a breath.
59
Ha! As Trump cannibalizes his own White House structure, one by one, GOP misogyny settles in on their God given right to rule over women by crushing the credibility of one uppity woman...while throwing her a condescending bone...a GOP majority team that surely deserves one another.
26
I find it absolutely incredible the amount of people turning their backs on the NYT and questioning their sourcing and journalism skills because of a story that doesn't fit their narrative. Kind of telling, isn't it?
44
Rod Rosenstein, you should have proceeded with the 25th! You would have become a world hero!
55
Thank you, New York Times for shining light on this attempted couple d'etat.
There is only one appropriate response... Fire Rosenstein NOW!!!!
59
I find the comments attacking The Times for telling this story troubling. It's as if certain readers think a newspaper is only supposed to report stories favoring one side or another. There is no doubt the president will use this story - ironically printed in a medium he dubs "fake news" - towards his own ends. But the day a great newspaper censors itself to serve a political end is the day great journalism dies in America.
208
I wish he had.
6
Really?? Now?? Is this the FAKE NEWS by the “enemy” that Trump has been yapping about? His base should be confused. Who do they believe and when do they believe it?
22
For once I agree with Hannity and he seems to be afraid this is a trap for both Trump and the New York Times. This article smells to high heaven.
23
What are the authors doing????? Now trump has another get out of jail card. Fire Rosenstein, fire Mueller, get kavanaugh seated. The trifecta of winning! I am angry.
37
Before you published this story, did you ever ask yourselves the big question?
"Why now?"
Apparently, things are getting very hot, and Trump is dancing on the griddle.
If Brett isn't appointed.....we'll, why state the obvious.
16
Shame on the NYT for publishing this. This is not news that is fit to print. And I am afraid it will further derange Trump. We are in a very dangerous times and our institutions, laws, and normal protocols may not be good enough to save us.
34
What is the point of this story? I am enraged at The Times. Why would you endanger this man’s position at the Justice Department? He’s the only person standing in protection of Mr. Mueller. Bad, bad judgment.
54
I do not believe for one moment that Rosenstein really contemplated using the 25th Amendment against Trump. And getting support from cabinet members? No way. Trump's cabinet members are as crooked and dumb as he is, if not dumber. They would never turn against him and Rosenstein as well as anyone with half a brain knows it. Someone may have heard Rosenstein mumbling in a hall on a bad day, but I doubt even that. He has to be much smarter than that to attain his rank. Trump is horrible, there is no doubt, and we are in grave danger with him in office, but this is not the way out. I'm not sure how NYT decided to publish this story or why, but please, do the country a favor and think before you let anonymous stories drive the news. We all know how awful Trump is. Better choice, chase down the 13 year old girl Trump is supposed to have had some type of sexual congress, that I would believe in a heart beat, and would be a better way to get rid of Trump. I know he's really, really bad but don't rush it, the right opportunity to get him out of the White House will appear and at that time it will be appropriate and an unquestionable choice.
21
Trump colluded with putin, divulged secret information to russians in the oval office, has caused continous chaos for almost three years now, going back to the start of his campaign. He caved in to putin and acted like one of his subjects at helsinki. He is a traitor.
39
As one of your readers who usually admires the quality of your work, I was surprised and disappointed to see this story published without double and triple checking the possibility that the New York Times might be being "played" by the Trump administration.
43
The world knows amoral Donald Trump is a pathological liar leading a synchophantic dysfunctional GOP.
Recordings of Ryan and Nunnes Mitch McConnell quietly orchestrating in the background, have surfaced where they discuss their horrid plans to lie, steal, and cheat Americans of justice and truth regarding the Russian involvement with all things Trump. they have publically voice, on tape, to doing anything and everything to deliver America on the GOP platter of greed and graft to the highest bidders. So why give them any fodder to use as missiles aimed at toppling our institutions and democracy? Why then jeopardize the tenuous hold of the brave souls who are valiantly defending our institutions under siege by madness itself?
God help us. Americans have to wake up and pay attention. This ugly period in our history is happening under our noses and in our faces. And the GOP is determined to fly under the radar (our ignorance) to sink America in the foul polluted swamp of lust and greed.
Never, ever, put trust in a pathological liar.
29
Has the New York Times ever considered that printing this story might imperil Rosenstein's job? He seems to be the only one able to protect Robert Mueller, and one of the few who has a firm grip on how crazy Trump is.
28
I’m so disappointed....I look to you to as a promoter of FACT. Why would run such a story? You look and sound like FOX News. In fact, you now have aided and abetted Fox!
37
I question why the NYT decided to run this story without getting a source to commit to going on the record. Considering the climate today with Trump calling the media and especially the NYT failing and fake news this in my opinion will not end well for anyone. It's my understanding that the story ran then Rosenstein's denial was added later. At the very least Rosenstein's denial should have been included in the headline or the first paragraph. If nothing else the question is if Rosenstein did say it was it said in sarcasm? And obviously McCabe has a bone to pick with Rosenstein for being fired by him. The NYT used to have a public editor to weigh in on an article like this. I would think that the NYT editors should comment on the validity of running the story. In the interest of full disclosure I am a lifelong Democrat who thinks Trump has been a tremendous embarrassment to our country.
74
How do we know Rosenstein did not record Trump?
3
So what? Nothing happened.
9
This is why so many are furious with the Times: perpetuating stories with dubious sources that actually HELP Trump (contrary to what the far Right believes)
58
As a former wire service journalist I am appalled the NYT would publish such a crisis-inducing story based on only anonymous sourcing for confirmation. Seems the NYT is having another WMD Miller-time moment.
82
I love the NYT but I think this is very short in context. Even if he did say it, the First Amendment still applies unless Trump had issued an EO to end it. I think a correction or clarification is due. Don't be stubborn NYT!
30
so the people interviewed for this article weren't actually in the meetings and didn't read the memos themselves? and NYT is reporting this as news, third party information? An anonymous person was told about a memo about a meeting is being shared as news, really sub-par reporting NYT.
"people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that documented Mr. Rosenstein’s actions and comments."
78
This story has been debunked by witnesses which the NYT reporters did not question. It was clearly a sarcastic remark made Rosenstein. And of course they discussed the 25 Amendment. It's his job to review all options. Don't give Trump the pretense to fire Rod!
66
Sorry, this is tabloid reporting as there is a lack of concrete evidence to back up these claims. The story speculates as to the intent of the proposed statements made by Rosenstein. There is a question in the story itself wondering whether sarcasm was behind Rosenstein's alleged remarks. The journalists, if you can call them that, lack integrity. I am deeply suspicious of the motives of these two writers and what possible connection they might have to Trump's inner circle. NY Times, not only should you be ashamed to have published this, you bare some responsibility if this adversely affects the Mueller investigation.
43
If you guys are wrong about this, and I fear that you are, you've given this nation's corrupt President and his enablers all they need to extinguish our last, best hope of getting to the truth. Did the Times not learn anything from the Miller-Plame debacle? Is the rush to another Pulitzer, and to out-scoop the Post, so overwhelming?
72
I am baffled as to why the Times would choose to publish this story of events that occurred 17 months ago--events without effect on or relationship to what is happening today. And in doing so the Times may have crossed the line from reporting the news to making it. Isn't anyone there making judgment calls any more?
162
I think your reporters on this story were played.
82
The thought of canceling our subscription over this poorly sourced and potentially consequential article has crossed my mind.
Have a nice day.
136
Is anyone surprised?
9
You sirs should be ashamed. What led to this and you had no one in the room as did two other news organizations and in the recording and transcription it is quite apparent it was in full srcasm mode. Sarcasm escapes pundits like Hannity. As a subscriber I would like an explanation!
48
Perhaps the Times should post, early and often, the old Chicago News Agency's dictum so its entire staff can see it every morning: If your mother says she loves you, check it out!
40
The number of comments here against The Times for revealing this attempted coup by Rosenstein are amazing, but not unexpected. Apparently, journalism is a one way street for these highly partisan Democrats. Only stories that skewer Trump and Republicans are acceptable. Anything that supports Trump's assertions of a Deep State and Justice Department collusion against him and his administration are off limits. You people are advocating for one party rule. You should be ashamed.
11
Boy, you were played.
111
High standards of journalism would require that the first paragraph be qualified with "according to third-hand anonymous sources". High standards of journalism is what I am paying for. Is the absence of attribution an editor's failure? Are Mr. Goldman and Mr. Schmidt at fault?
43
personally I believe the Trump administration planted it.
92
This article is highly inappropriate and badly sourced. Other news outlets have contradicted many of your allegations. I am most disappointed that you did not research this subject fully before publishing it. You just gave Trump a pretext on a silver platter to fire Rosenstein.
Paul D
79
Looks like the ground is being prepared for the fireing of Mr. Rosenstein and Mr. Mueller. Let's get this done before the midterms. The Orange one and his crew are a clear and present danger to our country and the world and must be stopped.
GET OUT AND VOTE!
RESISTANCE IS NOT FUTILE.
34
The sooner the Times prints a retraction, the better. Trump, of course, will ignore the retraction and concentrate on firing Rosenstein and killing the Mueller investigation.
I suspect that Mueller has placed multiple copies of his evidence and conclusions in any number of safe, sympathetic hands in anticipation of just this sort of scenario. Trump may kill the Trump/Russia investigation, but he'll be unable to stop the facts and the charges from becoming front page news.
67
I see what the Times is going here and mathematically it’s brilliant: Figuring that leading a witch hunt on both sides of the equation they will cancel each other out, hence no evidence of leading witch hunts at all will be found in the final solution. That’s how getting to be the most trusted name in journalism is done. Presto!
2
This is not the time to be used by the WH’s anonymous sources. There are reasons for the FBI procedural rules and reasons for journalism rules. Stop it already NYT.
When everyone from the president on down and on to the journalists, are willing to break rules for economic gain we no longer can have a functioning country.
28
The writers of this article Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt, have done a disservice to the profession of Journalism and the American people reporting this nonsense. It's clearly a play to give Trump a reason to fire Rosenstein and stop the Russia/Trump Conspiracy investigation. Probably orchestrated by the Russian Tea Party better known now as the freedom caucus. Trump is a surrogate for the Russian Mob and they made him a billionaire through his money laundering of Russian Mob money through his casinos and thousands of realestate deals. Who thought the Republicans would throw in with the Russian's to overthrow the US Government.
44
What is the purpose of this story? At this time? At best it is irresponsible, at worst factually wrong based on other news organizations reporting and the subsequent push-back from NYT deputy editor Matt Purdy. The NYT sat on reports that should have been reported under the GWB era and now publish some that serve no purpose or should be held. Most people see that the DAG is having to walk a very fine line and this reports only seeks to remove that line to the detriment of the country.
29
We really needed this one year old breaking news story (that is called sarcasm NYT) to distract us from what the Republicans are doing with regard to the supreme court nomination process.
25
Let’s not forget that when this happened — if indeed it did (and at least one person that may have been present considered the comments sarcasm) — it was around the time President Trump had used Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s memo to defend firing then FBI Director Comey and two or so weeks into Rosenstein’s appointment. That context is vital.
Significant time has passed with seemingly limited conflict between Trump and Rosenstein, so perhaps Trump — in this instance — will recognize the peril of acting vindictively.
4
We do not live in a democracy since the majority do not rule. We live in a time when money rules, not the majority of people. Get money out of politics to return the process to the people.
9
Note on context and tone of voice:
The important thing here, is context and tone of voice. Your sources "the people said" were not in the room.
According to NBC, "a person who was in the room" did provide details and context as to the tone of Rosenstein's statements.
"Well, what do you want me to do, Andy, wear a wire?"
Obviously when Rosenstein mentioned it again later it was in the same sarcastic vein.
22
I doubt Rosenstein or anyone else would seriously consider using section 4 of the 25th amendment to remove a president. Its would be much easier to use the the original process as written in the Constitution 230 years ago. This sounds to me like a plot to give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein.
9
It is not surprising that Rosenstein might have said this at some point in time. What would be surprising is if Rosenstein or anyone else in DC with half a brain would not have done the same thing. However, to publish this and give the man child running the country fodder to remove him at this point in our history is deeply concerning.
19
I think Trump is unqualified to be president. But I dont believe anything in this story; it just doesnt make any sense.
13
The President has already said he can kill someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and it would not make a difference to his supporters.
Taping even illegal activity would probably degenerate into discussions of whether a President can be indicted, whether a President can issue himself a pardon, whether the President is above the law or whether he can waive the law.
Taping abnormal behavior would degenerate into a debate on what is normal, the practices of successful business people, and the new normal being created by a revolutionary President.
Someone would have to believe that the President’s Cabinet or the Congress will act to the behavior when the Republicans know any action will diminish their power. As we have seen, the President has wide latitude as long as Republicans remain in power.
Rosenstein would have to be a total fool not to realize this; therefore, I do not believe he seriously said anything about taping the President or the 25th amendment.
11
Whether or not the story is correct it was an unfortunate decision to release it now, everyone knows that trump dearly wants to sack Rosenstein and this could well give him the pretext he so desperately requires. It was an old story anyway-Spring 2017 so what was the point?
I thought everyone except the core of the GOP/Fox News and the Koch Brothers was on the same page about this-trump is a disaster and should not be handed more ammunition to use on those wishing to hold him to account.
Bad move.
19
This article may turn out to be the catalyst for the destruction of American democracy and the rule of law. The New York Times has done an extremely dangerous thing.
36
If the Times is as "dishonest" and "failing" as Trump claims it is, then he has no basis to fire Rosenstein based on this report. If he does fire Rosenstein, then the Times ought to disclose who the unnamed sources were for this report and investigate what ties they have to Trump's agenda to eliminate the Mueller investigation.
15
Absolutely shocking and treasonous; unelected; tax-paid. J. Edgard Comey Rosenstein. Who on earth enabled this culture and personnel at the Justice bureaucracy? What these people are doing is so awful, to This President, to an American Citizen, to This Country. End this witchhunt by coup plotters.
3
"Rod J. Rosenstein suggested ... that he secretly record President Trump in the White House, and recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office for being unfit."
I almost wish he had, except that the Republican line of succession is also morally unfit.
Vote! Vote! Harriet in San Francisco
2
this story ranks up there with the "Comey letter to Congress." the media is doing a great job for Trump.
21
There is really a serious question as to whether the news value of this outweighs the likelihood that this information will push Trump to start his own Saturday night massacre against Rosenstein/Sessions/Muelle and/or make him feel like he now has the necessary media cover to make such a move. I don’t think I would have published this story.
25
If it was Obama he'd already be fired; along with Sessions too.
2
I subscribed to the NYT 2 years ago as a direct response to the “fake news” attack’s, accepting that good and inflammatory journalism are often one and the same. This was just an inflammatory piece which I can only put down to ever mounting pressure to feed the media inferno and misjudging what the “front page” means, or used to mean. My subscription remains, get some sleep NYT editors and journalists, sound judgement has never been more important and valued.
14
What the neck is wrong with the New York Times? Just because you have information doesn't mean you should print it. Our government is in turmoil as it is now you've added to it. There is a couple of questions you should have asked yourselves, is this information necessary and vital for people to know, will it help the people and the country to know it or will it only add more chaos.
19
The press and media in this country have become mostly Propaganda sources. I feel sorry for Mr. Rothstein, Judge Kavanaugh , who become ensnared in media rush for profits that relies on anonymous sources, and unverified accusations to smear these people without them having acceptable recourse. If “news” is fit to be published it should be verafiable, attributable, and more than mere accusations.
3
Consider for a minute that the NYT may be playing a different game. Rather than just reporting, they have decided on a new course – “become the story.”
After months of being slandered by Trump as the “enemy of the people” they have decided to run a story that will inoculate them against this charge for the foreseeable future. By handing Trump the pretext to fire Rosenstein, Trump will begrudgingly have to credit the “honest NYT” with exposing the deep state machinations. The NYT is now safely in his orbit and to a large extent free of his ire. Close is the only way to be safe, it is understood.
If this story leads to the end of the Mueller investigation, there will still be plenty of reporting for the NYT to do (that never stops). And there’s always the specter of State-level investigations extending forward. From a newspaper's self-interest perspective, this may be an optimal outcome – they are safe and busy following all sorts of chaos.
Perhaps the NYT just sees this as getting out ahead off an inevitable story. However, as many have written in this thread today, the NYT’s moral compass has been disabled. And, it appears, that moral compass was something of an illusion all along.
Even if Trump does nothing (following the advice of Sean Hannity), the NYT has still improved their standing with this administration.
15
Michael, I am big follower and I am very disappointed in your "half-baked" new story and the timing of it. To say you were set up by your "sources" would be an understatement. I believe in all good conscience, you should clarify that you do not have any sources who were in the room and you only have hearsay. That's a big issue considering the problems your story has generated. You bear the responsibility and have to live with it. Now is the time to retract or clarify.
27
This is ridiculous reporting. And it is not helpful to anyone, or any cause, or to our country. How can an Administration function if its employees can't say anything without considering whether someone else in the room is going to discuss every detail with the press? Pay attention to what is happening. Report on today's actions and events. Stop the endless navel-gazing about who said what to whom back when.
22
I have always supported the NYT, freedom of speech and an unfettered press. But publishing this story was the height of irresponsibility. It will accomplish nothing except getting Rosenstein fired and, perhaps, helping Trump shut down the Mueller investigation.
29
The NYT has been played. If you think the Trump administration and Bill Shine are incapable of planting a controversial, self serving story with the goal of undermining Rod Rosenstein and the Meuller investigation, you're completely naive and nuts, too.
It's hard to understand how reporters as experienced and smart as Schmidt and Goldman could have been so badly suckered.
I can only explain it as a case of the Trump machine being the most experienced, slimy, Fox-fueled, propaganda machine to ever have abused the public trust.
32
Although he denies this, it is perfectly feasible that like Comey, Paige and Strzok, Rosenstein was “shocked and awed” ,by the raw ferocity of witnessing, the venomous corruption and arrogance of Trump menacing the rule of law.
There will be s time in history (if we make it), when we can learn from this. The cult of Trump’s personality, is a disease that feeds upon American’s gut feelings about race and reason. It pits them against each other, and makes us less than human. This is what happens when you abandon all caution and reason, and open your mouth without thinking things through.
On the other hand, Rosenstein is a man of reason, deliberate, thoughtful and of high moral principle. It’s hard to imagine him not having the reaction that the Times reported here (He has since denied this, after reading this.).
I believe that the 25th Amendment is indeed trending in many offices of the federal government, with the Justice Department, leading the way.
Somewhere, in Moscow, Vladimir Putin is smiling..
#25thAmendment
9
Stop publishing stories based on anonymous sources. That last one didn’t go well and this one is no better.
23
Schmidt and Goldman have been played.
17
I think this article is irresponsible and gives Trump and his allies further impetus to fire Mueller and Rosenstein. I don't understand why the Times would make the editorial decision to publish this. Remarks taken out of context, disgruntled employees on a vendetta, etc, etc. are not proof of much of anything. They do, however, play right into Trump's Deep State conspiracy paranoia. Let's see if the Times has blown Mr. Mueller's carefully constructed Russia investigation up.
26
Rosenkranz and Muellerstern are dead! They thought the op-ed letter would seal Hamlet’s fate. Instead the letter was switched, and their own fate was written inside.
So Hamlet’s epitaph for them is a fitting example of poetic and political justice:
"They are not near my conscience; their defeat / Does by their own insinuation grow.”
2
Trump needs to wake up and fire everybody. No President can put up with this nonsense. The country is at stake and needs an orderly administration no matter which side is in power.
4
I am appalled that you are still showing this article after it has been contested by WaPo and NBC , who had a source in the room for context. I was in solidarity with many other fellow subscribers' comments last night - and had hoped you might add a retraction or statement.
Very disappointed in NYT, who I have relied on as a standard of excellence.
25
I think this story was a lose lose situation for the Times. If they had information about this episode and another news outlet published it Trump would still have the upper hand. Ironically the fact that Trump has had no use for the fake news he claims the Times has always printed at least it’s on him to explain why he believes them now. Print or not to print tough choice.
Gee, if you got your hands on the nuclear codes would you publish those too? There needs to be a sense of journalistic responsibility exercised here, or editorial judgment if journalists are blinded by their own desire for a scoop. There is no evidence that this conversation led to action, and it may well have been either joking or mere thinking out loud with no serious intent to act. It happened nearly 18 months ago. Is the public interest served by giving Trump ammunition to derail the Mueller investigation ? Is there any pressing national security interest served by publishing this or rather is that undermined by your reckless actions? I'm appalled at the lack of judgement by the NYT.
30
The timing of this revelation by "the people" who "were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by FBI officials, including Andrew McCabe," is awfully suspicious. Why are these "sources," many of whom weren't present when Mr. Rosenstein had supposedly uttered these words, sharing this now? Let me see...a week ago, Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman, finally decided that it was in his best interest to morph in a "flipper" and cooperate with the Special Counsel. Mueller is closing in. The rounding up of "witches" in this witch hunt can now make up a coven.
First, the NYT publishes an op-ed by an anonymous source, who says he/she has concerns about Donald Trump's fitness for office and is keeping America safe behind the scenes, while agreeing with many of Trump's policies. And now this.
For months, the right-wing faction of the House have been undermining the Mueller investigation, and have been looking for any and all reason to get rid of Rod Rosenstein. Now this paper has given them the ammo.
And of course, Don, Jr. who along with his father, has disparaged the NYT as "failing" and "fake news" is conveniently tweeting this story as yet more proof that everyone is out to get his poor, beleaguered father.
I sure hope that the reporters at the NYT, who in their eagerness to get a scoop and to be the first ones to break a story, aren't turning into fish who will eagerly swallow any bait that is thrown their way.
13
I just hope that there is already a recording and the case has been made for 25th amendment.
Now; rest of the team is awaiting for Trump to act and then ultimately remove him after Trump fires Rosenstein.
1
The other day I actually heard the phrase “alleged allegations” on BBC World News radio. I was gobsmacked, as the Brits say. BBC of all places! But now, this article appears to be the perfect place to drop such a phrase. Alleged allegations indeed!
17
What i really enjoyed is after the Times article was published almost immediately several follow up articles attacking Rosenstein were just ready to go in conservative media RIGHT AWAY.
Im glad the NY Times could do it's part in getting a media cycle started for the right wing
10
This is absolutely irresponsible, and seriously dangerous reporting for American democracy, of an alleged comment by Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. It is alleged because the "ear witness" in the room states is was clearly a sarcastic comment and Rosenstein unequivocally denies the Times’ reporting. And even it was a serious suggestion (almost unbelievably unlikely), why would The New York Times decide to provide Trump with such a powerful excuse to fire Rosenstein? Is it worth risking the end of the Mueller investigation before it is completed? Does the Times think publishing "raw meat" for Fox News constitutes prudent reporting when it knows how it can be used to move our country further into an authoritarian government? If it does, the Times will never be forgiven for this flagrant encouragement of the overthrow of American democracy by a president of the United States.
30
Has NYT entertained the thought that they are being played by Trump's henchman who wants Rosenstein fired?
After all, this supposedly objective and thorough paper has done such an sterling job in reporting the non-existent Iraq's WMD, the made up Wenho Lee spying, the false equivalence of Hillary vs. Trump. Now it it being used again to destroy the last remaining check on Trump's power.
Sad.
34
There's no question that this was a serious meeting. It was a serious meeting with serious people expressing deep concerns about the President, his tendencies and his actions.
That being said, there's also no indication in this report than anything discussed constitutes bad or illegal behavior. These guys were mad about the bad behavior and had a discussion about how to act and frankly, what to do to protect themselves given Comey's fate. Who wouldn't have had such a far reaching discussion?
I know the NYT is obviously upset that Bob Woodward's book is selling so well. But now is not the time to play the "scoop" game with the Washington Post. This report is reaching much far in its suggestions that that some folks have actively hatched a plot to subvert the President. Not good.
No plot. No bad acting. No bias. Justice and Mueller continue to crank out indictments and convictions because people broke the law. That's all.
This article endangers the Mueller investigation because it's going to read by a madman in the WH. FoxNews is already having a field day "improving" your reporting.
I think Rosenstein survives but NYT you've sealed Jeff Sessions' fate with this article. Prez cannot keep railing at Justice without a scalp and Sessions is the one I'm betting he takes.
14
Distasteful as we sometimes find President Trump, this bolsters his claims of corruption and wrong-doing. Much as I hate to admit it, President Trump looks as if he were right! Is this an example of draining the swamp?
3
Are these writers aware that Trump will use this to fire Rosenstein ? Are they that desperate for a scoop that they will endanger your country ? Ego over country, like Trump, like Pelossi.... United Shame of America
7
Why publish such a damaging story. Are these two reporters, unwittingly or ? ,being used by someone in the administration to plant damaging stories about the DOJ department or Cabinet Members, for Trump to act, providing him a "reason" to fire by Tweet?
The headline enough ignites the fire. Well, if that is the reason, you might succeed and Trump will thank you!!! Anonymous sources?
11
Great, now Trump has the ammunition to fire Rosenstein that will derail the Mueller investigation. Good work NY Times.
9
The decision to publish this article, and the timing of its publication, raise serious questions about the judgment and motives of the Times editorial board. Was this a misguided attempt to "balance the books" after publishing the notorious letter, also from an anonymous source, from the disillusioned White House official who turned against Trump? Considering the far graver political consequences which could follow the Rosenstein article, it was a poor decision. If the New York Times editorial board wants to preserve the paper's well earned reputation for premier journalism, it must avoid the ego trip of playing power politics.
23
If this is true, and despite the NYT reporting we are a long way from establishing that, then Rosenstein and perhaps Lisa Page are close to being guilty of conduct that approaches treason. If Rosenstein had a moral compass, which I doubt he does, he would resign come Monday morning.
2
I am saddened by your newspapers' choice to publish this story which weakens the Justice Department's position as the Right Wing are trying to destroy what few firewalls we have against this corrupt Whitehouse. Mueller's investigation is the only chance we have as a nation to find out whether or not and to what degree the Trump organization and Trump himself conspired with a foreign Government to subvert our Democracy. Shame on the NY Times for handing this corrupt President the nail to hammer into the coffin of Mueller's investigation during a time when we are dangerously close to having an autocracy, run by a dangerous and corrupt man, and a Republican congress who are willing to give him all the power he needs to destroy the Democracy so many have died for.
9
Any chance that these reports were leaked to give the president cover to fire Rosenstein?
8
I find it disturbing that the public must tolerate this president and that the NYT, who wrote of him day after painful day prior to the election with no mention of the other candidate, now needs to throw gasoline onto the fire that is this administration. trump was a known criminal prior to being elected, yet you said nothing about that. Instead, you focused on Hilary's emails. trump taped everyone throughout his career, paid people off, sent thugs to threaten them, stiffed workers, stole from his casinos, bankrupted six business...need I go on? We should all wear a wire if we are anywhere near him.
17
Excluding Hillary, of course, but the list just gets longer for Leavenworth: Obama, Rice, Comey, Lynch, McCabe, Strzok, Page, and now Rosenstein. Just those who have been caught from Obama's deep-swamp.
Without a doubt, so many more at Justice, NSA, CIA -- corruption replete.
Internal corruption brought down Soviet Russia. We're next?
Where's Mueller when you really need him, off with fellows snipe hunting?
4
NYTimes, you blew it. You got played. You published an interpretation that suggests that Rosenstein seriously wanted to wear a wire to get evidence to invoke the 25th amendment, which he can't personally do. Might he have said this as a joke? Maybe. But saying it in all seriousness, as you suggest, would make no sense. Your interpretation of his actions seem to have originated in the fever swamps of the alt right, who want to get rid of Rosenstein and then Mueller. And you bought it.
I'm a New Yorker, but I think I'll be sticking with the Washington Post for news.
20
It would be usefut to report the complete details by checking with different sources. The context in which statements were made should be reported. What effort did you make to be objective as a good journalists should ? I am sorry the two of you that I have followed are trying to sensationalize a difficult situation between ths White House and the DOJ. Amar M
3
I wonder who leaked this story? Talk about deep state...really, Trump is the deep state just as he's the swamp he swore to eliminate. Trump can say all kinds of nefarious things and commit all kinds of scandalous acts, and he crosses the line in every which way, yet someone like Rosenstein who apparently made a sarcastic remark is subject to such scathing commentary?? It doesn't make sense. We know Trump is trying everything possible to discredit and put an end to the Mueller probe. Trump is mentally and morally unfit for office and I wish many more others would come forward call for his resignation. He's truly a villain!
5
Were the reporters of this story in the room (s) where those comments allegedly happened? NO! They are going reports that they've been told. Is this some writer (s) seeking mass fame for some kind of scoop since it is now in the news for 24 hours now? I watched an interview with the lead writer yesterday on Ari Melber's show on MSNBC, and the writer stuck to his talking points that his sources were vetted and that he stood by what they shared. He would not share who is sources came from. Again, was he in room where this allegedly happened and was seriously being considered acted upon? NO! Let's hear from those who were in the room where Rosenstein was said to have said what has been reported.
6
Rosenstein statement this week: “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,” he said in a statement.
Since when does the NYTs report on heresay and innuendo, and report it as factual? Exhibit A on why news organizations are only above Congress in trustworthy polls. Come on, you must do better than this.
12
The headline alone was enough to see and this with no eyewitness in the room. I do think you have to respond with a very good reason this has been published as if it is factual.
7
It's Saturday morning and Rosenstein's still gainfully employed--we must remember Trump doesn't believe anything published in the Times--so there's nothing to worry about.
2
The only comparison I can muster to the anger I'm feeling at @nytimes, at this moment, is what I was feeling in the aftermath of James Comey's uncalled-for interference just days before election day 2016 helping to swing the election to a most unqualified & dangerous man.
How many "anonymous" sources do you think Mr. Trump or Gen. Kelly or Nunes or McConnell, ad infinitum, has at their disposal? This stinks to high heaven.
You've been played.
21
Hope Trump fires Rosenstein. Sooner the better.
Funny how many citizens don’t recognize careerists and the depths they’ll go to protect themselves while, of course, telling us they’re doing it for the nation. Folks like Rosenstein who would subvert from within are just like apparatchiks of the Soviet Union.
Federal workers and bureaucracy, you are needed to do the people’s work, as directed by elected officials and policy. If you don’t like the big boss, bite your lip and execute the policy, or get out.
4
Some people suggested that NYT got played. Again we don't know, but what we do know is that Bill Shine is the current White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications.
Most of his career was spent as a producer and executive at Fox News, from where he was ousted in relation to scandals, connected to his handling of multiple sexual harassment issues plugging the network.
So now, he will put all his might to colossal campaign of demolishing all the institution that are still hanging in a balance, and with years of experience in a Russian style propaganda we all have to be prepared to what comes next.
Michael Moore said trump may be the LAST president.
My question is... if the voters once in a while tend to play a dangerous game of Russian Roulette and elect someone like trump, should we try to live without a president and see how it works.
Just for a heck of it.
5
Well, this is one ugly mess.
I don't know what in blazes The Times was thinking by publishing this tentatively attributed piece. They published a story about Rod Rosenstein thinking aloud.
The readers are up in arms (via comments) and I'm with them!
Trump's unrestrained id will now be on steroids and PCP. I fesr his mental illnesses will be manifested at a new level.
Thank you, NYT.
14
Everyone who has thrown their lot in with trump is already or will regret it.
What a marvelous example of the chaos at play in Washington. This article assumes that what they were told is truth but from the looks of it I wouldn't trust anyone at this point...it appears as though no one can keep their mouths shut.
3
Is no one seeing the irony in the events subsequent to this story’s publication? Trump and Fox News have taken this story as 100% true! From the “failing NY Times” yet. Where is the outrage, as with all the other true NY TImes stories that Fox and Trump have trashed?
This story rings true, as was the other reporting continuing to show the dysfunction in this corrupt Administration. Who appointed Rosenstein, by the way?
We get further confirmation that Woodward’s reporting, and the anonymous op ed are true.
Prior to reading this article, I held great respect for coauthor Michael Schmidt. Now I regard him and his coauthors for this inflammatory piece as gossip mongers.
After hearing tidbits of this “revelation” on TV & NPR, I anticipated reading the NYT for solid details. I found only unnamed, second-string sources—for ill-timed sensationalism.
Michael Schmidt just threw the match onto the kindling for the dismissal of Mr. Rosenstein, who had every right to weigh various means of dealing with Donald Trump. We still don’t know what he really did or thought—and we did not need to know anyway. That is for stories and books to be RELIABLY written when this whole sorry presidency is finally over. The likely firing of Robert Mueller is now your legacy, Michael Schmidt.
19
Do we think that this guy is Bob Woodward's deep throat?
If I was Trump and I couldn't trust thus guy he'd have to go. "You're fired", so to speak.
2
You are just fueling this president's authoritarian takeover. WaPo and NBC both spoke to people in the room, which apparently the NYT did not, and it was spoken sarcastically given the turmoil created by 45 during the Comey's firing episode.
When will the NYT correct its story in the same spot on the page as the initial reporting? What safeguards do the NYT READERS have so that we can once again come to trust the reporting in these pages?
18
The NYT is assisting the attack on Mueller's Trump-Russia probe w/ this article. I question the timing of this article and motivations of NYT. I am a subscriber so I hate to say this. But I love democracy and my country more. WaPo and ABC News had much better, nuanced reporting on this story.
10
Let me get this straight:
Trump's top campaign officials including his family met with Russian offering dirt on Hillary's campaign. But the NY Times is very careful to give the benefit of the doubt because even though after that meeting Trump ordered a change in the RNC platform to favor Russia and even though Russia released that "dirt", there just isn't enough "evidence".
But if anyone who isn't pro-Trump makes a throwaway comment and his or her ACTIONS have been completely above board, the NY Times uses innuendo to imply that the comment alone is all the proof necessary for Trump to impeach or fire him despite every ACTION being proper. That's evidence! says the NY Times. Someone made a comment and did nothing else but that comment proves he DID do something else. It's not like the innocent Trump campaign who just acted inappropriately but didn't commit the crime of "comments"! What level crime is "comments"?
I'd hate to have NY Times reporters on a jury. They convict people who did nothing wrong for a comment, but give the benefit of a doubt to people whose ACTIONS were wrong because they didn't commit the crime of "comments". "Comments" alone always convicts you in the eyes of NYT reporters. But if you are a Republican, any actions will always be given the benefit of the doubt.
NY Times philosophy is thus: Comments by people who might limit Trump will be treated as high crimes. Actions by Trump and his cabinet will not.
8
With all of the accusations and machinations and manipulations and in general how the media has been turned into a tool to use to undermine the very basis of what this nation is meant to be has it occurred to anyone at the times to o=do a series on Objectivity which was one of the first and most important things children were taught about when I was a kid.
Without it you cannot have a free society and you end up with people like Rupert Murdoch living among us with no fear of facing consequences for what he has done to this country and maroons like Alex Jones spouting insane things as truth and those who believe him.
2
This piece is disgraceful. Let me join the many others here in asking why you chose to release this story and what you hoped to accomplish by doing so. If Trump fires Rosenstein and derails the Mueller investigation, if Trump's base is motivated by his 'deep state' allegations to come out in force for the mid-terms, then this piece, based entirely on hearsay and speculation, will be responsible. Good job New York Times.
449
After reading reporting on this from various sources, I have to conclude that these NYT journalists are either desperate to make headlines or to get Mr. Rosenstein fired. The entire article seems based on rumor and third- or fourth-person interpretation of what was actually said. I expect better from this newspaper.
16
This article gives Trump cover to undermine and possibly fire Mueller. Way to go New York Times.
9
This is on you New York Times if Rosenstein gets fired! This is sickening and just what Trump wants.
8
What exactly do you hope to accomplish by publishing this piece?? You have just enabled the worst response and reason to end the Mueller investigation. Really? NYT you are better than this. Incredibly disappointed and sickened.
5
There is no excuse for this kind of sloppy journalism. Seems like a sad attempt to get a scoop that isn't really there. And knowing the consequences, without sources? Shame on the NYT and it's reporters.
13
Your reporters admit they did not interview anyone who was "in the room" when Rosenstein made the alleged remarks. Lazy reporting, lazy editing.
17
Besides everything else about this bad judgement call The New York Times printed on the front page the largest picture possible of Rosenstein hmm smart !
3
It seems entirely possible that the NYT just got played. Fake news indeed?
12
The NYT has proven itself a co-conspirator. Reckless and shameful!
12
And the fun continues.
I plan to stock up on snacks and my favourite beverages to watch the outcome of your mid-term elections. You can’t make this nonsense up. This is way better than any episode of Scandal or House of Cards.
In the meantime we up here in Canada are busy looking for new trade partners to replace the lost sales from you folks in the US. We hear that China is looking for bulk food since your soybean farmers are not doing so well lately. As well our new national motto of “Buy Canadian” is getting traction and people are planning to take winter holidays at home and go skiing this year.
With the palace intrigue ratcheting up it will make for amusing politics in your country. My only advice is that you need to think carefully about who and what you vote for in November. Think about what your politicians are proposing for health care, taxes, jobs, the economy, schools, hospitals, immigration and the always important foreign policy. Ask yourselves just how close do you really want to get to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jung Un and how much you want your president to kiss their butts in public.
31
Your reporters admit they had no sources in the room when it happened. Your rival, the Washington Post, does have a source in the room (as does NBC) and the subtext they provide repudiates your version of these events.
You went off half-cocked. Please issue a correction.
41
I couldn’t agree more. I want fair and accurate reporting. This feels like something else. So disappointed in NYT.
11
You know, the First Amendment doesn't permit crying "fire!" in a crowded theater.
Unless, you know, you're darned sure there's a fire. Not because someone told you that they heard there was a fire, because a third party told them they saw smoke.
31
The Times reporters have admitted that their informants were not in the room and heard about this second or third hand from emails or memos or from aides who heard about it from other aides. The AP and the Washington Post, both of whom located witnesses who were actually present in the room and both sources disputed the NYT story. Rosenstein and others, including Andrew McCabe, were in the room and freewheeling about the president and Rosenstein replied to a McCabe jibe at the president, saying sarcastically, "What do you want me to do, Andy? Wear a wire?"
Besides isn't it the supreme irony that Republicans are suddenly giving absolute credence to the paper they call the "Failing New York Times - the home of Fake News?"
If they choose to believe this, they are saying, by definition, that all of the previous NYT stories Trump derided as made up and Fake News are equally credible.
26
Thank you. You said it for me.
3
What's the point of printing this article?
Some anonymous people, with motives we can't know, accuse Mr. Rosenstein of musing about surveilling a president who shows clear signs of being alarmingly unhinged, with a view to removing him as unfit to govern the country.
The NY Times was faced with not only the rumor quality and potential for malice behind the allegations, it knew that publishing them severely undermines Mr. Rosenstein vis a vis President Trump and his followers, and paves the way for Trump to terminate the Mueller investigation.
I don't see any overriding public value in publishing the allegations, although President Trump and his supporters would definitely disagree with me there.
523
"Mr. Rosenstein, 53, is a lifelong public servant." enough said.
16
Congratulations.
The entire collusion case might eveporate. Rosenstein will be fired.
The Meuller investigation could be shut down by Rosenstein's replacement.
The midterms might possibly be affected.
Have a great weekend.
Trump will.
27
"On the whole, The New York Times is an essential publication. On occasion, however, it gets played like a $5 fiddle. Friday was one of those days."
31
Maybe this is how I need to view it. They got played. I guess I overestimated their ability. So disappointed.
9
I am extremely disappointed at the lack of research that went into this article. It seemingly reports a conspiracy, but the news coverage indicates that important parts of the story is materially incorrect. The rush to print for first bragging rights could lead to Rosenstein being fired and then Robert Mueller being fired. You have enough scoops, this one was a scoop off the sidewalk and curb.
26
I thought the "Press" was here to guard against authoritarians not load their cannon.
23
Pointless article based on hearsay, second hand accounts, and provides Trump the cudgel he needs to fire Rosenstein and undermine one of the most important investigations in this country's history. Great work Times, time to move over to the Washington Post.
22
Is there anyone associated with this president who hasn't at least contemplated wearing a wire and/or invoking the 25th amendment?
11
There's a backlash to this story forming online, much of it due to tribalism - this will "help" Trump, therefore it's bad -
But there is certainly a salient point being made by critics: The Times has been manipulated into publishing politically advantageous false information by forces in the White House before. The most famous example being Judith Miller's reporting in the run up to the Iraq war (much of it being misinformation fed to her by Cheney's office to justify attacking Iraq). And to be fair, the Times isn't the only media organization to be played this well.
So given this history of media manipulation, it's not unreasonable to be a little skeptical here (cui bono and all that). Given the seriousness of such charges - and indeed these are serious charges if true - and the potential consequences - these charges ostensibly give the president cover to fire Rosenstein - it would be reasonable to expect the Times to be more open about why it believes its sourcing of this story is legitimate. This is based largely on what is essentially hearsay.
20
As one who was around and followed the unraveling of the Nixon administration, these events have exactly the same flavor. Trump and his GOP acolytes are beginning to behave like cornered animals who are lashing out at anyone/everyone who hastens the final hastens the final dying gasps of this dysfunctional administration. And the last desperate act of significance is trying to cram a conservative judge onto the court after denying a centrist Obama appointee the position.
I would further add that many of the so-called 'comments' hear berating the Times are not only absurd and ill-informed on their face, but smack of an organized GOP-funded effort to distort public comments much in the same way as the Russians did. Or perhaps these commentators are Russian agents.
The Times heroic reporting deserves a Pulitzer, not the tawdry faux-outrage comments expressed herein.
5
Another article about how Trump is completely unqualified and crazy - and no one does anything about it. All you have to do is look at his Twitter feed to know that Trump is completely unhinged - this article says nothing new - except to remind us that those who stand by and do nothing are complicit in letting democracy burn down to the ground.
5
After that anonymous OpEd from a week or so ago and now this story full of anonymous sources, needless to say anonymity it the source of all we know to be true, that and unverifiable she said/she said drunken occurrences from over thirty years ago. I myself am fully convinced and totally believe every word I read in print.
6
As the Don of a criminal, R.I.C.O. enterprise masquerading as a private business, complete with "fixers", illegal hush payments, money launderers, income tax avoiders, illicit contacts with Russian adversaries, etc. that morphed into a White House Administration, the real question is : What responsible federal law enforcement official would not surreptitiously seek to record the conversations of the Don President? Let's be real here people!
7
There are probably dozens of people in the Justice Department that have thought about the same things that Rosenstein is accused of doing.
5
Another twister in the ever dizzying world of 24/7 news cycle. Sean Hannity in his show last night warned-- begged, more descriptively-- the President to not fire Rosenstein. He postulated that there is continuing evidence that this is a plot from the Left to fire up the President to exactly do this and generate a recap of Saturday Night Massacre. Interesting!
4
Time to fire Rosenstein and end the Mueller probe. Declassify everything, pardon everyone involved, and set up a blue ribbon commission to publicly investigate FISA abuse and illegal surveillance by the Obama administration on an opposition political campaign. It will make Watergate look like small potatoes.
5
I read the NYT for fact based news. If I wanted rumor, innuendo and anonymous letters to the editor I would read the The National Enquirer. Both the anonymous letter and now these unnamed sources serve Trump's narrative of a Deep State Government and a biased political Justice Department. Trump continues to control the narrative...
17
Rosenstein just convinced President Trump not to release unreacted FISA documents in order to cover up his, McCabe's and other high intelligence officials attempt to undermine President Trump. McCabe didn't know this latest development and went ahead and jumped on Rosenstein. All this will come out when the FISA warrant dox are revealed to the public.
2
My faith in Times reporting was a bit shaken yesterday. It seems the Washington Post and NBC found a source actually in "the room" when this comment was made who says it was deadpan sarcasm. An important nuance, which also may cast the "newsworthiness" of the episode in a different light. Apparently, the NYT source(s) was/were not in that room. What was the rush with this information; did it not bear a bit more scrutiny? (Can't help but think of poor Peter Strzok and his off-the-cuff text exchanges with his then-girlfriend.) I was also dismayed at Michael Schmidt's rather weak on-air commentary about his story.
16
If indeed, Mr. Rosenstein is trying to in some way stop or curb Trump's dangerous comportment, why would any news outlet (other than Fox, Breibart or InfoWars) let this information become public and get back to Trump? Better that this type of news stays under wraps, just like the anonymous memo from a couple weeks ago.
I hope Americans will vote in droves this November - I would not take American freedoms for granted going forward.
6
If Rosenstein discussed these scandalous things with McCabe and other people freely it only shows that all the seniors at the FBI hated Trump and plotted one way or another to oust him, and that indeed the Russia investigation was cooked and Trumps aids carter page and Stephanopolous were framed with the help of UK and Australian secret service es that now need to be protected, hence the vicious fight to stop the unredacted docs be released. If Rosenstein has been thrown to the dogs by these sources it can only mean that he is sacrificed in order to protect bigger fish, such as Obama who authorized the phony Russia frame up.
5
Which witches and whose witches are we hunting?
Borrowing a page from the Trump Playbook of dirty politics, it's sadly funny to see how similar yet totally different the witches have become. One minute, it's the Banana Republicans and their alleged victims being viciously pursued by the Deep State Dems and their coven. Next minute, it's exactly the other way around.
Perhaps that's because hunting and politics are both blood sports
that, sadly, are always in season. Vote.
1
The hearsay upon which this story is based does not justify either the headline or the first two paragraphs. The story should have been much more fully vetted. As so many commentators have said, this story will be used to undermine the Mueller investigation at a critical juncture. The NYT has does journalism and the nation a profound disservice.
12
Without seeing the "comments" Mr. Rosenstein may have made, it's hard to say whether or not his discussions pointed out the daunting hurdles that 25th Amendment proceedings would face. It would take collusion among the Vice President, a majority of Mr. Trump's cabinet, and 2/3 majorities in both houses of the Congress. Even a Blue Wave election result couldn't conceivably meet that standard, it seems to me. If that's what Mr. Rosenstein might have said, where's the problem?
1
@DMH
I expect that hurdle is the reason they were talking about recording him to show the full picture of him when he is "at home" as they say. It's a metaphor for how one acts when one thinks no one is watching.
It is also possible Mr Rosenstein is, as he says on El Trumpo's side and was joking or maybe even trying to find disloyal people in the admin to get rid of.
One has to read a third of the article before hitting this key sentence regarding the source for the main allegations in this story: "The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that documented Mr. Rosenstein’s actions and comments."
This should have been the lead sentence: "According to people briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, . . . ." I am disappointed in the NY Times editors' decision that it was better to bury this information than to lead with it.
31
Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Goldman, NYT Editors,
Go to MSNBC and watch Rachel Maddow's piece "NY Times story may give Trump excuse he seeks to fire Rosenstein" She provides useful context for why there is considerable dismay and anger about this piece with secondary sources.
Given what is at stake for our democracy I can't fathom why it was published. I remain unconvinced that there is anything here that is helpful to citizens in assessing the government. A story about the manifestations of enormous stress for a few days 16 months ago? Your reporting doesn't include any complications or harm resulting from that stress. It reads like something that would be interesting background of what it was like at DOJ in the books and articles sure to be written AFTER the Mueller report. Right now it's irresponsible.
Mr. Schmidt I saw your live and phone interviews yesterday on MSNBC. By the 3rd one you seemed stressed and placing more emphasis on your assessment of DAG Rosenstein's erratic behavior. Where you tired or upset by the massive criticism of your piece? Were you making sarcastic and frustraated remarks to your colleagues in the face of that criticism? Are you feeling shaken and somewhat unmoored from the guiding principles of your profession? Perhaps some journalist will provide us with a piece, sourced by people who weren't around you of course, describing your behavior and interpret it for all to judge your motives and professional stability. Sound familiar?
24
As a long-time subscriber, I was appalled by the Rosenstein article. l want to hear from the editorial board why it was published at this time. The implications are enormous and possibly catastrophic for the Justice Department. My head almost exploded last night when I heard about it, especially on top of the breaking news about Grassley's latest demands for the Kavanaugh hearing. I just don't feel that I can take anymore.
529
@k Bowen The editorial board is independent of the news operation. It does not oversee news, features, sports, etc., reporting at the Times, only Opinion and Op-Ed. This is true at all reputable newspapers.
1
@k Bowen I had a similar reaction. I'll bet Ben Bradley and Katherine Graham would have had a long talk with the journalists about implications before publishing such a story (with anonymous sources), and wonder if the Times did.
4
Just finished reading Woodward's incredible book "Fear," and it shows you that Rosenstein and anyone who is trying to investigate and remove Trump as president is a true patriot attempting to save what Trump hasn't corrupted yet.
Trump's strategy of deflecting away from his crimes by attacking law enforcement and the media is well-documented in the book.
Trump is a threat to our republic and should be impeached or removed via the 25th Amendment as soon as possible.
Too bad that Pence is his replacement.
15
This seems to validate the "Deep State " theory at least to a degree that is now known and perhaps reversible. The entrenched bureaucracy is now a somewhat independent government. It is an unelected body not responsive to the electoral process. Now, just like a foreign power, it seeks to sway elections and influence government for its own ends. ie the retention of power. It is now apparent that the FBI, DOJ, CIA, and others were, through its leaders, pro- Hillary and anti- Trump. OK. But they were using their power to sway an election. Bad enough. But now they want to destroy a government. It is good for the Press to be skeptical of the elected government. But to avoid confronting what is now happening by the bureaucracy is to be blinded by hatred. Your story is scary and approaches a possible bloodless coup. I hope Rosenstein was joking.
4
@Eddie
Rosenstein and Mueller are neither entrenched, nor partisans. They are both Republicans, entrusted with trying to salvage what is left of credibility in a GOP-led administration. Good luck with that.
Deep State conspiracy theories aren't worth the toilet paper they're written on.
5
@Eddie: Law enforcement agencies are anti-criminal and Trump is a proven criminal who surrounds himself with criminals. And a liar to boot. It’s as simple as that.
4
Given Trump's behavior and public comments, it would be troubling indeed if there was not discussions of the appropriateness of invoking the 25th Amendment.
9
The Times has an accompanying article on how, "in a reversal," Trump will no longer declassify documents related to this. Why bother? It appears that perhaps he had relevant parts fed directly or indirectly to The Times, the newsroom of which perhaps speculates Rosenstein as the anonymous op-ed write of a couple weeks ago and it trying to even the playing field. Journalism in our time is a roller-coaster when it's not a centrifuge.
1
So members of the Justice Department have thoughts and say things, but there is apparently no indication that they actually did anything besides their jobs. Yet, when Cabinet members snatch papers from Trump's desk, willfully ignore his orders and run around after him cleaning up his messes, they are regarded as heroes.
All this tells me that Rosenstein is a thinking person with the very reasonable fear that a dangerously incompetent fool is running the country. It also shows how desperately difficult it must be to do one's job in this government without cracking up.
If Trump uses this article as a pretext for firing Rosenstein, two things will happen: 1) Irony will drop dead as Trump takes action based on what is reported in "the failing New York Times"; 2) I will join the crowds in the streets.
8
For those of you who are angry that The Times published this story without naming sources, I say tough beans. The world already knows that Trump is an unstable, dangerous nincompoop. Other nations have been making new global arrangements ever since Nov. 2016 while the GOP continues to carry water for the Donald in order to get their precious tax cut for the super wealthy. A huge majority of Republicans support this Emoluments Clause-destroying president. The GOP plays very rough, and we aren't going to retrieve democracy from the brink by playing nice. Playing nice is playing with fire.
3
@Rima Regas
Unfortunately, in our capitalist battle for the “bottom line”, ethics and morals are often cast aside for profit.
Sensationalism is a big in our “reality show” culture.
Our economic structure rewards irresponsible behavior, from letting the energy and plastic industries create environmental disasters without repercussions to rewarding profit seeking “journalism”.
To paraphrase George W. Bush, “money trumps everything. . . Sometimes”.
2
It is easy to understand why the Times ran this piece - it is news regardless of the veracity of the claims in the article.
More important is people recognize the origins and intent of the sources behind the article. It is clearly another move from Trump's operatives to delegitimize the Mueller's investigation and the scrutiny of Mr. Trump as well as trying to cement the idea of a dark state conspiracy out to get Trump. It would be 100% laughable if so much of America hadn't already proved they lack character, integrity and real patriotism.
Rudy Giuliani, his associates, Trump and Roger Stone are not the brain surgeons they they think they are. In a horrible way, their latest move is reflective of their strategic incompetence. The only audience they can capture with the playbook they are using was caught and snared a long time ago.
Ending monopoly control of both houses of Congress is the first step in truly making America great again. The next step will come two years later.
Don't be complicit by failing to participate and vote.
7
@Michael, who is to say the anonymous sources are not McCabe and others who have since been fired and are now under criminal investigation themselves?
Unless the NY Times is going to be upfront, and make their sources go on the record, be it the infamous "anonymous" op-ed of a few weeks ago or this story, it could literally be anyone and readers will simply fill in their own blanks to make it fit their own political narrative.
It is hard for anyone to take seriously this kind of journalism.
2
Rosenstein was upset. We're all upset. A majority of us want trump gone. Since when is talking a crime? Oh, hmmm, wait. At least he ws honest about it.
5
I love the NYT and have been a loyal reader for years. I've always trusted the accuracy and veracity of its news coverage. But seriously, this trend of articles completely without on-the-record sources is getting ridiculous. I'm as far from being a Trump supporter as it gets, but this story provides zero factual evidence to support its claims. Get someone on the record or there's no reason to even read this. Stop leaning into Trump's relentless belittling of the American press and stand as an example of why he's wrong.
16
Senators: approve protections for Mueller NOW.
12
Who cares what Rosenstein said in a private meeting months ago. What matters is what he does and has done. The "breaking news" is just throwing fat on the fire of Trump's hatred of the Justice Department so you can sell more newspapers. Are you trying to give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein? Are you trying to provoke a constitutional crisis? How did Trump win the election? Aided and abetted by the press.
11
Honestly, if he did suggest firing Comey to the President, there is no wrongdoing here. As the Deputy Attorney General, it is his duty to advise the President to fire the FBI Chief on his mishandling of Hillary Clinton's emails two weeks before the Elections. And Comey had done it against the FBI's own rule of conduct - delay the results of an investigation prior to any Presidential election. Especially when Comey himself had declared that there was no criminality, only an unintentional mistake after a grueling 8 hour testimony by Clinton. Also, when there was really no new evidence. Obviously, Rosenstein did'nt realize that this was a President, totally without scruples. I guess by now Sessions and Kelly must be thinking the same - wire-tapping this dishonest President! It is quite likely this wire- tapping issue has been planted by Trump's own crooked team. And any reason to fire Rosenstein who is in charge of the Russian investigation would do especially when Attorney General Sessions has recused himself. And by default so would Special Counsel, Robert Mueller!
3
If it is true that Trump gave Russia national secrets, shouldn't more people, Republicans and Democrats, be discussing the 25th amendment?
8
If the end result of your article in any way helps the Republicans retain the House, or the shut down of the Mueller investigation, and two to six more years of a disastrous Trump administration; you will always have the solace that you maintained your journalistic integrity even though the rest of the country and our democracy will suffer mightily.
5
Now that I've heard Goldman and Schmidt's view on the importance of their article--that it provides an fascinating glimpse into the chaotic eight day window between the Comey firing and the appointment of Mueller, I have two observations: first, your story line was misleading and should have read "Chaotic Times After Comey Firing Lead to Wild Ideas, Including Rosenstein's." Second, as interesting as the Times may view pre-release brainstorming, it is not newsworthy and should not have been reported in this manner and at this particular moment in time. We don't need no education!
10
If Trump wasn't paranoid to begin with, I can see how he soon would be after becoming president, with all these people around him seemingly trying to undermine and depose him.
1
I am so disappointed in the reporting of Michael Schmidt and Adam Goldman. It is important that there are other news sources that are disputing this article, in terms of the tenor and context of the Rosenstein comments. The tone and context of a comment make an enormous difference as to their meaning and intent. These 2 newspaper men have essentially irresponsibly handed Trump and his allies all the ammunition he needs to fire Rosenstein and end the Mueller probe. It seems unconscionable that they would have reported this story without making sure the source was in the room at the time of the comments. They must have known the implications this story would have so they needed to be supremely expert and careful in their vetting and reporting. How can this be if there are 2 conflicting reports of the said Rosenstein comments and event?
18
Rosenstein is the one person, besides Mueller himself, who is in a position to know exactly what the investigation is uncovering. If he is alarmed enough to consider such drastic measures, we all should be.
7
Lighten up everyone! at the end of the day its still the free press, thank goodness. .... is going to do whatever he wants to do anyway because he is unchecked by other branches of government and the 30 percent of American people who are enabling his .....behavior (no matter what is said or done). We are being led by many small minded/non courageous humans who have proved to us they don’t care about the future of our country or the quality of the lives of all Americans (especially minorities or women’s lives). Lesson in this...NYT might consider bringing in Woodward for some lessons in how to analyze and quote your sources.
2
@Free Press
Woodward made his name using sources exactly as Goldman and Schmidt have done. Woodward and Bernsetein brought down the corrupt Nixon presidency.
Let's hope we can lawfully end the influence and power of the corrupt and cynical Trump administration through the ballot box, the midterms, and, if necessary, the 25th amendment.
It amazes and saddens me how many people are ridiculing the Times for this story. The role of an independent publication is, foremost, to inform the public. And not — contrary to the beliefs of many people here — to selectively choose what they publish based on their own agenda.
People think democracy dies when an authoritarian leader suppresses the freedom of the press.
No, democracy dies when the free and open press decides they won’t publish a story because it doesn’t satisfy their readers’ agenda.
If this did indeed occur, as the Times reports, then we deserve to know.
Truth does not take sides, and shame on whomever thinks otherwise.
185
@David The authors had two possible conclusions to draw: Either that Rosenstein genuinely considered invoking the 25th Amendment, or that he was ridiculing McCabe's suggestion with sarcasm.
For the first, the authors have no witnesses and only hearsay testimony from anonymous sources who were told about it second- or third-hand and who may have ulterior motives. For the case for sarcasm, they have the testimony of someone who was in the room.
They chose to go with the first conclusion.
What is it about that that constitutes "truth"?
2
Yep. Also high time for decent Americans to get up off their duffs, rather than sitting and demanding that everybody else does.
1
Maybe you should rethink your analysis. Thousands of other posts vehemently disagree with you for the story based on hearsay threatens the Mueller investigation and places our nation in mortal danger.
Thank you, authors of the 25th and thank you you brave hearted ones nowadays who recognize how applicable it is with regard to 45th President. It's reassuring to know that there are still people capable of making tough calls within the insulated walls of government and within the DOJ.
2
The senior ranks of the FBI are staffed by the most amazing men and women in the world. Brave, educated, full of integrity and American.
There will be no problem in finding a replacement for Mr. Rosenstein, should he be fired.
Having said that, many commentators feel certain that this article will give Trump cover to fire Rosenstein. Unlikely, as he would lose a core argument that he makes night after night at rallies broadcast to the nation. How can there be corruption in the FBI when a Trump hand picked person is running it?
Reading this , the asking for loyalty takes on a far different meaning. Though i do not like the President and feel he is an opportunistic populist, this article affirms that those around him were not acting consistent with the " pleasure of the President". Trump was acting counter to the political desires of those who worked for him and not with the style they preferred as button down GS 14's . But , and it is a massive " but", he is an elected President and they can walk out the door at any time. You serve or you leave ....
To read the tale of notes, meeting, call, texts, about all of this does ring of a " deeper" state. They were talking of removing a President and the only defense i read here is if it was " sarcastic" in tone. The self serving tone of it all should scare the wits out of us.
I was never one to take the " resistance" seriously. I do now. A career is being ruined, people in the back channel are talking about the 25th Amendment. May i remind you that when Reagan was shot, people were petrified of reactively invoking it for it is the bedrock of a perpetual Presidency. Now it is the stuff of secret handshakes and the comradeship of conspirators .
1
The real problem is not Trump's fitness for office, it's why his actions have not invoked the 25th long ago. Everyone knows that he's unfit. You'd not want Trump advising you on anything - and I mean anything.
We need to find out exactly why the 25th is not working as it should. Something is wrong.
4
Thank you Vice President Sean Hannity for stopping Trump from firing Rosenstein. Your reasoning may be bogus but at least for today the status quo has not be upended.
Why is it the authors could not find a source who was actually in the room at the time? Other publications have done so thus putting out there a different slant on what was actually said.
The fears of many were answered last night when we learned that of course Trump was jumping on the story and ready to fire Rosenstein. Thank heavens he watched his TV and sought advice and counsel.
As many commenters stated, why would the NYT willingly put themselves into the circus ring with Dear Leader? The search for Truth that Trump has manipulated and used as a bloody bat upon the nation need not be stoked. In the chaos Trump has purposely created, prudence and restraint should guide us in our response.
Right now swirling in the Trump tornado we have Anonymous' letter, the Kavanaugh allegation and now the 'deep state' of DC all bringing the Truth into question.
Where and how is the Truth to be found in any of the above? From anonymous sources to impossible to determine facts, we are all still left in limbo. In such a situation we need to rely upon due process, careful investigation as best can be done and prudent consideration of what should be addressed and when.
Don't join Trump in his manipulation.
5
As far as I'm concerned, Rosenstein only did his job. If so many people in the WH and abroad did raise a red flag about Trump's fitness to Office, that was (and still is) a legitimate and appropriate thing to consider the 25th. I'm no expert in psychology but I cannot agree more with Mr. Rosenstein considering only the facts and the National Security of the US and its Allies. We can already make the assumption, based on previous instance of Trump's behavior, that Rosenstein will be outed very soon.
1
We, the People have to be willing to go on the record if we want tell what we know. The Rosenstein story sounds more like water cooler bragging than an actual threat against Trump and without named sources should have remained that. I am surprised The Times went with this story without names especially given what could be at stake if Rosenstein gets fired. If we are to protect our electoral process, we must support the Mueller investigation until it reaches its final conclusion, whatever that maybe.
3
I wish they'd just come clean here. All Rosenstein has to say is, yes, we thought about the 25th amendment and taping Trump. Here's why:
* Multiple examples shows that Trump seeks to undermine and obstruct justice.
* We have hard evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to influence the election, hence the investigation.
* Trump is untruthful in the extreme and tapes are needed as evidence to protect ourselves from him. There are multiple examples of this too...
I'd actually feel more concerned if Rosenstein hadn't considered taping Trump and invoking the 25th amendment.
2
Unfortunately Mr. Rosenstein might have been under the belief that this morally and ethically compromised cabinet--and GOP majorities in Congress--would do the right thing with the 25th Amendment once it became clear that Trump was grossly unqualified for the job. That was a monumentally mistaken belief.
There are people to whom one can extend the benefit of the doubt, and others where sane people would never do that. Trump, his cabinet, and the GOP majority in Congress fall into the latter category.
1
One of Bogart's greatest roles was his bringing Captain Queeg to life in the Caine Mutiny. I always found Jose Ferrar's defense of Queeg misplaced as we witnessed his paranoia and incompetence which could have resulted in the loss of his ship and crew. There was a later stage and tv production, the Caine Mutiny Court Marshall, which only presented the trial.
The NYT and press coverage, like a trial, presents statements of witnesses, ( in this article, actually, inadmissible hearsay); the President's White House behavior that prompted Rosenstein's reaction is not observed by us; nor is it even reported.
Trump has his defenders, including actual defense attorneys. We the American public, the voting jury, need to know what goes on in the confines of the Oval Office. We need eyewitnesses willing to publicly testify.
We can see the crimes against our democracy and decency being committed before our eyes; if responsible civil servants believe these official acts are hatched by someone constitutionally unfit to serve, those individuals need to come forward and make their case for ousting Trump publicly , without regard to the fate of their own jobs.
3
Lots of confusion about things reported here and the implications.
First, the investigation does not go away because of staff changes. Justice does not forget what it learned and go away.
Second, Mueller is smart enough to be prepared for this contingency. He understands the president intends to obstruct the investigation, so there must be preliminary reports on all the players that could be released. In addition, several state laws are implicated and the FBI routinely refers charges.
Finally, Donald has been threatening to fire Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller and others for months and hasn't done it. He doesn't need a new excuse.
1
I want to thank Mr. Rosenstein for his tenacity and courage in responding to what has amounted to nothing less than an outright attack by Trump and his acolytes on the fundamental principles undergirding this country.
When medals are finally struck for the heroes who stood up for America in its desolate Time of Trump, I want him to receive one.
4
Robert S. Mueller III, in the investigation into whether Trump associates conspired with Russia’s election interference, according to a lawyer for Mr. McCabe.
After this week’s lengthy expose untangling the whole Russian interference that should be the envy of every Soviet leader, understood only after very long and exhausting research, makes me wonder how a nascent Trump campaign could have possibly known what they were conspiring with when simply digging for ordinary political counter-opposition research. How many tiny grains of sand get caught in a tide that none can even see? Either none are guilty or they all are for being swept up in it. We should be unified against this, not divided.
This Rosenstein incident is a dream come true for Trump and his GOP loyalists. After viewing and living through Trump's maniacal actions the last 2 years, has anyone given credence to the strong possibility that this entire episode has been manufactured by right-wing GOP enablers of Trump? One thing Trump knows and knows well is how to manipulate the media to his liking. We've lived through it and experienced the manipulation of the media by Trump during his 2016 campaign. As a matter of fact, if I were a gambling woman, I would place a big, big bet that once again Trump managed to dupe the American public. What do you think?
1
From everything we've ever heard about Rosenstein this sounds totally out of character. I'm deeply skeptical.
6
When Rod Rosenstein says something is inaccurate, I believe him.
When Donald trump says something is inaccurate, it means nothing to me; he'll say anything at any time and without any regard to truth.
I'm sure there have been discussions and it's the right thing to do. trump is an enemy of this country. Every day he stays in power we lose more.
7
Of course the story is true. Even Rosenstein does not say it is untrue. He was used, and naive to think he was not being used when he wrote the memo supporting the termination of Comey. On the job for only two weeks, Rosenstein had no first hand insight into Trump madness where deliberation and concensus are non-existent. Rosenstein believed his memo would be one opinion of many across the branches of government in the consideration of such a consequential decision.
I don't think the story ultimately matters because Trump went on national tv to share the real reason he fired Comey.
What I think does matter is that Putin is shaping the history of our country and you never undo that; and secondly, the Republican Party is an existential threat to democracy.
5
Rosenstein's problem is that he is rational. If this story is true, Rosenstein should be praised for suggesting that Trump be treated like any other criminal and be removed from office before he does who knows what to destroy our system of government.
3
Every now and again during the Cold War, journalists would occasionally draw back from reporting a story because they perceived that it might cause serious damage to the long term interests of the United States and to democracy as a whole if they revealed what they knew. Too bad that doesn't seem to be the case today.
4
If anybody could/should be removed from their job because of something they said, Trump should be the first to go.
5
Nothing in the 25th Amendment allows for the President to be removed without his consent. The only way he can be removed by a vote, is the Impeachment and trial convictions.
Can't help but wonder if he said exactly what was reported (seems secondhand), and/or if wasn't a cynical joke. Many prosecutors joke about "wearing a wire" frequently. Without actually hearing the supposed statements, it's hard to get context.
2
I have relied on these reporters to help me understand and get through the last two years. I want them to keep reporting the news. I don't want them to make the news, especially in a way that influences events and actions by someone able to do great damage. There must be a balance there but it was a shock last night when this news broke. This one scares me.
8
@Sue Yes, it scares me too. If we've lost the New York Times with this and the anonymous op-ed two weeks ago, we're in a world of trouble.
4
The 25th Amendment is a specific provision for an unfit President to be removed from office. it is an apt provision for Trump who has made a complete mockery of the highest office and the most important job in the world, and continues to use the White House as another reality show like The Apprentice. Rosenstein should not have just contemplated using a wire or any means to invoke this rarely used but important tool but should have acted on his instinct. There is still time for any patriotic, law abiding and conscientious member of the administration to come forward and get this done. We, the citizens of the USA cannot wait.
4
A year ago. Wow, that was so long ago. He didn't act on it - if he even meant it at all - after all witness have spoken in this case and they say he was being sarcastic - forget about it. Isn't that the advice victims are supposed to take?
6
Hearing about Trump for the past 25 years in the States, I wouldn't have been near this man without a wearing a wire tape. How come non of these people new that? Are these people really so self-centered that they are so out of touch?
4
The simple fact that this was done by a person who by all accounts is a sober, non-partisan career civil servant speaks volumes about Trump and his state of mind. It didn't rise to the point where Article 25 was actually invoked, but it could. The nation is skating on thin ice here.
3
The Washington Post shows the problems with this article. Other sources contradict this account.
While McCabe’s memos assert both the recording and 25th amendment conversations occurred at a meeting within days of Comey’s firing, another person at the meeting, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, insisted the recording comment was said in a moment of sarcasm, and that the 25th amendment was not discussed.
That person said the wire comment came in response to McCabe’s own pushing for the Justice Department to open an investigation into the president. To that, Rosenstein responded with what this person described as a sarcastic comment along the lines of, “What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?”
That person insisted the statement was never discussed with any intention of recording a conversation with the president.
Another official at the meeting, then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, wrote her own memo of the discussion which does not mention any talk of the 25th amendment, according to a second person who was familiar with her account.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mccabe-memos-say-...
11
I think the Times got played on this one. Given that the Rosenstein story is based on unnamed sources not present at the original meetings, but who were instead "briefed" on the contents, its not an all a leap to believe the Impeach Rosenstein/Remove Mueller advocates simply enlisted Trump-sympathetic FBI or DOJ personal to share the details selectively with the Times. The House Freedom Congress (in league with the President) has filed impeachment charges against Rosenstein, and demanded the immediate declassification and release of unredacted documents relating to ongoing investigations under DOJ purview. Their efforts against Rosenstein and Mueller and in defense of Trump has stepped up to a fever pitch since late summer. And now, this...
With a few short weeks till the election, Trump's stock has been looking a little tired. Mid-terms approaching, favorability ratings down, DOJ resisting the declassification efforts, Mueller plodding forward and the potential safety net of a Kavanaugh confirmation in doubt, the pressure on Trump is growing.
Forcing a showdown now may be Trump's last, best shot. It would not take much to find a handful of DOJ/FBI personnel, who lean pro-Trump, and have them provide out of context information to the Times. And the idea that some such personnel lean pro-Trump is no less believable that others (like Strzok and Page) lean the other way.
Either way, this has no given Trump cover for another effort at obstructing justice.
4
In other words, Manafort has flipped, and the President and Republicans must stop the Mueller investigation at all costs.
2
this has been probably been noted in earlier comments, but since no one will probably scroll through them all at this point, it is important to note that the last I heard, The Washington Post and NBC were reporting this quite differently. According to these sources, Rosenstein did say words to this effect, but sarcastically in response to someone else (McCabe?) suggesting something. I know The Times stands by its reporting, but other witnesses in the room (unnamed, of course) concur with the Post and NBC.
There are lots of reasons to not believe that Rosenstein actually said this as a serious suggestion. Regardless, even if he did mean it (and he doesn't deny saying it, just that it was a sarcastic retort) Trump would be a fool to try to oust him. He'll never get confirmation of another DAG and it won't stop the Mueller investigation.
I'm guessing Sessions will be out by the end of the year, and it'll be interesting to see who will step in to that position. By law, Rosenstein would step into the acting role, but would Trump tolerate that or try to nominate someone else and try to get Senate approval?
3
We don't know what will become of Rod Rosenstein's job but we do know what Trump's inner core of statesmen like Sean Hannity and Judge Jeanine Pirro are counseling. Given the flimsiest excuse, the president would deep-six Rosenstein and Mueller in a heartbeat - not Trump's heart of course because he doesn't have one.
Mueller had better gather the evidentiary analysis gathered to date, codify it, and lock it away in several different safes for future reference if and when the enemies of truth try to bury it, because that is what they will do, sure as one season follows another.
One or two of these safes should be in Canada or Andorra.
1
There's something strange about this story. First, no one thinks the 25th Amendment is, or is likely to become, viable. It's not worth serious discussion. Second, the suggestion that one be surreptitiously "wired" when talking with Trump seems out of character. Color me suspicious; I need to know more.
On the other hand, that the Trump White House is a mess and a even a national danger is known to all, and no one can doubt that Trump will lie about any conversation. The first issue should be addressed by resistance (e.g. a Democratic Congress), the second by placing a recording device on the table in plain sight at the beginning of any private meeting. Both acts are disturbingly unsubtle, even crude, but unfortunately they reflect where we are.
5
What's happening in the DOJ with Rod Rosenstein remarks shows me that America is now a third-world banana republic. To think he was even contemplating taking down a duly elected President is very scary too me. This is the sort of thing I escaped my third world country to come here legally (because I respected the immigration laws of this country) and I thought I was arriving into a country which prided itself on the rule of law. Rod Rosenstein's remarks must be taken in context of the all prevailing toxic anti-Trump text messages from Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, James Comey etc and their collective scheme to exonerate Hillary and frame Trump, a duly elected President.
The only people I see working hard to bring transparency to the American people are the Republicans. All documents ordered by President Trump must be made available for all Americans to see. These are afterall our documents. The DOJ and FBI are our institutions and if there is this high corruption going on in there it must be brought to light NOW.
Our economy is advancing, more people have jobs and we can pursue our dreams under President Trump, but we cannot allow the DOJ and FBI to harbor such bad characters who only want to undermine our President and ultimately the American people.
1
I actually am reassured that sane minds in the government are acknowledging and discussing constitutional remedies to remove this president from office. Why is it he get to publicly smear and attack all with whom he disagrees or feels threatened, yet his supporters become up in arms when rational minds are motivated by what is best for the nation (not for the president)?
1
A key point regarding applicaiton of the 25th not in the article is that section 4 can ONLY be applied with the agreement of Mike Pence. In other words, unless Mke Pence agrees to remove him, he stays.
Quoted from 25th Amendment with CAPS added.
Section 4. Whenever the VICE PRESIDENT AND a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. "
I see any application of the 25th to be an excuse to overturn the legitimate results of Constitutional election. Many selected the President in part because of his style that his opponents may call "erratic". We must remember Trump's style defeated the huge HRC effort as well as many republican primary candidates including Jeb Bush. It did so in spite of a very lean small, unconventional campaign and ZERO years of political experience and opposition within his own party.
His campaign was unconventional and might have appeared to be "erratic" to some. In reality it was superior, and brought a man with no Political experience into the Presidency on his first try. Anyone using the word "crazy" WRT Trump should at least follow it with "like a fox"?
1
I do not see why this is a problem. Many, many professionals in the field of psychology have said Trump is unfit. There has been talk of the cabinet invoking the 25th Amendment several times in the news and by pundits. There is no shortage of people (except Trump's cult) who believe he is not fit for office.
Frankly, if Mr. Rosenstein had actually been serious, and not joking, it would be entirely consistent with his oath of office. He took an oath to protect the Constitution. Not the person in the office of the President. Anyone with a clear mind can see Trump is the most serious domestic enemy of the Constitution we've had in our history. With his constant branding of the press as the enemy and his frustrations with the DOJ not being his puppet, not going after HIS enemies it's clear he's not fit for the office.
5
If Rosenstein actually thought about it, leave alone mentioning it, suggests Trump is totally incapable of governing and therefore invoking 25th amendment should be made a reality after midterm elections with Democrats in charge of Congress. This report on Rosenstein and the previous report on silent resistance suggests that Trump is truly incapable of governing. Republicans knows it and taking advantage to push their agenda effectively.
2
The mere fact that so many in trump’s administration and inner circle think he is deranged, unfit and have talked of exercising the 25th amendment says the story. His unpopularity is at 70 percent. He has proven that the economy will do well or badly depending on the market conditions and confidence of average americans. If it goes into a recession and millions of jobs are lost, his popularity will crater to a mid 20 percent range.
3
If it is is true (and he denies saying it) as secretly released that Rosenstein proposed what some consider an outrageous proposal to record Trump, it is a sad commentary on our democracy when an official of the government (in this case Rosenstein) cannot express an opinion that may be in opposition to his boss (Trump). Isn't it the job of the Department of Justice to assure that the law is adhered to at ALL levels? By firing Comey the president was attempting to assert inappropriate control over a legal investigation in Rosenstein opinion. Wasn't it his duty as Dep. Atty Gen, to be alarmed and consider taking action?
That is, of course, if the leaker is truthful . . . And, there is very little of that going around.
3
It is beginning to look like Trump is the least of our problems. Either he is unfit and should be removed or he isn’t, and should be supported. Meanwhile, all this dithering does incalculable harm to the office of the President and to the country. My grandfather had an earthy expression he used to describe exactly this situation, the time for which has obviously arrived.
1
Rod Rosenstein comes off as a timid little bureaucrat who wanted at first to curry favor with the man who could further his career by obediently drafting the memo justifying the firing of Comey. That he “had regrets” about his role in the firing of Comey and even sought his council on selecting a special counsel less than one week after drafting the memo justifying it leads one to question at least his judgement, if not his character. The fact that he then participated in planning a coup to insulate himself from any fallout leaves no doubt that Rosenstein’s character is unsavory and absent any sense of honor or integrity. While Rosensteins defenders have been slow to acknowledge his flaws it’s clear that president Trump has been prescient in his assessment of not only Rosenstein, but Comey, McCabe, Strzok and perhaps special counsel Mueller.
3
The Spanish and British press reports that their Foreign Minister, Borell, was told by Trump during the visit of the Spanish King and Queen, that Spain should build a wall in the Sahara in order to keep refugees trying to reach Spain across the Med.
Trump neither understand history nor Geography, telling Borell verbatim that the Sahara border can't be bigger than our border with Mexica.
As a matter of fact, Morocco already has a Western Sahara wall, called the Berm, which is 1,700 long, made of sand, heavily mined and controlled by 100.000 soldiers. That Moroccan wall was not built to keep refugees from crossing into Europe, but to keep independence-seeking Sahrawis in the eastern part of the desert, away from the regional resources.
It is high time to use the 25th Amendment to send mentally unstable, vulgar, temper tantrum man-child Trump packing, even if that means that this nation will have to live a short time under the Priest=in-Chief Pence.
3
Trump doesn't need to be taped to prove the 25th amendment should be used. Read his tweets and listen to his public statements
All we need is a functioning Congress
2
Is taping a conversation with the President okay when the President does it, or only when the other person in the meeting does it?
I ask because before this all happened, when Trump was disputing Comey’s account of the meeting, Trump said Comey better hope there are not tapes. Trump said this on Twitter for all to see - sending the message that taping such meeting is okay I’m his book. In this context - and it is context which the NYTImes omits in this piece - it would seem reasonable for people meeting with Trump to consider making their own recordings.
3
What is the problem here.
Even if we assume that Rosenstein has done everything he has been described as doing. As part of his oath of office he swore to protect and defend the United States and its constitution. He did exactly what he should have been doing.
5
I wonder how the NY Times got this story about Rosenstein? Why now? Surely those who leaked this story would understand its potential implications, namely, that it may be used as a justification to fire Rosenstein? And yesterday Trump Jr. tweeted the suggestion that Rosenstein was the "Anonymous" author of the infamous NY Times op-ed last week.
This gives us pause to consider the uses and abuses of "anonymous sources" in the media. It was clear that the previous Anonymous op-ed writer was a Senior Trump Administration official. It was important for readers to understand this, as it was material to the discussion at hand. By contrast, the Rosenstein leaks are wholly unattributed, and readers have no context to understand why the information is shared at this time (or to assess the veracity of the information).
It raises ethical issues when absolutely no background is shared about the leaker, particularly when such information would be deemed highly material to understanding the leaks.
8
This is a badly researched and contentiously written article, stating as fact what is only second or third hand interpretations of what was said by Rosenstein, but I do not think it will have the dire consequences depicted by many commenters. Not as much as the continuous casting of shade on Hillary Clinton while treating Trump with kid gloves during the run-up to the 2016 election.
It's not so much Trump but the Republicans who are the problem, and if Trump is impeached or otherwise removed we'll have Pence and things won't improve, except Pence will comport himself more traditionally presidential. But that's unlikely no matter what Mueller finds, except if there's hard evidence that Trump actually did rape a 13-year old girl and/or had someone murdered. The Mueller investigation cannot be stopped anymore just before the elections without causing a Blue Tsunami of never before seen proportions, and by now Mueller's team should have enough information to cause serious problems for Trump and his close circle, that appears not so close these days anymore. That information is no doubt in safe places just in case Mueller himself is fired, e.g., shared with relevant State officials and other intelligence agencies where appropriate, and Mueller's team members of course. Mueller is intelligent enough to calculate in his being fired at any given moment. And after he's fired, who'd stop him from sharing what he knows if that would best serve the nation and its Constitution?
6
I discussed the 25th too, wasn't allowed to act!
4
I really think this story should not have been reported at this time with all that is going on with Muller investigation ,you just loaded his gun to fire Rosenstein, he was looking for an excuse now he has one . I really don't understand why now?
7
I'm sure there is more here than meets the eye. Perhaps Rosenstein is an absolutely brilliant player, making chess-like moves one by one. That's what I hope anyways. And if he gets fired, he may be in a position to tell all that he knows, to testify for the special counsel. Who knows that he didn't make the recordings? Who knows what he knows.
It's worth noting that this story is receiving quite a lot of pushback and skepticism, from the Washington Post, NBC, Politico, and Rachel Maddow. Is the Times quite certain of its reporters' sources on this piece? The Trump Administration, it has been suggested, is not above leaking false information, and would have quite a lot of incentive to do so.
9
If all we've got is the 25th Amendment, then somebody, anybody who can do it, make it happen! How long will we be held hostage by an out of control administration? If hundreds of child prisoners and separated families aren't bad enough, how bad does it have to get?
2
Information from second hand sources? And incomplete information at that. This is careless reporting that will do nothing but fan the flames for Republicans to purge Rosenstein and others under false pretenses. NBC and the Washington Post both handled the situation far better.
10
The press must do what the press does. But this article does not bode well for sustaining the rule of law. Times, you just gave Trump just what he wants to support his lies about the existence of the "deep state". It might be news, but it wasn't wise to publish this at this critical moment in American History.
2
It's obvious to the apolitical that there's been a palace coup underway for some time now. We've become a third-world government.
3
Now Trump is able to cherry pick his version of reality. Sadly, the cherries are all decomposing under the cherry tree.
5
Rosenstein would be failing in his duty if he wasn’t discussing the 25th Amendment. Trump is unquestionably unfit for the office.
9
Rosenstein was right to express extreme concern after trump obstructed justice by firing Comey when he refused to end an investigation. The numerous guilty pleas and indictments secured by Mr. Mueller attests to the corruption of the Baby King. Unfit for office, trump holds campaign rallies rather than govern. The stench he speaks of is on him and his enablers. May trump soon be swept out of office, into a courtroom, and into a prison cell for his many crimes.
This was a bit frustrating to read; somehow it is reported as fact without sources. Is this maybe a leak from a Trump ally?
9
Whatever you may think of him, Rod Rosenstein is a real american hero. God bless you, sir and may he protect you against a whirlwind of wrath soon to be visited upon you.
6
Another reader has noted that Trump needs to be careful here. I believe that the NY Times needs to be careful here.
Last night , MSNB anchors reported that two other reliable news sources have put forth an alternative interpretation of this story. The other two sources reported Rosenstein's remarks as sarcasm, not literal intent. My sense is that this is accurate.
I have a strong faith in the accuracy of what I read in the New York Times. This is perhaps the only time that I have sensed that you got it wrong.
If there is room for interpretation of Rosenstein's meaning, the NY Times should examine this possibility in print.
7
Rosenstein denies this. Then we are told Trump has said: “If I did one mistake with Comey, I should have fired him before I got here. I should have fired him the day I won the primaries.”
How can he not be deluded to say that? He had no legal standing to fire anyone in government before he took office.
Isn’t that what the 25th was designed for?
5
Since this article appeared in The New York Times, the Washington Post and NBC News have reported that an individual "in the room" when the alleged discussion took place has said that Rosenstein's comments were made sarcastically ("What do you want me to do, Andy, wear a wire?") and did not indicate an actionable intent. Why hasn't this update to the story been reported by the New York Times?
When news reports are based on anonymous sources, reporters have an ethical obligation to probe the veracity of the news that they intend to report by turning over every bit of evidence. Apparently The New York Times failed to do the necessary due diligence in this case. It goes without saying that an inaccurate or incomplete account of an event that occurred in the past can have monumental impact, especially when it is reported in a distinguished newspaper like the New York Times.
9
Denying that he "pursued", "authorized" or "advocated" is not a denial that he made these statements. His denial is only HIS interpretation of his statements. What I find fascinating about the "interpretation" of the NYT author about Rosenstein and his co-conspirators is the author's interpretation of the "motives" of those involved. What about the motive of these bureaucrats to conduct a bloodless coup d'etat? Any evidence of that? One can certainly draw such an inference as to motive when Rosenstein could not spell out or set forth any law violated in his letter granting Mueller authority to investigate. Investigate what? Rosenstein knew he had no evidence that any law was violated, and his failure to set forth the law he had probable cause to believe was violated is proof positive that there was no evidence of any law violated. Speaking of Rosenstein's motive, what motive could one have when he appoints a person riddled with conflicts of interest, and when that person hires staff who were ALL riddled with conflicts of interests. What about Rosenstein's very apparent conflicts of interests? The statements of these people have nothing to do with any actions by Trump, but everything to do with the criminal motives of these bureaucrats.
1
Since when is a "discussion" off limits? They discussed it and didn't act on it. People discuss things all the time but that doesn't raise it to the level of being the serious event into which this is being blown up. The person who wrote the anonymous op-ed from inside the White House also stated that people there had discussed using the 25th to remove Trump.
Frankly I wish that the FBI had acted and put a wire on someone if it would hasten the day that the evil, lying, monster Trump was removed from office so the insanity of the past two years would finally end.
6
In 1987, Senator Howard Baker, the newly installed White House Chief of Staff, contemplated use of the 25th Amendment out of concern that President Reagan was impaired.
4
Well, this was certainly "all the news that was fit to print," but how unfortunate, as if Donald Trump needs any more ammunition to his minions about the "deep state," and clearing the "stench" from the FBI.
To this Democrat, the the only stench that needs to be cleared is coming out of the Oval Office and the Cabinet. November 6th will be a wrecking ball for the Trump Administration.
In looking at Trump's rally in Missouri last night, I could not help but wonder who those supporters were, and how in light of all the incredibly awful things he is doing as president they could still be supporting him.
2
Incredibly irresponsible publication. Gasoline on the fire, all about things were weren't done, and as far as you can tell were not even on the verge of being done. The McCabe memos are not the Pentagon Papers or the Panama Papers. They are people doing their job, which, in this case, you make it harder for them to do, to our collective peril. Shameful self-aggrandizement, self-congratulatory hooey. I guess the good news is that now Trump can favorably cite what appears to be fake news with unnamed sources from the failing New York Time. Not failing as a business, failing as responsible journalists. Good work!
6
No concern from Fox News' howler monkeys over the fact that recording Trump's incoherent raving could, in fact, justify using the 25th Amendment to remove him. The very fact that it's a credible scenario is horrifying to normal citizens.
2
Trump does not present a normal set of conditions. That is at the root of all of this. When faced with something revolting, should not all Americans revolt? I actually think it is part of the American culture. The Republicans are endorsing obsequious obedience to all manner of debauchery hiding behind an election that is fraught with problems, and may in fact be quite illegitimate.
1
I have no problem with Rosenstein, or anyone in the government doing their duty to protect the nation. Their responsibility is not to cover for the president. It is not to shield a ranting, disoriented, unbalanced and possibly treacherous man so he can remain in office. Rosenstein took an oath, as do all federal employees, to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... and [to] well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." If Rosenstein recognized that the president is subverting the constitution, is a danger to national security and/or is unstable, it was his duty to act in the best interest of the country. That he was contemplating such action indicates that he is a patriot.
8
I thought I was reading Fox News. The Enquirer? In additional to agreeing with many of the comments above pointing out NYTimes’ poor judgement about publishing the piece, it’s offensive to say Mr Rosenstein was “emotional” or “erratic”. Why wouldn’t any responsible public servant have strong opinions about the threat to our democracy under Trump? The assistant attorney general remains my hero after I witnessed how he handled the House members during the June hearings.
13
Mr. Rosenstein works for the American people not Trump. He is one of the principal officers in our government, and it doesn't matter at all if he's elected, Article 4 of the 25th Amendment guarantees principal officers have the authority to raise the suggestion our president is not fit to serve our great nation. Trump divulged classified intelligence to Russians on the Oval Office and probably knew much more about the Trump Tower meeting when he encouraged Russia to break into his opponents office in a campaign of slander. Rosenstein is a patriot willing to rebuke the deep state that exists in the White House.
5
Let me join the others who have well stated how irresponsible and self-aggrandizing this reporting is. The NYT has now demonstrated it has become another institution that has lost sight of the greater good. Moreover, it should not be hyped news that career public service people are doing what they should in assessing dangers and risks and attendant options. The NYT should be doing the same. No wonder I find myself reading the Washington Post more these days.
12
Michael Schmidt, the reporter on the article has a fine reputation. But I think Schmidt has mis-characterized Rosenstein's remarks. Schmidt is either being too zealous or sloppy in his reporting and got it wrong. The Rosentsein remarks were indeed made. But thanks to this article the remarks have been taken out of context so as to create the image of an active plot to remove the president. There is no such plot. Rosenstein's remark was made in the context of sarcasm re: frustration with Trump's mercurial and pugnacious political style. The Washington Post has the more credible story.
9
The implicit message of this article is that the word of a few anonymous people with secondhand knowledge of Rosenstein's comments should be believed, but Rosenstein and the people who were in the room with him are not to be trusted. Nowhere does the article justify its bias in favor of people who plausibly have an agenda that aligns with the leaking of confidential information that forms the foundation of the narrative being pushed. It simply asserts as fact the interpretation of people who suggest Rosenstein was out to trap and topple Trump while ignoring the possibility that Rosenstein and firsthand witnesses were correct in asserting that Rosenstein was speaking in jest when he suggested planting a secret recording device to catch the president saying the sort of things he has said in public while being recorded.
The very same facts could have been presented as a source of controversy between a small group who asserts Rosenstein was unstable (a point taken to be true by this article) and eager to trap Trump, while others with direct knowledge of what was said and how it was spoken insist that Rosenstein was using sarcasm to point out the absurdity of taking such actions -- actions that were not attempted, as a matter of another compelling but mysteriously discounted fact.
In short, this article does the work of Republican propaganda that has been pushed by Devin Nunes, Trump's most sycophantic protectors in the Senate, and Trump himself. I would like to know why.
10
Read the article and realized how it gives Trump ammunition he wouldn’t have. It would have us believe there was more than just words of hypotheticals from someone who saw the dangers facing our country. Mr Schmidt could not have considered the ramifications.
But I have. My subscription to the Times is being cancelled.
7
Why does the media keep talking about the 25th Amendment when this President always seems to be two steps ahead of his rivals?
2
WAPO reports that people who were actually in the room say that the wearing a wire comment ("What do you want me to do, Andy--wear a wire?") was a sarcastic rejoinder to a comment made by McCabe about opening an investigation into Trump. McCabe is already facing possible criminal charges for perjury; guess he's looking for an out?
4
Just when I thought the Special Counsels probe was moving along towards the White House it now appears to be in danger of losing its protector in the Justice Department. President Trump is now said to have more motivation to fire Rosenstein, as if he needed any more motivation. That 25th amendment by the way, except in cases of a very clear medical issue, like a severe disabling stroke, is a cumbersome unworkable process, hardly worth discussing. It strikes me as just one of those political fantasies Congress thought of to seem to be doing something. Mr. Rosenstein has twice denied the story, at least that he acted on the reported discussion. So it is back to square one. Trump can spin the story to give himself a little more political cover to fire Sessions and Rosenstein. If and/or he does fire them I wonder what happens to the Mueller investigation? All of this increases the importance of the midterm elections. let's kieep our attention on that event. A democratic majority in the House is the only real check and balance on this President.
Two days ago, the NYT published 'The Plot to Subvert an Election: Unraveling the Russia Story So Far'.
Yesterday, the same newspaper published 'Rosenstein Suggested Secretly Recording Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment'.
Please explain to your readers the logic behind presenting two such diametrically conflicting stories; the first heaping suspicion upon suspicion on a criminal enterprise masquerading behind a presidency, no less; the second pointing to America's premier law enforcement agency engaging in plots to unseat a sitting president.
Do you not see, as the newspaper of record, how confusing and unsettling these conflicting stories are? At what point does the editorial board cease to assume responsibility for deepening the crisis gripping America and the rest of the world?
Having read both articles more than once, and with the benefit of a troubled nights' sleep, I am left with the sensation that something is wrong at the NYT.
The polar opposites you present over successive days seriously undermine your credibility. The quality in research, sourcing and written execution, in themselves so disparate as to foster more confusion and anger.
Nobody needs reminding of your abysmal Oct 31, 2016 story 'Investigating, FBI sees no clear Link to Russia', and yet here you are again, fueling a calamitous president with a tenuous, poorly sourced bombshell story, giving him ample cause to create yet more mayhem in an already conflicted and angry nation.
Why?
721
Thank you LC from France. I hope I can copy and paste this to my social media page (as a quote of course). Excellent observation.
Their rationale?
Here’s a radical concept: because both stories were well-researched and evaluated as true by the editors, and a paper’s stock in trade is largely the publication of news.
Good grief.
1
Thank you for articulating so well exactly what the problem is with this story and the Times' reporting in general of late. I for one am strongly considering cancelling my subscription. I've had enough of the NYT going for sensationalism and short-sighted storytelling instead of deep, thoughtful, and careful reporting.
4
The danger to our democracy isn't from Trump. Voters have a remedy and can select another President in the next election. Congress and the Judiciary are a check and balance, despite the entertainment news hysterics. The real danger to our democracy is from “career civil servants” within government believing: they control the country, are unaccountable, determine who sits in the Oval Office and what that person will do. I've noticed a common characteristic among these people testifying before Congress- they have an utter and complete contempt for Congress as well, which completes the circle for all elected representatives of the people.
This may be unpopular to say in NYT comments, but the activities of these carry-over and former officials is a reflection on how bad Obama actually was with the types of people he was placing/promoting into key positions so willing to abuse power to achieve an end.
What seems lost is that these officials were not just weaponizing their position, government agencies and authority to undermine a candidate and current President. In doing so, they were/are actively seeking to undermine the democratic process and foundations of what makes our system work. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with whoever is currently in office, the process is more important than the occupant and the process is under siege.
3
@David, and the Times and others only bolsters that delusion by giving them credence by printing them under the banner of news. It takes two to tango. Russia’s attempt to undermine our democracy seems rather ham-fisted by comparison.
@David
Your words, unfortunately, will be lost on the deaf ears of those who hate Trump and believe the ends justify the means. Hopefully, our Constitution will protect us from these people.
Rosenstein appears to prime example of the feverish nature of the never Trump crew. The Mueller investigation in matters concerning Putin and Trump somehow magically undermining 2016 vote and stealing the election is absolutely laughable. The cock sureness of the NYTs accusations is like whistling past the grave yard.
13
@c harris
WAPO shows how flimsy this piece is but the Times won't post the comment.
While McCabe’s memos assert both the recording and 25th amendment conversations occurred at a meeting within days of Comey’s firing, another person at the meeting, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, insisted the recording comment was said in a moment of sarcasm, and that the 25th amendment was not discussed.
That person said the wire comment came in response to McCabe’s own pushing for the Justice Department to open an investigation into the president. To that, Rosenstein responded with what this person described as a sarcastic comment along the lines of, “What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?”
That person insisted the statement was never discussed with any intention of recording a conversation with the president.
Another official at the meeting, then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, wrote her own memo of the discussion which does not mention any talk of the 25th amendment, according to a second person who was familiar with her account.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mccabe-memos-say-...
A government official’s discussions about the President’s competence and the potential gathering of evidence on that issue are contemplated by, consistent with, and protected by the Constitution. Otherwise, the 25th Amendment would be inoperable. Rosenstein works for the country, not for Trump.
114
@WJO
Invoking the 25th Amendment is the responsibility of the cabinet. It has nothing to do with the FBI. Rosenstein has created a situation that makes it look like he was out to destroy Trump as vindication for Trump playing him with the Comey letter. This is all about state of mind.
@WJO
Agree. Why is any American not allowed to discuss any part of the Constitution with any one at any time?
Trump is ignorant and contemptuous of the Constitution, but does not mean others should join him there. Quite the contrary.
2
Time to fire Rosenstein
12
I am gobsmacked that the NYT has printed such an inflammatory piece without named sources. What has happened? You've been played by Trump.
Is your business in such dire straits that you have adopted the tabloid approach? And decided to take the US down with you?
236
“You shall know the truth, and that truth will set you...CRAZY.” To quote Jack Nickleson in the Hollywood movie, “You can’t handle the truth that goes on in Washington.”
11
Boy, I sure hope the Times got this right because it not only gives Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein, but it takes attention away from the attempted rape complaint off Dr. Ford. I hope the Times doesn't end up apologizing like it did when it spent so much time focusing on Hillary's emails.
96
"...it takes attention away from the rape complaint by Doctor Ford"...
perhaps this is exactly the motivation of the "unnamed sources" behind this article.
NYT, I have defended you repeatedly. I have to wonder why you published this story and the one from the person who claimed to be part of the administration. I find myself wondering how carefully you are vetting your sources. The one things that America needs now is responsible journalism. Are you responsible or are you just trying to sell a paper?
284
@Kathy Vet? are you kidding? A story is vetted if it plays to their story. Period.
I am now seriously considering withdrawing my subscription to the N.Y. Times due to this reckless decision to publish a destructive story that was sourced from people who were not at the meeting and could not have been aware of the tone of voice used for the comments. I am joining those people demanding an immediate retraction of this story.
213
@Andrew
It is not even true. See WAPO
While McCabe’s memos assert both the recording and 25th amendment conversations occurred at a meeting within days of Comey’s firing, another person at the meeting, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, insisted the recording comment was said in a moment of sarcasm, and that the 25th amendment was not discussed.
That person said the wire comment came in response to McCabe’s own pushing for the Justice Department to open an investigation into the president. To that, Rosenstein responded with what this person described as a sarcastic comment along the lines of, “What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?”
That person insisted the statement was never discussed with any intention of recording a conversation with the president.
Another official at the meeting, then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, wrote her own memo of the discussion which does not mention any talk of the 25th amendment, according to a second person who was familiar with her account.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mccabe-memos-say-...
I am seriously considering doing the same.
1
Too late, the bell has been rung. We're in danger, girl.
2
In my opinion the NYT was complicit in getting Trump elected by failing to report on his crimes that were well known to this newspaper. Day after day we read headlines about Clinton's emails and nothing about Trump University or the corrupt Trump organization. This newspaper knew about him and did nothing to expose him to the American public
Now you allow this article to be published which puts our nation at greater risk for the collapse of our government and the wholesale takeover by a madman. The NYT has given cover to Trump to fire Rosenstein. Next stop: eliminate the Justice Department. You have pushed the domino and now we will see how many more will fall. I am angry and disgusted.
280
@Connie
I completely agree with you. The NYT published "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia" article on October 31, 2016, a week before the election – premature and highly irresponsible!
1
Here we go again. NYTimes reporters becoming the story. Our intrepid celebrity journalists relied on people not in the room as the “sources” for their “story”. Seems they missed the story. Quit appearing on talk shows and do your jobs.
134
@Joe B.
In carefully reading this piece, I fail to find where the NT Times is 'becoming the story'.
Your comment reflects an attempt to divert attention from the real problem at hand: a dysfunctional and dangerous Trump administration coming apart at the hinges.
1
Seems the plot to effect an election starts here at NYT. Your timing in impeccable! Mid terms right around the corner... another unsubstantiated story like Ms Ford’s to attempt to derail the republican agenda. Guess what, Kavanaugh will be seated by Thursday and the senate will remain in republican hands. After November the Times will have to settle in for another 2 years....maybe it’s time to return to regular news like before?? Give it some thought because you are devolving into a tabloid quickly.
42
Can't the NYT find a single person who is willing to be quoted on the record on anything?
111
Now I know what Trump means when he refers to the " failing New York Times. It wasn't a fact , it was a prediction. You failed miserably.
67
How sad for the NY Times (and for their readers) that in their vain attempts to appear unbiased, they end up carrying water for those who seek their demise.
112
@Mark Greenfield, it requires a lot of careful balance to carry two buckets on a pole across your shoulders, but you get twice as much water that way on each trip. I think it’s a good thing.
The New York Times must retract the entire story, with an apology to the nation. How dare you rely on hearsay and anonymous sources who weren't even in the room to publish a story that will very likely change the course of history. You're not being impartial, you're being hellishly irresponsible. You are putting the very Constitution at risk. Retract. retract. Retract.
258
RETRACT!!! If you don’t, then you are just adding another nail to the coffin of the free press.
3
I’m so disappointed in my once reliable journal having a new ‘failing ‘mission and in a contorted posture playing into the needy political WH game. Unless some fuller, more and better reporting follows this National Enquirer effort of headline-seeking is abandoned, my belief in and subscription for the NYT is ended. Abandoned as I’ve been.
Muriel Nellis DC
78
Boy, oh boy. #45 is gonna have a field day with this one.
31
Rosenstein is obviously the writer of the anonymous op-ed piece, and this is a taste of his own medicine. Two can play the game.
5
No, the anonymous memo was written by John F. Kelly, Trump's White House Chief of Staff. And I say that with exactly the same amount of inside intelligence you have: None.
2
@Ed
I doubt it. Wholly lacking in writing/reading skills, the Trump administration would have to outsource such a piece to someone who could actually string a few coherent and logical words together.
Too much to ask from this White House.
How about Preet for president in 2020?
Let's get this guy somewhere in public office. The next Attorney General (once Trump is gone)?
Preet Bharara
✔
@PreetBharara
I dunno if Rosenstein seriously considered taping POTUS or was being saracastic, as many outlets report. I know Rod a long time, he’s a sarcastic guy & jokes about wiring people up are as common with prosecutors as knock-knock jokes in grade school.
12:45 PM - Sep 21, 2018
5,468
1,925 people are talking about this
48
@SMC: Unfortunately, Preet Bharara isn't born in the US and so he cannot be POTUS.
This reckless article risks dire consequences for the Mueller probe and our Democracy and shows the abject greed and poor judgment of its authors and editors. I can no longer support the NYT and will not renew my subscription.
86
Title of article should be changed to “Rosenstein May Have Suggested...”
It is irresponsible of the NYTimes to state that he did suggest these things.
33
@Meg
Remember, the NYT falsely claimed that Nikki Haley had spend $52,000 for the curtains of her office, when it was the previous tenant of had done it. They retracted the story, but the damage was done. People are asking Ms. Haley why she would spend that amount. Now I understand why the NYT is a 'failing paper."
1
This is a repeat of a comment posted in response to another comment:
To all those critical of the NYT publishing this story, it's all over the rest of the news media as well. Go read about it in the WSJ and while you're there be sure to read the comments section. Have fun.
8
Other media outlets have sources who were IN THE ROOM!
Huge difference.
2
Now that McCabe is facing a grand jury, it looks like the "Deep State" is starting to out each other through leaks - Strzok, Page, Comey and Brennan will be caught in this web of deceit soon enough
7
I cancelled my digital subscription to the New York
Times when I became aware of your inflammatory,
poorly documented account of Rod Rosenstein's
comments regarding President Trump. These
conversations were not documented and are subject to interpretation. The New York Times has
created a maelstrom.
I enjoyed the articles and diverse subject matter in
the Times; I will miss it, but I will not support your
editorial action again Rod Rosenstein. I'm done
with the New York Times.
110
This is ridiculous. What’s the NYT doing? He said it didn’t happen and I believe him. What’s going on here?
35
@Sheila
Are you not aware of the endless web of lies Nixon administration officials, including his own attorney general, told the American public?
This is actually far worse than Watergate, as we are all about to learn.
1
Are all denials equal? True?
1
Now imagine the Times writing articles day after day about this subject and other gossip about Rosenstein and you have an idea of what the Times did to Hillary Clinton. And it defended itself for months, from September to election day. Norm Orenstein tweeted back and forth with Roger Cohen, pleading with him to stop savaging Clinton. He flatly refused.
Patrick Nealy's article reporting uncritically about Comey's remarks, also with the blaring and overstated headline, was also not just a bad decision. It was bad journalism.
Amy Chozick's obsessively negative coverage of Hillary Clinton, plus Maggie Haberman and others, represents dozens and dozens of instances when the Times has shown terrible journalistic judgement.
How many article did Judy Miller publish in the lead-up and early days of the Iraq War?
I'm trying to think of analogous mistakes of this magnitude committed by the Washington Post, where I also subscribe. Times readers have grown too forgiving of reporting that is wrongheaded and written over long periods, like the length of the last long election.
The Times' reputation suffers after each of these events.
67
@SineDie: As for the reporting about Hillary Clinton, with friends like the NY Times, who needs Fox News? I have begged more than once to have an easily side by side presentation and analysis of the Democratic, Republican, and other's platforms, as is the custom in reputable European newspapers, but to no avail. It's sensationalism and "personality" reporting always, everywhere. As if a presidental election is a boxing match.
1
I don't understand why or how the NYT printed this. I'm very disappointed.
116
Did ya'll really think that every word published by the NYTimes was encrusted with gold or that it was incapable of that wonderful term "click-bait" ? Having said that I do generally respect the writing of the TImes and this seems to be part of a recent pattern of odd decisions and questionable articles. Not sure if the Times was played, made a bad editorial decision or is simply going downhill.
17
What if it is shown to be true? Did you believe all the quotes attributed to Trump’s cabinet?
So Rosenstein panicked a bit when he saw how this administration actually operates. Who except a Trump flunkie wouldn't have? This article is a big gift to the Trump team.
45
I think that the New York Times should have placed more focus on checking facts prior to posting this story. I support free press. I disagree with Trumps comments on fake news.
The lack of due diligence on this story does more harm to free press.
28
Nothing extra to add to what's already been said. An irresponsible, poorly source article with suspicious timing, designed to give 45 cover to fire Rosenstein & Mueller. Guess you figured you had such good luck with the whole email debacle and 2016 campaign, that you'd go really big this time, and totally destroy our democratic institutions in this county. Thanks for nothing, NYT.
46
I find it interesting that The NY Times Picks somehow over lookb the most popular Reader Picks complaining why they would print such a price. Is this news? Makes me almost believe in the deep state. Who are the sources? Has the NYtimes been played.. and did they even know it?
39
This is almost like the New York Times, and these two writers, Adam Goldman, and Michael S. Schmidt, have become Trump, and are being traitor's to the country, and what is at stake for all Americans, and the world, too.
24
The authors of this much ado about nothing piece, nor the Editors, did the cause of Liberty nor Defending the Constitution nor Freedom of the Press any favors by publishing this National Inquirer level article.
77
Remember Judith Miller’s impact on Times readers will her tale of Africa, which the Times pushed so eagerly? For different reasons this article about Rosenstein may have the same effect among the ignorant or ideologically blinded. Irrational forces will sweep actions and events while the well-informed look on aghast. Trump has already spoken of the “lingering stench” in the DoJ, raising the dehumanizing rhetoric to a lynching fever.
I wonder why editors at the Times played into this so vacuously. To sell newspaper? To be the spark or world change? I hope it doesn’t destroy Meuller’s chance to report to Congress and to the American people.
43
Was the NY Times played? Key pieces of this reporting don't smell right. A Rudy Guiliani and Bill Shine plot? Everyone who knows Rosenstein personally says he would never do this. McCabe would never leak. This reporting makes me trust the NYTimes less.
67
I took a reduced rate introductory subscription to WaPo because of slow and sloppy reporting by NYT. The best stuff you have been publishing is really by Pro Publica.. what;s going on over here - you are repeatedly carrying water for Trump.
I hope I don't ned up having to cancel my subscription, but at least the WaPo published this story with the caveat that not all was known and Rosenstein disputes this accounting of it.
What a shame..
52
Did the NYT ask Rosenstein for his take on all this and at least allow him an anonymous response of the record beforehand - especially after it has so recently published another long anonymous contribution? Did the NYT advise him before publication that this article was coming out in the same way Trump Jr was apparently advised beforehand about the Trump Tower meeting and emails article?
If not I am not sure I want to continue my subscription.
21
Surely, the NYT can do better that to publish a lead story that is based only on suggestions and innuendos about Mr. Rosenstein's state of mind when he allegedly discussed the thought of impeachment or wearing a wire to secretly record Mr. Trump. If true, people say lots of things in emotional moments and should not be the basis of this misleading article. Unfortunately, Mr. Rosenstein's reputation and veracity has been sullied by a story that seems to be based on gossip and not facts.
31
This story is the last straw and I am cancelling my digital subscription immediately. It is totally misleading and has been debunked by both The Washington Post and NBC News, both of which have a source who was actually inside the room and participating in the meeting. Clearly, Rosenstein is no fool and was being sarcastic. Furthermore, the new format of The Times was a stupid move (along with their so-called "Evening Brief" baloney in the digital edition. Too bad for this paper. They must be giving in to trump's smears.
48
You have been played. So now you are going to lose your readership and be the failing NYTs and we as a nation will lose Rosenstein, Mueller and Democracy. Everything that Trump wants. Thank you New York Times (sarcastic)
51
There's an unfortunate possibility that the NY Times is getting played by the Trump administration. If so, the reputation of the Times is at risk and its very existence as a reputable source of information at stake.
32
These journalists took here say from third parties not present in the meeting!
One witness actually present says the comments were responsive ,a joke, a way to release the tension of trumpism .
The Ny Times needs to clarify why their reporters ,two respected journalists ,did such a dumb thing before the elections.
These NY Times reporters may have instigated a reason to rollover the Justice Department and law enforcement agencies and close off Mueller!
Thanks for nothin ! NY Times.
14
Did trump dictate this directly or give it to you through a surrogate?
41
The gut-wrenching hate I have for the Times right now is hard to describe...
24
Looks like NYT fell for a bad story this time. What witnesses say was a sarcastic remark is not grounds for firing, but, unfortunately POTUS doesn't have to validate firing him. Still very dangerous stuff for tRump. Wonder if he will fall for this?
11
Wow, if this is true 1) FBI is the deep state central and 2) it is clear that Mueller was appointed with an agenda, on a fraudulent basis.
The MSM and the NYT have a part of the fault for instigating the country against Trump to help an even worse liar and more corrupt candidate, HRC, but with articles such as this the NYT start to redeem its name. Not for the sake of Trump, for the sake of the rule of law.
1
Dereliction of journalist duty, sloppy, dangerous, ridiculous... Biased, maybe?
What in the heck were you thinking?!
Reporters and editors need to be fired for this.
You owe the intelligent, concerned, informed voters of this country and all of us subscribers who support you a huge, front-page, attention-grabbing, top of the page, headline and story correcting ALL of this tomorrow!
If not, you will surely lose many subscribers, like me, I'm certain.
30
This might be the NY Times' "weapons of mass destruction" article of this decade. Suspect reporting. Suspect sourcing. Here the times primarily relies on secondary sources recharacterizing a conversation they never heard or recharacterizing memos someone else wrote. With NBC and the Washington Post reporting Rosenstein's comments were clearly sarcastic, the Times has some explaining to do.
46
Free speech has consequences.
Even for the New York Times.
15
Perhaps one of the greatest editorial decisions of all time. Interesting move, NYT.
6
To see the press, not to mention the NYT capable of reporting extraordinarily unpopular news to the vast majority of its followers is nothing short of amazing. Issues have two sides, just read the Times. I'm thinking of expanding my subscription.
3
Oh the timing of this "revelation." I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist but hey...a supposed act that occurred some time ago now suddenly surfaced by anonymous sources in DOJ right after a cascade of flippers tighten the noose on POTUS and Donny Jr. So next, Trump tells Sessions to fire Rosenstein, if Sessions refuses Trump fires both Sessions and Rosenstein--a twofer. If Sessions acquiesces then Rosenstein is out and later on, after the midterms Trump fires Jeff. Another Flipper ole Lindsay G supports. And the irony of all this: a story surfaced by the "failing NYT" that can hardly not publish this story having just published the anonymous op-ed.
I know the R's believe that the American public is stupid but "the stench" surrounding this gambit is too pungent. I know POTUS doesn't read but perhaps a line (slightly modified) from the bard of Avon might be worth his attention: "POTUS doth protest too much, methinks."
15
Hundreds here are questioning the Times' intent, honesty, judgment, journalistic values and patriotism for running with this piece. The Times needs to address these questions, openly and directly to its readers.
No side-stepping, no studies or investigative commissions, no baloney. Straight from the publisher's mouth to the reader, why this was done.
92
@jr Actually it looks like thousands are questioning it.
1
Second hand sourcing, and on a transcendently vital matter. NYT’s sourcing contradicted by those actually at the meeting. McCabe has a beef with Rosenstein, which still goes on.
NYT: Money is not everything, even in Manhattan.
21
This article is going to hurt America. what are you thinking?
53
It’s a shame that the NYT would publish this and publish as if it was a fact. This is according to witnesses in the White House. Now Trump has all the excuse he needs to fire the attorney general and replace him with “someone who is loyal” and end the Russia investigation.
19
Very disappointed that the NYT would use something so inflammatory in times when the rule of law is ignored by the current president. It would have been better reporting to give all involved the opportunity to comment and defend themselves. Publishing just the allegation that Mr. R may have said something about needing to wear a microphone for future meetings with the executive branch in the turmoil that followed Comey's unfair firing. Please don't contribute to the division and anti-government sentiments in this country.
13
I’m so disappointed in the NYT. I just finished watching The Fourth Estate and was so impressed by the atmosphere of integrity and the careful planning and decision making depicted at the NYT around whether or not to hold a story or publish it. Why in the world publish this now? What was the urgency? Irresponsible.
24
Why didn't article authors Adam Goldman and Michael Schmidt point out in the first paragraph that Rosenstein vehemently denied the story's allegations? Or that not one source for the story actually heard Rosenstein speak those words attributed to him? Strange as it sounds, perhaps Trump actually is not telling a lie when he calls the NYT "fake news".
38
"the Clinton email inquiry"
I knew you could do it. Bravo!
7
"Several people described the episodes in interviews over the past several months ... people [that] were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, ... that documented Mr. Rosenstein’s actions and comments."
So the sources for this story did not personally witness any of the events cited, nor did they actually see any of the memos - they were merely "briefed" on their content. Is that correct?
"At least two meetings took place on May 16 involving both Mr. McCabe and Mr. Rosenstein, the people familiar with the events of the day said." So the sources were not actually at the meetings, only "familiar with the events". Is that correct?
This story discusses in some detail and with great certainty - no 'alleged' or 'claimed' here - information Times reporters got third-hand from "several" officials, presumably in the Justice Department (although this is never actually stated), describing what they, in turn, claim has been told to them by other "officials".
The authors surround their allegations with breathless tales of other misdeeds that give the appearance of supporting the story, even though they have little or nothing to do with the serious accusations leveled against Mr. Rosenstein.
This story seems to me like something cooked up by reporters with advanced Woodward-Bernstein syndrome - more NYP than NYT.
I would complain to the ombudsman, but, oh gosh, the Times doesn't have seem to have one anymore!
48
@Eyeyeye Yes, it does seem that the NYT reporters feel burned by the excellent reporting of Bob Woodward and proceeded with this click bait along with the ridiculous anonymous op-ed two weeks ago. It's not just a huge disappointment tending to confirm Trump's claims of fake news. It affects our national security. Need a retraction now, NYT.
1
This article is preposterous. Why would you print an article and the second hand information you are being given is from someone that wasn't even in the room.
Rod Rosenstein has more integrity than this and would not put his career on the line based on a ssrcastic statement.
It sounds as if a couple of reporters are trying to be
"Bob Woodard" wannabes and come out with a bombshell. i see this as being an ulterior motive.
36
The public will not be served by an article that is highly speculative regarding the context and the intent of the Assistant Attorney General. The only thing you might accomplish is get him fired. Writing this was reckless and irresponsible journalism.
17
So disappointed in lack of nuisance in headline. This was an obvious sarcasm if you think about it!
8
You guys were used. Your sources are people briefed on what happened in the room...not people in the room. I am going to guess your sources were either Sessions allies or Nunes-types, who want Rosenstein gone. and you did their dirty work for them -- in order to get a headline. really shameful. this is one story where who the sources are matter...cause they have an axe to grind. usually I respect your journalism. today, not so much.
20
This article is either really brave for reporting unbiased news or really irresponsible for getting taken for a serious ride with all the anonymous, uncorroborated sources.
Frankly, I think Trump’s minions used the current situation of leaking everything to their advantage in using the NYT as a tool for their ends (just like the 2016 campaign). The Times got badly snookered this time.
Free speech has consequences.
11
A ridiculous and highly implausible story.
14
Rob Rosenstein is my Hero! No kidding...Fight on, RR...
7
I agree with the other comments that are critical of the Times. This appears to be a questionable smear of Mr. Rosenstine's character at a sensitive time before the mid-term elections aimed at provoking this failed president. We already have enough reasons to vote against the now repugnant party in November.
33
So many commenters are having knee jerk reactions, blaming the NYT. You cannot complete a puzzle before you have all the facts. As with any complex situation it is wise to wait before drawing dramatic conclusions.
7
NBC and WAPO say "a source who was in the room characterized Rosenstein's remark as sarcastic"
Please check the veracity of your source, this is critical.
Thank you for your consideration
23
I only hope that the Times has thoroughly investigated the details of this story, especially interviewing individuals actually at the meeting. Because if this story was rushed to print to show the impartiality of the Times in the face of withering attacks by Trump and his references to the "fake news" and the "failing" New York Times, then this democracy has been gravely compromised, as well as truth and the rule of law
20
Q sent me. Trust the Plan!
2
Mr. Rosenstein himself is of dubious motive, lacking integrity, and complicit in the sabotage of democratic process that shoved a fascist dictator wannabe down the throats of the voting majority of Americans. He deserves every sleepless night and nightmare he experiences. He brought it upon himself, and upon the rest of us.
no brief for any of this lot at the top of justice and the fbi (ok throw in the unfunny clowns of the congress) but having had a chance to see and hear the desperate weasel mccabe and the faux-ivy arrogant rosenstein live on tv, it is not hard to imagine that the deputy a.g. was brushing off the agenda-driven mccabe, who was trying to get the new guy to commit to the cabal, as in "sure andy, let's bug the prez ok, make you happy?" and "why not get up a 25th amendment team for the senate softball league?"
watching any d.c. tv these days confirms the total absence of capability for, or appreciation of, irony in any of our current electeds, appointeds and self-annointeds (not to mention cable couchklatchers).
even the relentless hannity, so keen on presiding over a "constitutional crises" found himself forced to declare belief in "the liar mccabe" to frame his own indictment of rosenstein...tossing his own shady evidence in front of his own FISA apparatus.
4
Goldman ans Schmidt. What kind of people are these who, for a mini-pseudo-gossip scoop, risk more dismantling of the rule of law and another slide of this country into fascism?
37
The New York Times should have done their due diligence prior to publishing this story. Free press is important. NYT can not feed onto Trumps continued accusations of fake news.
Also a poorly source story on a topic that may provide the basis for major actions that could a impact the country.
12
Really disappointed in you, NYT. Doesn't seem like you've done your due diligence here.
22
The Democrats are nervous.
The NYT just yesterday released their official, somewhat wishful, version of Russian Collusion. Still pretending, and hoping to confuse with verbosity.
Next, Rosenstein is painted as a bad guy.
There is almost no way out.
Can they blame everything on Rosenstein and try and pretend nobody else knew anything?
Hillary is apparently threatening to take the whole town down if they attempt to make her the fall guy.
How can the media and the NYT overcome the embarrassment of having to admit they were completely duped by Democrats as the closest reasonable alternative to them just being incredibly corrupt and partisan?
4
Note to NYT: We're in a war for our democracy. Stop with the friendly fire.
24
"Rod Rosenstein Suggested Secretly Recording Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment"
The need for factual news is paramount in a democracy. If nothing else, the so-called "administration" of the phony president proves we need vigilant news coverage more than ever.
But HEY... New York Times... really? REALLY?? You couldn't wait a few days or weeks for this "news" (which now seems more incendiary than accurate)? On the verge of one of the most significant SCOTUS issues of our 240 years, whereby a man who may have lied in the least, and possibly committed a felony sexual crime could ascend to the Extreme Court, you couldn't wait?
At a time when the Mueller probe is fragile and becoming more-so by the day—in direct proportion to the pretend-president's constant anger—you REALLY had to throw what appears to be an unnecessary, poorly-timed and perhaps even self-serving "story" into the mix, giving him even more reason to eviscerate more of our system of justice?
And when America is hearing and reading accounts from the most credible sources world-wide, including from within Trump's own administration(!) that he is mentally unsound, tone-deaf and likely to blow a fuse at any time, you just HAD to release this story NOW, thereby likely hastening the instincts of what may be a madman?
I call SHAME on the New York Times, to which a scoop would seem to be more important than at least trying to preserve... make that •save• this 240-year-old democratic republic.
30
The Times' headline was irresponsible, unequivocally stating as fact what had been reported by "people briefed" by those in the meetings and/or the very people who leaked McCabe's memos likely doing so to get Rosenstein fired. Those memos were leaked deliberately to these reporters: "... according to a lawyer for Mr. McCabe. “A set of those memos remained at the F.B.I. at the time of his departure in late January 2018,” the lawyer, Michael R. Bromwich, said of his client. “He has no knowledge of how any member of the media obtained those memos.”
17
I suggest that this a planted invented story by Mr Trump's minions to discredit Mr Rosenstein and give their boss an excuse to fire Mr Rosenstein.
13
Our democracy ends because Michael Schmidt needed another byline. God help us all.
51
The Times was played by the Bush Administration in the lead up to the Iraq War. What makes the Times believe it is not being played to create the pretext that Trump is seeking to fire Mr. Rosenstein and derail the Mueller investigation? And, what irony if Trump now fires Rosenstein based on a "fake news" Times story and McCabe's unreliable notes.
34
I'm surprised you didn't mention Hillary's emails in this story. Or the "fact" that the FBI is not investigating the Trump campaign. Every time I start to trust your integrity again, you disappoint.
27
I’ve heard several journalists criticize the NY Times for publishing the FIRST anonymous letter.
They were so right. These people aren’t “journalists.” They’re two bit hucksters. They spout about how important a free press is and then conduct themselves in a way that may well lead to the destruction of freedom of the press.
They’re partially responsible for getting this jerk elected in the first place Always hammering on the non story of Hillary’s emails in a sick attempt at being seen as fair. Just like in the lead up to the Iraq war..they did back flips trying to please Bush and the Republicans.
They’ve been had by the Right. The Right has called them the “liberal media” so long that they’ve abandoned good journalism in a pathetic attempt to prove they are not.
How incredibly sad and disappointing.
28
Shame on you. This is fake news — reminiscent of your reporting in the run-up to the Iraq war. You cite no sources who were actually present when (as you claim) Rod Rosenstein “suggested” or made the “proposal” to wear a wire to record interactions with Trump. But both NBC and the Washington Post DO cite sources who actually witnessed the remarks in question — and they make clear (as would be likely) that ROSENSTEIN WAS JOKING in a very plausible way: “Well, what do you want me to do, Andy, wear a wire?" Why on Earth would you provide in this sloppy, incomplete, irresponsible reporting, turning a sarcastic joke into a “proposal,” a pretext for Trump to fire Rosenstein — as Laura Ingram and her ilk have already demanded (as one would expect)? The same could reasonably be expected about Rosenstein’s alleged “discussion” of “recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office. Without accurately reported context, it is impossible to judge whether this was in any way seriously contemplated or pursued by Rosenstein. Bottom line: your article raises questions that demand answers. For starters: Who were your “sources” — who was behind this story and what were their motives? In the meantime, you owe your readers — and all American voters — a retraction and an apology.
24
What on earth was McCabe doing, making a memo (accurate or not) of a conversation, which if it occurred, had to be kept quiet.
McCabe's lawyer's "how did McCabe's memo become public?" is plumb stupid. In general, explosive memos always become public which is why you shouldn't write them unless you want them to become public.
Has the Times considered that its sources may have deliberately fed them this story in order to further Trump's scheme to rid himself of Rosenstein, Sessions and Mueller.? If FOX was sitting on this story, an indication of such a stratagem, you ought to be able to find out.
If Trump carries out a coup d'etat by castrating the FBI, the Justice Department and the Mueller investigation, McCabe and the Times will bear a measure of responsibility for unconsciously helping Trump ruin American democracy.
i trust Mueller and Rosenstein have a contingency plan for informing the public in the event of a Saturday night massacre.
15
As it turns out loose lips in the White House, including the President's, have made a wire completely unnecessary.
5
I've seen clips of Rosenstein speaking and being interviewed, where his dry sense of humor pokes through in droll asides. And, yes, his quiet wisecracks take on the tenor of the times. I believe the Times reporters, who were not in the room, misinterpreted the written versions of his comments as serious proposals, instead of the jokes they clearly are. Unfortunately, the Times' blunder in getting this story wrong has handed Trump a blunderbuss.
29
I can't believe the NYT published this story. I thought I was reading material from FOX News. I hope those responsible for writing and publishing this story realize the consequences for a country already in chaos. Most importantly, it may lead to the firing of Mueller. This was shockingly irresponsible! I'm cancelling my subscription to the NYT.
20
I keep trying to figure out why the NY Times published this article AND the anonymous Op-Ed. Is this article supposed to provide support for the Op-Ed? As a media ethics professor, I just don't see how you can justify relying on unnamed sources for stories that have as much impact as these two articles could potentially have on people's lives and due process -- not to mention our democracy. Have you been had?
30
I don't subscribe to The Times for the fastest breaking stories. I can get buckets of that anywhere. I subscribe for accuracy, completeness, and factual reporting. You got suckered into participating in internal rifts and just couldn't sit on it long enough to figure out what was going on. Shame on you! I expected better.
47
You see a "job" to report this today. As political realists in the world of reporting, especially at NYT this is totally irresponsible timing and reporting of the worst variety in my view. It seems from comments among many DOJ veterans and recently retired associates, this was not only a long time ago - many centuries in the TRUMP era - it was not properly represented in context or content today. AND no matter how you attempt to portray this as accurate today - it is not TODAY, it's very ancient history and exceptionally incendiary at this point in time. Meets Trump team goals in total and gains no current data without a follow-on piece of what's happened since this time/place/set of circumstances for Rosenstein.
I will never again respect your judgement or inputs as a journalist on any story or subject. You blew it today for me - for ever. Your judgement and positioning of reality in a total picture is a lame excuse that does not fly. Why gather headlines when you have no other stories to print or follow? You will be asked to speak on MSNBC. I am asking all on air reporters to ban you now. I will never trust you again after today.
TRUMP is a total disaster to this country and the world. He has no respect for anyone, any law, any principles, which all people who "look with clear eyes/mind/heart" can agree today. For you to attack at this time, in this way a person standing between Trump and Muller probe is irresponsible, acting only for personal gain. I cannot fathom it.
19
I agree that the Times was highly irresponsible in publishing this story. Isn't news "news" in part because it's fresh information. This is the opposite of fresh-- old "news" about Rosenstein venting in the crisis-filled days after Trump blatantly obstructed justice by firing Comey when he wouldn't promise total loyalty to NOT investigate Trump &Co illegally conspiring with RUSSIA to STEAL THE ELECTION.
Now the Times comes in what, 17 MONTHS LATER with this old story. So what if Rosenstein said it? We all know HOW UNFIT TRUMP IS. So NOW, just after Rosenstein finally convinced Trump NOT TO DECLASSIFY SOURCES AND METHODS in the Russia investigation--(another count of Obstruction if you're keeping track-- my personal list is 26 counts of Obstruction now)-- the Times thinks we all just have to know this old, old, possibly wrong little tale.
If Trump blows over the weekend and fires Rosenstein, Sessions, and who knows who else, their careers and whatever happens afterward to this country is on you. Hope it was worth it.
33
Incredibly disappointed in the NYT. The news "value" here is nothing given the sources. But the severe damage that is now extremely likely could be deadly to our democracy.
Very bad move, NYT.
31
I’m feeling disappointed in this reporting. None of the anonymous sources were witnesses? They are anonymous sources who “heard” from others who “saw” written reports made by those in the room? It feels too much like this administration’s supporters have played The New York Times right into their hands.
There’s all the news that’s fit to print, and then there is information that is not. I want to trust The New York Times’ editors to know the difference, but in this case I’m not sure I can.
22
Here's the smear on Rosenstein in this article that has been overlooked amid all the problems with this article
"But they called Mr. Rosenstein’s comments an example of how erratically he was behaving while he was taking part in the interviews for a replacement F.B.I. director, considering the appointment of a special counsel and otherwise running the day-to-day operations of the more than 100,000 people at the Justice Department."
These unnamed sources are claiming that Rosenstein, is, or was at that time, behaving very erratically. Including when he named Mueller to investigate Trump.
"Erratic" is very serious claim, an ad hominem attack, and a smear that calls into question Rosenstein's competence and judgment. In that depiction of and opinion about Rosenstein, the Times' source(s) are demonstrating a negative bias against Rosenstein rather than merely reporting alleged comments he made.
Publishing that personal attack on Rosenstein is irresponsible without having a source go on record making that claim, and particularly if it's a second-hand source.
The problems with this reporting and the publication of this story by the Times are many and serious.
Why, Times, why publish such a personal attack on Rosenstein? It is beneath you.
24
Your headline for this story is in the indicative. It says that Rosenstein DID suggest secretly taping Trump and invoking the 25th Amendment. However, the body of the story reveals that anonymous informants SAID he did these things--things he himself has since denied. Your headline is thus misleading and irresponsible.
In French, the headline would have been written in the conditional. It would thus have been obvious from the start that someone had merely CLAIMED that Rosenstein did what your headline says he did. It would help enormously if English had a similar grammatical device. In its absence, it's the NYT's duty to be as accurate as you can. After all, many people read ONLY headlines. So rhetorical imprecision performs a real disservice not just to Rosenstein but to the nation.
22
The amount of hatred towards NYT is unbelievable here. Why are we always looking for someone to blame? Cancel your NYT subscription doesn't help your problems as not voting for Hillary Clinton certainly didn't.
I cannot believe people are still trying to rationalize Trump's behavior as if he really needs a reason to do something. He does what he does and as long as Republicans are in the control of the house and senate nothing will stop him. He never needed nor provided any rationale for his decisions and behaviors.
2
As much as I love the forum for screened, intelligent comments the Times provides, I may have to, painfully, give it up. I've had it with the all the trivial palace intrigue stories and the overuse of unnamed sources for stories that are not even important enough to report in the first place.
19
I understand and support freedom of the press. It's what makes this country great, but, you do realize, NYT, you may have helped empower Traitor Trump in his authoritarian role?
12
Does everything have to be reported? Knowing the difficult relationship between Trump and Rosenstein, why would the Times choose to print an article that could put Rosenstein's job in even more jeopardy?
7
The death of an empire is an amazing thing to live through. I feel like a fly on the wall watching the end of the Roman empire. The corruption, the neutered Senate, the overextension of its military and years of war that have drained its coffers and its will. A better analogy that is more appropriate here is the fall of civil German society in the 1930's and the rise of fascism under the Nazis. Only now, instead of jackbooted security forces raiding your home or workplace, unless it's ICE looking for undocumented workers, it's the slow, insidious crumbling of our institutions. Attacked and mocked by the very people in government. The free press has been bought off by corporate owners that are in bed with military-industrial-political complex now, so don't rely on them to prevent or report accurately on any of this. Some of them are even owned by military contractors and have ex-generals and ex-CIA "reporters". Ever wonder who is buying cruise missiles when watching your Sunday morning news show? That's the military-industrial complex buying that show through advertising. So expect the wars to continue indefinitely. A major political party has so trashed our judiciary that the rule of law is in doubt. Of course all this has been easier to accomplish with a dumb-down populace whose public schools and universities have been defunded. And forty years of trickle-down economic has hollowed out a prosperous middle-class, distracting them into survival mode. Goodby empire.
21
Just when I signed up to be a paid member for the New York Times and loved the reporting. They finally did something unremarkable.
They have just given trump a reason to fire the deputy attorney general and confirm his theories about the deep state. I would like to know who picked this story to be published? Are you guys doing the bidding of the president’s men to plant stories that can be used to give Trump reasons to act irrational? I’m deeply disappointed with the times maybe time to go to Washington Post.
34
Did I read this correctly?
You ran a story that hands the president a convenient pretext for firing Rod Rosenstein based on sources who WERE NOT IN THE ROOM?
And the people IN THE ROOM say it was clearly a sarcastic joke?
Sorry, given the implications for the Mueller investigation this is shoddy, reckless reporting. Sadly, we may all pay the price.
39
NYT, the decision to publish this article defies logic. The content is nothing we didn't already know. Thank you NYT, we now know Rosenstein is out; the Mueller investigation is all but over, and the man Rosenstein describes in this article holds a get out of jail free card.
10
Couldn't be too tough recording chump if Omorosa could do it.
3
Rachel Madow pointed out on her show tonight (Friday) that thie Times story gives Trump a new excuse to fire Rosenstein, potentially leading to the end of the Mueller investigation. Madow said that the Washington Post and NBC say that they have a source who was in the room, and that source says it was quite clear that Rosenstein was being sarcastic. That makes sense. Were the Times’ writers manipulated? Do they have a source who was in the room and heard Rosenstein’s comments first hand? Thank you Washington Post
24
Why would you do this?
28
This isn't journalism, you guys. What the heck were you thinking?
I open the Times every morning because I believe in the publication's responsibility and ability to better inform the electorate. When I read the headline, I was shocked, as any reasonable person would be — I was expecting carefully vetted sources and fact-based insight for an accusation this large. Instead, I got a gossip piece that I had to read three times, because I kept expecting to see an attribution that didn't look like it came from the National Enquirer.
I'm glad to see I'm not losing my mind, or even worse, my news judgement, as it is clear many other subscribers found this convoluted gossip piece as odd as I did.
I am also profoundly disappointed, however, because it's Just. Sloppy. Reporting. on an issue of incredible importance. As a long time fan of the paper, and as a person who believes a free press is the most important element of a democracy, I am simply dumbfounded.
26
Other major news sources are saying that Mr. Rosenstein was kidding or being sarcastic, according to a person who was in the room. This unambiguous NYT claim that it was meant seriously gives Trump a reason to fire the person who stands between him and the Mueller investigation.
21 Sep 7:47PM MDT
7
Oh, please - he was joking. He said "What do you want me to do, Andy? Wear a wire?"
It's obvious he was making a wisecrack. But it's been blown out of proportion, and I'm surprised that the Times would devote any space to it.
15
The way this ''scoop'' appeared at this paper and at this time makes me believe somebody was played. Autumn surprise gift wrapped on schedule.
19
Every single day all the major networks give Trump a get out of jail analysis, with their panels of experts.
And now the NYT has laid down the red carpet to the door of Mr. Rosenstein.
Trump is governing by media, and he is winning.
22
@Robert Trump is governing by media, and he is (winning.) whining, constantly whining.
Rosenstein has tried to subvert the Constitution and has abused his authority in attempting to bug the President. He must be fired.
So, with vague sources you publish an article that says Rosenstein was THINKING about doing something he didn't actually do re the 25th Amendment, and that he wanted to wear a wire on the president - except maybe he was joking, or maybe he didn't say it.
All this very shortly after Trump suddenly drops his demand to release classified files, and while his supreme court pick is under siege.
I have been reading the Times for over 50 years, and I can't remember being more disturbed and angry at your handling of a story.
Do you realize how much this looks like the NYT has been played? How the biggest thing this piece does is give Trump cover to fire Rosenstein and kill the Muller investigation?
Yes, some of us who read the news carefully might see this is a story about someone's feelings in a moment of crisis. But you MUST understand the larger implications here. To throw gasoline on a very, very dangerous fire, with what reads like tenuous, muddy evidence, and a headline far more dramatic and definitive than the story that is eventually told below is terribly irresponsible.
If Mr. Rosenstein had actually done something newsworthy, then, yes, the truth is more important than the consequences. But this kind of gossipy reporting, in practical real world terms potentially fatally smears a man who may need to help save American democracy. That is a terrible betrayal of the nation and of your high standards of ethics.
28
This is yellow journalism. Writing a story on such a serious topic at such a critical time without ANY corroboration only leads to confusion and increase distrust: in the presidency, in the DOJ, and in the fifth estate - journalism. You played right into Trump's little tiny hands.
46
This is irresponsible reporting. Your guys should read the 25th Amendment. The possibility that Pence and a majority of the Cabinet would agree are highly unlikely. A physically healthy Trump would contest their letter and the possibility that 2/3 of congress would go along even more unlikely.
Rosenstein knows the law and could not entertain such a foolish idea. He may have said it as a joke or as an expression of no good options on what to do after the Comey firing.
To imply that he was serious as reported makes the NYT as truly a purveyor of fake news
21
"Sarcastically" is the key word in this article that could get Rod Rosenstein fired. Obviously the anonymous person did not take it seriously so why the grand effort to write this article?
8
I sure hope you're playing 3 dimensional chess. Hoping for a brilliant next move.
8
I hear a lot of whistling past the graveyard in these comments. The Times gave Trump the hammer to clean house at the Justice Department. Then the Mueller investigation will be shut down. If Rosenstein is still there on Tuesday I'll be amazed. The next step will be to appoint someone to fire Mueller.
Game Set Match
No right wing source could have done this. Only the Times, or WP, or a journal with that liberal reputation could have accomplished this. Just like Judith Miller's support of WMD's in Iraq.
Unless some miracle occurs white nationalists, Christo-fascists, and oligarchs will run this country for the few years I have left.
13
I don't think there is a screenwriter who could concoct a satire as insane as the Trump White House.
3
I am an avid NYT supporter, but I think you got played by the trump administration. Exactly what trump is looking for to destroy the investigation.
17
From all I understand the words are taken out of context and said sarcastically out of frustration according to WP and NBC News who had a source from within the meeting. The NYT did NOT have a source in the room. The words used by the NYT were taken from memos. Honestly, it sounds rather "sloppy" and premature to make such a statement.
11
This blurb is a yellow page out of the Grey Lady’s tome.
Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller form a thin line between Putin and US democracy. These men are the cragged rocks of our shores. They have truth on their side but not much more.
Trump’s venom is not targeted at Wray - Christy’s attorney during Bridge-gate. As head of Trump’s Transition team (while he was under investigation) Christy’s prosecutorial instincts must have been piqued by the Russian connections. Does Christy enjoy attorney-client privilege with the Trump’s chosen FBI director?
If Wray has Rosenstein’s back this would be a good time to show it.
6
Congratulations. You've sewn together bits and pieces of hearsay in order to get the most attention. Pieces served up to you by those interested in their own personal adjenda. FOX style.
Due diligence has lost its meaning.
Not a proud moment for this once well respected newspaper.
29
Rosenstein is a Republican. Trump’s Missouri speech said Democrats are dangerous. So how does he jive a Republican in the Justice Department like Rosenstein believing Trump is incompetent? Don’t you think Jeff Sessions, Attorney General and Republican, thinks Trump is off his rocker too? Considering Trump is stomping all over the US constitution, maybe the Democrats are actually the smart ones...and some Republicans have figured out they’re right?
3
This story has Roger Stone's fingerprints all over it.
7
There is no good reason that this man should be fired. All the news outlets are reporting that it is pretty much going to happen. The NY Times which used unnamed sources are to blame. This story serves no purpose other then to give a paranoid narcissistic president a reason to fire him. NY Times gave Trump the gun.
8
This story is being questioned by other news sources who say that Rod was being sarcastic when theses issues were brought up in the meeting. Washington Post for one.
14
If Trump fires Rosenstein, he might replace him wit Kavanaugh.
1
Rod Rosenstein is one of the few things standing between Donald Trump and the dismantling of our democracy. Is the Times trying to get him fired? Did the Times consider that perhaps their “sources” were allies of Mr. Trump and this article is exactly the article Mr. Trump wanted the Times to write? Certainly, if what is reported is true, Mr. Trump, or any president for that matter would have to fire Mr. Rosenstein. If the goal of this paper was to assist Mr. Trump and empower his authoritarian impulses...well, you have done a very good job.
10
"The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials"
A better headline might be:
"Several People Said Other People Said Rod Rosenstein Suggested Secretly Recording Trump"
14
Is RJR the “Deep Throat”Part 2.
Everyone with an position in the administration seem to have a take on Senility & 25 Amendment.
Except the people of the United States who overwhelmingly voted to power President Donald Trump.
If RJR is having difficulty adjusting to the rigours of the administration,he needs to honourably QUIT.
Whining is not good for the mind,soul & Telomeres & for an nation of the size & influence of the US.
The administration of President Trump has given a “Black Swan” like economic miracle in US,seen only in few fast growing developing nations.
The growth rate has been tremendous & defies all the pessimism of the economic pundits.
In life,no amount of altruism works,their will always be groaners,complainers,moaners & whiners,still we need to be altruistic.
The President’s doing the right thing.
The people of the US did NOT ovetwhelmingly vote for Trump. He lost the popular vote, and his technical win got an assist ftom Russia. Get your facts straight.
6
Correction: The American people overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton, who received three million more votes than Trump. How Trump wound up in the White House instead of HRC is the focus of the ongoing Mueller investigation.
1
Donald Trump wasn’t the one who took the economy from the abyss and resuscitated it. That was President Obama and Trump was lucky to have inherited a great economy. The only thing Trump can be given credit for is not killing it.
1
My guess is that he is not the only one in the administration to have made this suggestion/offer/joke. With Pompeo sure to be found out as the NYT 'resistance' article writer and Rosenstein to be fired (even though he did not actually DO anything), we have not seen the last of the revolving door of this reality show.
Stay tuned!
2
A Trump regime, manufactured, diversion to deflect from Dr. Ford.
8
I am not sure about this story. Two other papers have cast doubt on its portrayal of the facts. Nevertheless, even Bannon was talking about the 25th Amendment. Everything about this president and his administration is corrupt and damaging to our country. He is a chronic liar and who can forget that he puts innocent children in cages and permanently removes them from their families. What patriot has not thought about how to rid us of this plague?
3
By the way, great reporting. Finally an objective piece from the NYT.
1
You consider an article about what “some people heard that other people said that he might’ve said” as objective reporting? I suspect you believe every word that falls out of Trump’s mouth is gospel.
3
I am confused, WHY is THIS coming out NOW? Is this just another distraction while trump pulls his next dirty tricks? Did the writers just find this information?
Trump has a million thoughts a minute and says them 2millions but doesnot do anything about most of them. Shall we start recording them and get them in the paper. PLEASE don’t!
5
If the NYT's is correct, Rosenstein's conduct is as close as we may ever get to treason in the 21st century Will Trump take the bait and fire Rosenstein? I expect not. That would change the story. Will Rosenstein be man enough to resign? I doubt it. Rosenstein has been exposed as deep state on steroids, a saboteur if you will. Conspiracy to rig election and force Trump resignation and/or impeachment in now undisputed. We have the texts. More to come. Stay tuned.
1
Good god,
And I had thought we “were” in trouble!
4
The NYT was absolutely correct to publish the story, which also accurately also accurately reports Rosenstein's comments
What is appalling is the headline which makes the judgement that Rosenstein not only made the wire comment (sarcastic or otherwise) but also was invoking the 25th amendment, The headline should have avoided judging the veracity of the memo adding the word "alleged", putting the relevant words in quotes, or better a headline saying "Former FBI official alleges Rosenstein etc"
It is not really funny but Trump can now say I fired Rosenstein because the failing NYT states he has said etc.
The headline used, in my view, is a bad judgement.
2
This story is a severe blow to a desperate democracy. It feels as if we might lose this now. I can't believe this.
7
Oh, where to start. OK, just two things:
1. So Rosenstein doesn't like anonymous sources. Perhaps his defenders will talk to Kavanaugh about HIS feelings on anonymous sources..... What's good for the goose is good....oh well, you know where I'm going.
2. Do we need any further evidence that a disturbingly high number of senior public employees in D.C. exhibit partisan views that are affecting how they do their job?
1
Classic Trump. And we keep falling for it. Even in NYC after 40 years of exactly the same pattern.
Just like when he used to call the local press pretending to be somebody else to “leak” information to the press that served one of his nefarious purposes. In this case it serves two purposes: deflect attention from the Kavanaugh debacle and create a fake reason to fire Rosenstein.
I’m sure the NYT sourced this info, but I’ll ask it to question the source’s source.
7
Is it now a crime to discuss concerns in the USA? I thought your first amendment protected free thought and speech.
No action has resulted from these comments, therefore, no crime has been committed.
But Trump like's to get even doesn't he, gee what a fine man you have there!
1
The New York Times has a responsibility to report well sourced and confirmed news no matter what the ramifications. Does the content of the article give Trump cover and support his reckless assertions that everyone is out to get him? Yes is does, but everyone should by now understand the reasons for this turbulence is that Trump is unfit to serve in the Oval Office and those in the DOJ and FBI recognize this. The only people who will buy into a deep state fantasy are the very people who put Trump into office. Voters and Russians are responsible for this insanity, not Comey, Rosenstein or anyone else unless they're enabling the dangers of losing democracy under someone not fit to serve and a clear and present danger to the Republic. I applaud the NYT's for their journalistic integrity.
@Robert Westwind
“The New York Times has a responsibility to report well sourced and confirmed news no matter what the ramifications”
Except they don’t.
They’re shirkers.
The key is “well-sourced and confirmed news.” This story ain’t it.
1
Adam and Michael, if Trump thinks he got a good oportunity to fire Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, then he has a thing or two coming on his way.
If the NYT story is true which almost everyone including Trump thinks is true, then firing Mr. Rosenstein only on that basis that the Deputy AG thought about wearing a wire to record a madman in the White House, then Trump should know that he'll start a constitutional crisis in this country akin to Richard Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre of 1973.
And not to forget the fact that Trump'll hand over a birthday gift to Putin long before his actual birthday of October 7th.
Why I mentioned this ?
Because nothing in this world will please Putin than an end to the Russia inquiry going on in our country since F.B.I. found a note linking Carter Page as a Russian agent.
No matter how much Trump tries to downplay Mr. Page's role in his campaign,we all know through the leaks in Mr. Muller's investigation that Carter Page made trips to Moscow while he was acting as a Trump campaign surrogate.
So if Trump really loses his mind, as Mr. Rosenstein thought after his firing of Mr. Comey, then the Deputy AG's thought about invoking 25th Amendment was very sensible.
In the same context, Trump has to know that just like Julius Caezer was neutrilized by his own deputies in 44 B.C., most of Trump's deputies had the same goal in their minds.
They wanted to do it in a legal way by invoking an obscure amendment to the Constitution which was never used before.
The sound of the prayers and hopes of millions of Americans being extinguished after almost two years of anguish....
4
I'm extremely thankful that the New York Times published this. My faith is slowly being restored.
Q sent me. Enjoy the show!
1
If this an accurate summary of Mr. Rosenstein’s suggestion l applaud his patriotism.
7
So why did you grnant anonymity to the anonymous “adult in the room” op-ed writer, but not to Rosenstein? Seems Rosenstein has more right to it. He wasn’t making a public statement. He was fulfilling his constitutionally provided role as a potential 25th Amendment invoker. How can the amendment ever work, if the Cabinet can’t contemplate it privately?
I’d never want you to bury a story merely because it could help Trump; but here there were reasons apart from that to hold off, namely keeping the 25th amendment viable for the future.
7
Rosentein was operating within his envelope of duties as permitted by the 25th Amendment. That is what the 25th Amendment is all about - it is to remove a sitting President who is exhibiting idiotic behavior as a means of rescuing the Country. He owes no loyalty to Trump, but he owes a great deal of loyalty to the country and the Constitution.
4
"The extreme suggestions show Mr. Rosenstein’s state of mind in the disorienting days that followed Mr. Comey’s dismissal."
No more extreme than the people who engineered his election and the people who actually voted for the man,
Anyone who would consider any possible remedy in response to, what may be, a madman in the oval office, deserves to be at least heard out.
Spitballing, especially in these unprecedented times, would be a natural and welcome response.
Or we could just embrace the mad president and everything he stands for.
Like, you know, republicans.
4
This is some very poor quality reporting -- second and third hand sourcing, no awareness of sarcastic tone reported by people actually in the room, and the timeline is wrong -- the conversation re removing Trump wasn't right after Comey firing, but also after subsequent meeting with Russians in Oval Office and revealing Israeli intelligence sources. And there's no actual news here, except about the Times making a big blunder.
12
"according to others" "according to two people" "according to people" - these are not sources, just gossip. I don't think it's right to give Trump reasons to fire the only person between him and Mr. Mueller.
8
I wish he had worked with others in the administration to invoke the 25th. #45 has been terrible for the whole world.
8
Apologies if I am repeating an observation that many others may have made since I have not read all of the comments, but it looks like we are reading in Rosenstein the source of the anonymous Op-ed piece that appeared in the NYTimes a couple weeks ago. What an interesting way to out someone with plausible denialability.
Our system is flawed if it allows one unhinged person like Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel to investigate the president, just because he felt guilty that the memo he wrote was used as a reason to fire the FBI director. Special counsels should need a two-thirds approval of both the house and the senate. Rosenstein is the one who has created the chaos in our government because he is a weak man who has attained so much power it has overwhelmed him.
Isn't discussing the 25th amendment a felony?
How can it be invoked if it can’t even be discussed? Ugh!
2
"... Rod J. Rosenstein, suggested last year that he secretly record President Trump in the White House to expose the chaos consuming the administration, and he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office for being unfit."
I believe that when the President of the United Stares turns out to be a cheap gangster he should be treated as one.
3
Did the Times give any thought to how grotesquely this story will be distorted by Fox and the rest of state-run conservative media? The left keeps trying to play a chess match with precious little crystal pieces, while the right keeps smashing them with a sledgehammer. And now it's their turn again.
8
Is this the ton of bricks to be loaded upon the mueller investigation?
2
Dirty tricks. I don't believe the story. Need to vet the sources.
8
Given what we know about the hopelessly awful person in the WH, who wouldn't think about the 25th?
Especially during those earlier days before we got used to ineptitude, the heartlessness, and the capacity for self-aggrandizement above all else?
The recent spate of books documents all this.
4
If the Times has gotten this story wrong, then the Times is irresponsibly negligent. This clearly has the potential to trigger chaos in our country.
This story is probably all Trump will need in order for him to justify firing Rosenstein. It is probably all the Republicans on the hill need in order to back Trump in that firing.
6
In the midst of all these negative comments of the NYT, I would like to congratulate the NYT for this article. It looks like many readers of the newspapers would not want to hear the truth if it happens to contradict their narrative, and offer, like in a movie, a new plot point and a reversal.
1
The pathetic thing is... he is only suggesting what many responsible officials in this country should have been considering all along. Not sure what’s wrong with it at all!
The WRONG THING IS TRUMP’S BEHAVIOR ALL ALONG! What the heck do people think is normal? Not Trump’s actions as President!
How do people think we would gather evidence for a 25th Amendment? Rosenstein works for our nation’s law enforcement agency... and Trump is Repeatly Breaking The Law!
All these Officials, including the FBI owe their allegiance to the Country, not Trump. Someone Should Be Holding Trump Accountable!
2
Just more confirmation that everyone around Trump thinks he is incompetent and dangerous.
2
I don't understand why The New York Times would throw this story, which stands on shaky legs it seems, into the mix, when at this point in time America is dealing with a huge crisis? It would be wonderful if the complete focus could be on the potential of Trump's choice for the highest court possibly being of poor character. Why?
7
Where have I seen this movie before!? Ah! This reminds me of the “letter from Comey” just as the vote neared! When Trump really needed the media, they came through.
Now, when he really starts to need them as the elections and investigation get too close, a preview starts to unfold!
5
While this was not good news for any opponent of Donald Trump, I'm appalled when I see people canceling subscriptions and penning words like "this is the last thing WE need," and "not very helpful to the resistance." The Times should not be in the business of helping any resistance. The Times should be in the business of reporting news, and as long as it is employing capable reporters who check their facts and vet their sources, journalism should be supported whether we personally like the results or no. Learn to take the bitter with the sweet or indeed the president's charges of "Fake News" will be legitimate.
6
@Glenn Redus
This is NOT news.
1
I am so disgusted. To all those people demanding anonymity and failing to do anything to stop this ridiculous circus: YOU are complicit in the downfall of this country. The so-called political leadership of the US is truly a disagrace.
4
Two questions: 1] what possessed The Times to report this story in the depth and over time it did in the first place. And given that what by now amounts to no more than a rambling, disputed, historical vignette is certain to be hyped by the adversaries of the Justice Department and Special Counsel as a veritable bombshell exploding the credibility of the investigation of the president’s collusion with Russia and willful obstruction of justice, 2] what possible service to your readers and the larger public could you possibly have imagined would be served by publishing the story now, rather than sometime later in a fuller historical narrative?
Although co-author Michael Schmidt was on no less than three MSNBC shows tonight along with other guests to discuss the story, nothing on point answered either question. This was as unnecessary and reckless a story as I can recall seeing in any reputable news source in some time.
15
Exactly on point in Illinois!
After so many comments, why add one, but ...
This was classic NYT. They're slapping each other on the back, claiming it proves they're not biased. They'll go after anyone, even a guy who's basically got his finger in the leaky dike.
But this article isn't based on anyone in the room with Rosenstein. It's based on what people told people. Someone said he was being sarcastic. Someone else said no way. Neither one was present in the room.
The Times thinks it has to do this to be fair. That worked out well in the run up to Iraq, right? The same idea drove it to devote more attention to Clinton's emails than Trump's background.
Funny how institutions have their own DNA, and repeat their history over and over.
14
This is a non-story that will simply provoke our aggrieved president.
42
I have a few thoughts regarding this article. Number one, I’m tired of NYT writing articles based on anonymous people. What good these reportings are doing, if they cannot be backed by real people, time, and place? Number 2, this could have been done with Trump’s-knowledge, putting it out there, creating chaos, and a reason to fire Rosenstein and hire another yes man person who would fire Muller. Number 3, if this is true, why Rosenstein would say something like that and actually bravely not act on it there and then? Doesn’t he know that nothing stays a secret in that chaotic place very long?
14
I want to remind everyone who complains about the Times publishing this story: National Inquiries did the opposite; it buried the story.
4
@Avi: There is no publication called National Inquiries that buried this story. Explain yourself.
2
Come ON. From what I've read, you don't have good sourcing on this.
35
It's rottenness all over the place.
It would not make a juicy story to say that Rosenstein said what he said in sarcasm. No, ignore that portion. Go to alt-facts. Say Rosenstein was dead serious. In fact, he even had a blueprint for achieving his goal, with names of all those cabinet members whom he had secretly recruited.
Now there you have a story - a whopper of the day. Everyone is talking about it. Copy editors are happy for the chance to write a bombshell of a caption. Management is happy for the attention the paper receives. The business department can't wait to tell the advertisers the number of extra copies your presses had to print and the number of hits you received on the web.
More ads, more money. Voila, everyone is happy. And all it took was a bit of imagination and inventiveness, a la, Trump White House. Like the president, like people!
20
But of course—-you hit the nail on the head. This article is sourced with alternative facts!
1
The President* already has all the motivation he requires to fire Rod Rosenstein. And unless his instinct for office gossip has totally deserted him, he already knows everything in this article.
This story really doesn’t offer Trump any leverage. If he acts on this news — launches his very own Saturday morning massacre via tweet — his role in obstruction of justice will be even more evident than it already is.
*Elected against the will of the majority.
10
This is all worthy of a Banana Republic. Thank you for exposing it, NYT. I am nearly ready to retire from academia, and you have made it easier for me to decide that it is time to repatriate. America has been a wonderful place to work, but time to go home.
10
Well, I think Mr Rosenstein is not long to go now. The GOP and Fox "News" will make much of this leading up to the mid terms and Trump's tweeter storm will signal that he's got his choice lined up to replace. Then full speed towards Mueller next I suspect...
5
Well duh of course he discussed the 25th. Every single one of us did. If I had somehow been caught up in this degenerate kindergarten, I would be crying out for somebody to fire me, too.
23
I am a fan of NYTimes reporting and its reputation for accuracy. I am also a fan of Schmidt and Appuzo, in particular. However, I find this piece rife with rumor, unnamed sources and, in particular, the use of notes from a very disgruntled former Deputy FBI head to be a particular low for this paper. This story should be annotated as such by the NYTimes. It is now being used to justify the firing of Rosenstein (read Muller here, too) by Trump supporters. What were these reporters and their editors thinking publishing such a piece in this time of extreme political angst. This is more like something I might find on Fox News outlets rather than this highly respected paper. Do better guys!!!
43
When I first heard this report this afternoon, it didn't ring true. Mr. Rosenstein has proven to be a conservative and careful public servant pulling off an incredibly difficult balancing act. Why would he carelessly jeopardize his career and the preservation of Mr. Mueller's investigation which he is responsible for running as reported by anonymous second and third-hand sources in this article? On the other hand, a sarcastic comment made under extremely frustrating conditions seems absolutely in character for a man with this kind of intelligence. Although Michael Schmidt has done some terrific reporting over the past 18 months. unfortunately, this story fails the high bar he's set for himself. It's also a poor reflection on the NY Times. I'm hoping to see an explanation of why the Times decided to jump the gun on this one. The explanation as reported by The Washington Post quoting someone who was actually in the meeting versus The Times secondhand sourcing makes far more sense.
43
The statements made to the reporters, or leaked to them, and reported by them in this article include the smear of Rosenstein by “sources” that he was "very erratic" in his behavior in the time-period in question. That's not a factual claim about what was said, written, or done--it's a subjective opinion that constitutes an attack on his credibility during that time-period.
Because Rosenstein selected Mueller in this time-period, that claim of being “very erratic” is a way to undermine the credibility of Rosenstein and his judgment in picking Mueller and the credibility of Mueller himself as and his fitness for his job.
Is that the real motive of the people who shared info with the reporters rather than to share the comments about wearing a wire and the 25th Amendment? To call into question the legitimacy of Rosenstein's decisions and appointment of Mueller?
31
I think the NY Times did a real disservice to the public by going with this story right now. I understand your job is to see ads, but for how little substance is actually here, it seems the potential to do more harm than good is very real. I'm not loving your paper right now.
59
And so it comes to this. The NY Times is complicit in the republican scheme to undermine our democracy.
It is time to organize a march on Washington to demand Trump is held accountable. The republicans cannot steal our country and its 242 years of democracy so easily.
26
It is more conceivable that Rod Rosenstein responded in sarcastic remark to others at the so-called meeting who were agitating themselves about the utterly insane conduct of the erratic person in the White House.
14
I guess I'm not the only one who suffers through one more sleepless night, the comments on this board are coming out at the record speed from every corner of the country and the globe. Millions of sleepless people is kind of heartwarming, in a way that you seem to have all this imaginary friends you never knew about, but it also could be construed as perfectly delusional.
Case in point...Rosenstein could be joking, since as we told, people who know him say he has a dry sense of humor, then again others say he was absolutely serious.
I have no idea, neither do you my dear imaginary friends, after all he denied all this vehemently, not once but twice.
I'm sure, if it's any consolation at all
Rod Rosenstein has a turbulent sleepless night along with all of us.
26
@faivel1
There's plenty of us not sleeping over this. I am very afraid.
Every time I think I might see light at the end of this tunnel, it turns out to be the infamous onrushing train.
Trump is an evil man. How can this end well?
5
The 25th Amendment like Impeahment have been widely discussed and may have been the most sanitary removal from office compared to facing prison.
3
The authors had two possible conclusions they could draw with the information that they had.
One was that Rosenstein seriously considered implementing the 25th Amendment, which he could not do by himself, and which would require action by the Vice President. Their case for that conclusion could be based on ly on hearsay testimony from people who the authors admit were not at the meeting and who had only heard about it and the content of the memos second- or third-hand.
The other, that Rosenstein made the comment sarcastically , as a rebuke to McCabe, was supported by testimony from a witness who was in the room and heard the comment.
The authors chose to go with the least plausible conclusion and to minimize the second. As a result, the course of history will be changed, and a disastrous President finds himself with more political power than he had before.
This is not responsible journalism.
29
Why is Rod Rosenstein being critized for this? At what point does dysfunction and chaos in the White House justify intervention to protect our democracy? I think we have crossed that red line a long time ago.
17
Trump the showman, manipulator, svengali of the hateful, might actually be revealed for who he actually is if he were recorded secretly, we can't let that happen. America is in a sleeper hold and doesn't want to wake up. I think he should be recorded constantly; let's find out who this guy really is and what he wants from us.
3
These allegations of Mr. Rosenstein are alarming and they pose serious questions as to his motivations and who he may have been influenced by. Mr. Rosenstein must resign immediately as he appears to have conspired and threaten to bring down the office of the Presidency, perhaps himself influenced by the Russians to do so.
2
@Realist: Even if Rosenstein was serious about the 25th amendment (but people who actually were there said he was being sarcastic, same for his remark about a wire to secretly recor the president), the 25th amendment is part of the Constitution and it’s there for a reason. Invoking it is not “conspiring to bring down the office of the president”, it is invoking the Constitution, a text Trump never bothered to read.
2
I think this should read "allegedly suggested" since just saying suggested is drawing an unwarranted conclusion.
11
This allegation has all the markings of Trumpy and his minions doing "hit job" news piece on Rosenstein. Trumpy and minions are trying to make it look like Rosenstein is a "bad guy" so it will be easier, in the eyes of the Trumptard crowd, for Trumpy to fire him. Trumpy is getting increasingly desperate to remove Rosenstein and Mueller because they are piling up stacks and stacks of evidence for legal future charges against him. But Trumpy is too stupid to understand that his firing of Sessions, Rosenstein and Mueller will only make his situation worse.
17
@JusTheTruth
Why would it, though? As another commenter said, the Senate will have Trump's back. They do not care what history is going to say about them and their role in the crumbling of our democracy.
3
NYT - this article does nothing to help our hobbled democracy, which has been under attack by Trump since day 1. Our Country is now worse off for it having been written.
This “scoop” which dates back to early 2017 and apparently shows no tangible signs that Rosenstein acted on what was purportedly discussed, is likely to undermine the Country’s most important investigation. We may be informed about this, but may result in US citizens never knowing the full extent of Trump’s attack on our democracy and its institutions. No doubt this article demonstrates shortsightedness on the part of the paper. Democracy may die in darkness but in many cases, the truth can hurt. This will only give Trump the excuse he needs to serve his own self interests to the detriment of the Republic. We may be informed today, but at the potential steep cost of not being informed tomorrow.
21
Poorly handled "scoop." The guy who fired McCabe now is being accused by McCabe (as supposedly suggested in his contemporaneous notes whose content and verity is unknown), and there are conflicting opinions within Justice about Rosenstein's comments with no one going on the record?
These reporters and the editor who chose to publish it the way it's written may think they're being bravely nonpartisan, but in my opinion, they're promoting combustible confusion in the (probably unconscious) service of their egos.
Now more than ever, we could use a little more of the demanding standards Ben Bradlee enforced way back when.
19
It’s quite clear that someone at the highest levels of government is lying.
Not good. Not good.
5
One small step for Trump, one big step toward dictatorship.
I fear for the future of our republic.
16
I'm a recent subscriber, signing up as much - or more - to ensure that a bulwark against encroaching tyranny would keep standing - as to consume your content.
But "journalistic" exercises like this one make me question if that's what my subscription is helping accomplish. Just because something provocative can be published, and just because it will generate views and physical paper sales does not mean that it should be.
And then there's the timing. This is something alleged to have occurred many months ago, and this voluntary release takes over the news cycle during a critical time to determine whether a likely sexual abuser appointed by an admitted sexual abuser will be appointed to the Supreme Court with the mission of returning the patriarchal control over women's bodies and life choices we've spent
a century trying to reform since women were granted the franchise.
But even more than that, it's clear that the nominee is a perjurer who will be willing to cement the descent into despotism that the man who appointed him is expecting of him should questions of executive power reach the court.
And instead of support for resisting that chain of events being top-of-mind, your editorial decisions are endangering the independence of the justice department, and even the very existence of the Mueller investigation on which the very future out of the country likely depends.
Color me appalled and disappointed. And afraid, very afraid...
20
I guess we know who wrote the letter. I don't know that it's enough to get the guy fired or even matter. I do appreciate that this came out now. I don't think it's going to make a bit of difference.
Sounds very much like Rosenstein was exploring options, some of them not so serious. The ‘wearing a wire’ remark may well have been tongue in cheek, something that can easily be misconstrued. I doubt he realised he was in the lion’s den at the time.
As for the comments from readers saying the NYT is wrong to publish the story - no. They report the news, this is news. It might not be all true, but this what people are saying and we need to know. The knives are out, those people are looking for any excuse to shut down Mueller. We need to know who they are and how to refute their interpretation of events.
P.S. I see Trump has decided not to release the top security docs. Another walk back from the madman in chief. Good. Somebody is wielding common sense, highly unusual within this administration.
4
@Lizzie: Disagree. This half-baked story needed a lot more research before publication, and it’s now itself become an excuse to get at the Mueller investigation. The allies put pressure on the Trump administration to back off from releasing classified documents, no doubt with some choice threats that would have hit Trump where it hurts.
When you say this is news, you express mere opinion. Would it be news that Rosenstein forgot to brush his teeth one morning? Would it be news that he said he scowled or got upset in his office or at home when our fiendish President insulted him in a tweet? How do you define news?
This was a discussion in a meeting, following a crime to which the President unknowingly confessed on national TV. Rosenstein must have been upset, because his memo was used to justify that crime. So what? The idea, if it wasn’t a joke (and it may we’ll have been) never went anywhere. So it isn’t news. There’s lots that doesn’t get covered that is news. Seems to me that your criterion for whether something is news is this: if it can be used by a rhetorician to mislead people and draw attention away from what really IS the news, then it’s news too.
1
At issue is the way this story was reported, starting with very poorly worded and deceptive headline.
1
Wearing a wire, where's the warrant for it especially since it's used in a gotcha incident. I guess some people are above the rules of the law.
2
Nobody actually wore a wire, so there was no warrant. Nothing remarkable in that.
3
If it were true, would it not be alarming that a conservative, a Republican Trump nominee thought that Trump (the US president) was unhinged enough to even make a joke about it? If it was not a joke and he meant it seriously, would that not be a concern that Trump might need the 25th amendment used on him in the opinion of a Republican appointee?
5
Count me skeptical. "Other Justice Department and F.B.I. Officials." "Several people." "A Justice Department spokeswoman." "A person who was present." "Others." "People who spoke to Mr. Rosenstein at the time." "The officials." We readers are supposed blindly to accept this collection of anonymous "sources" as truthful? Not one of these vague persons can be identified? No wonder the phrase "fake news" is so common.
7
According to other reporting by the Washington Post and ABC, they have statements from a source who was present in the meeting where wearing a wire was suggested - in jest. The source said Rosenstein was being "sarcastic" . This makes more sense given the circumstances (Comey's recent firing, the president's unhinged behavior and the charged atmosphere) and Rod Rosenstein's better judgement. In addition, none of the questionable and highly irregular actions suggested were ever authorized and they we're not carried out. These seem more like the passing musings of a shocked and exasperated staff.
8
Trump cannot afford to fire Rosenstein.
What if there are really tapes and or videos besides contemporaneous notes which Rosenstein must surely keep? If he did fire Rosenstein, or request that all his emails and other communication be made public, he may inadvertently reveal additional instances that might be considered as evidence of obstruction of justice.
2
Even if the article was true, if Rob Rosenstein can persuasively prove that a president is unfit for office just by play tapes of him saying things, then obviously there is no reason not to remove Trump as president. It is just common sense right? I don't understand what is the big deal about this article. If Trump is fit for office nothing in the tapes can prove otherwise. Additionally, even to get a permission to wiretap a normal Trump official Mueller had to get permission from a judge (which mean he had to be VERY persuasive with evidences) If the judge grant permission to wiretap the President it means that the President something VERY fishy for a judge to allow it. Normally if it is not too big of a concern they would look the other way because he is the president after all right?
3
If I were an intelligence analyst who received a case officer's report that was as poorly sourced and that relied as much on speculation as this story does, I would not release it until I had more information to determine its accuracy.
11
This is a dangerous line of reasoning. In the case of this President there is nothing “personal” about thinking that he’s incompetent to do his job and should removed.
4
Wow. Sessions sent Rosenstein after Trump. Trump has his own party after him almost as much as the democrats. Would Holder ever do anything to get Obama mad?
There hasn’t ever been anything like this. It is absolutely amazing Trump has made it this far with almost no friends in Washington. There is stuff to take Trump down. Its not election stuff cause it just never happened but there is stuff to take Trump down.
Mueller has had such a free ride this long. He has to have something. I am guessing it’s an inside trade sort of thing.
One gets a feeling that the Democrats and Republicans are actually partners in something for the first time in along time. How to take down Trump. But how to do it without damaging either party. And not making it look so obvious that it is planned. But this really looks so totally staged.
1
It seems that many believed that the President was so dysfunctional that just being able to tape what was going on would be the proof needed for for a 25th amendment proceeding.
Omorosa managed to do what Rosenstein supposedly wanted to do, but I am sure it was for a profit motive. Those seeking to make some money as opposed to seeking justice seem to be highly motivated.
7
What strikes me most of all about this article is that Mr. Rosenstein was ready to throw his colleague under the bus by writing the memo for the President -- not an attractive trait. On top of that, he was naive about the nature of this President, as he was surprised when the whole shameful episode boomeranged back at him. Again, doesn't speak well of him.
Maybe he can redeem himself if he mans up now.
2
@Dolores b: Comey deserved to be thrown under the bus for his derailing of the Clinton campaign just before the election, and Rosenstein exhibited a diabolic sense of humor to make that the excuse for Trump in his note to support firing Comey, when Trump always demonizes Clinton whenever he can. Rosenstein does not strike me as naive at all. He protected the Mueller investigation steadfastly. Thus far, nobody who actually was at the meeting or spoke with Rosenstein has come forward to corroborate the events as presented in the NYT article.
2
Why wait till October for October surprises? We've been having them all week, nay, all month and year. On the other hand, I do wonder about this article; it seems to have been planted by the Thought Police. Every day this country is becoming more like the world of Orwell's 1984 - or Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. Let's be honest and admit that many people, myself included, have wondered about Trump's competence; I do it daily. But if no action follows the thoughts, why is this a story? I can't imagine almost everyone in government these days has had this thought at least once. I'm just afraid that now that it's done, you can't un-stir this hornet's next.
When i was a kid, I learned to think twice before speaking: once what to say, and then whether to say it. Perhaps my life lesson might apply to the Times in the future. (And I'm a subscriber since 1993; I hate to see the mighty fall by their own pens and swords.)
7
Rosenstein voiced an opinion among colleagues during a crisis. This merely illustrates that he was aware of the seriousness of the situation the Justice Dept and the country faced (and still faces daily) from the Trump Admin and GOP s’ contempt of law. He is doing his job, why the hysteria?
4
@Les Dreyer
Allegedly voiced an opinion.
1
Rosenstein is a hero. When history is written he will be remembered as a courageous public servant and a textbook example of a good citizen. He is holding the line for all of us.
15
The WaPo and Rod Rosenstein himself both say the suggestion was said in jest, that it was sarcastic. The NYT is mistaken and has been used – and will be used – as a pretext for at least derailing the Mueller investigation.
The NYT must admit its error on the front page tomorrow. The Times should be ashamed...but I expect it won't.
80
Of course, Rosenstein is a Trump appointee. Though that will not stop Trump from claiming him as part of some grand conspiracy against him.
11
No doubt Trump will seize on these revelations to fire Rosenstein and install a loyalist to end Robert Mueller’s Russian probe. Using McGabe’s memos to get rid of Rosenstein would be Trump's sweet revenge, because he blames both for the investigation he calls a “witch hunt.”
It’s unclear how McGabe’s memos were leaked, most unlikely by himself. When he was interviewed by Mueller more than a year ago, he gave them all to the special counsel’s office. A set of the memos remained at the FBI when he left in late January. People familiar with the 2017 discussions offered wildly divergent accounts of what was said and what was meant. It’s most likely that the “anonymous sources” cherry-picked bits and pieces that serve to advance their own agenda. Fox News is now calling for Rosenstein’s firing.
As a brilliant law enforcement official, Rosenstein surely knows the risk of invoking the 25th Amendment when he navigates sharks-infested waters.
6
McCabes memo's were leaked by the White House or the so called "Freedom" caucus (Devin Nunes being a prime suspect.) Those have been the sources of previous selective leaks.
McCabe has no real beef with the FBI or Rosenstien, and would not benefit from this in any way that I can see. Nor would anyone else. This is a trump/Nunes operation.
8
It is important to keep the focus on this set of issues. With the Kavanaugh issue and other diversions Trump will be tempted to "resolve" this issue before the Congressional elections find him under more investigations.
3
Sensing the intriguing silence of the Congressional Republicans any conscientious public official specially the one tasked with upholding the constitutional values and sanctity would do what the Dy. AG Rod Rosenstein did as a last resort. Curiously, it was the Congress that had pushed the 25th amendment in 1965 as a way out to deal with the situations like the present one to replace the President unable to discharge the constitutional obligations due to chronic disability without going through the lengthy impeachment process. In contrast the present Congress has preferred a safe course of ignoring its own obligations under the constitution.
10
Meanwhile the plot to subvert an election continues. And Russia celebrates!
52
This is what happens when Trump and his swamp --Nunes, McCarthy, Jordan et al. are allowed to take classified documents and twist the narrative to their own sinister conspiracy theories. Deja vu all over again--remember the drip, drip drip of harmless Hillary emails right before the election? They were twisted to suit Trump's campaign operatives purpose. To poison the minds of the voters against Clinton and sway the electoral college just enough to win.
24
Not at all surprising. What an incredible example of the swamp Washington has become. As my Irish elders would say our Founders are "turning in their graves" Cannot believe it has come to this.
2
This is not responsible reporting. The report has no evidence from people who were actually in the room. Almost every American with an IQ over 90 has said exactly the same thing or something similar. We have all been shaken to the foundations of our sanity since 11/9.
118
I love reading/hearing Michael Schmidt, and worry about the repercussions he is facing, though as an experienced and respected journalist, he has to have known that prior to publication.
That said, if the piece is factually true, I applaud Rod Rosenstein for thinking about doing what should have been done to Donald Trump long before he got into politics.
Born here, I've seen, even on my own street, how Trump has been a part of the hideous changes in the landscape and zoning of our city.
Money and criminal activity have allowed that for more years than the majority of Americans have been witness to.
November 6th can't get here soon enough.
12
Very disappointed you chose to publish this, let alone write about it. People get sarcastic in brainstorming meetings. It happens. We’re human. With this article you distract attention from the Kavanaugh situation. That’s what we should be focused on now. This article changes the national narrative. And that is deeply regrettable.
50
"Mr. Rosenstein disputed this account." No, Mr. Rosenstein admits this account by failing to deny it when confronted with it.
9
@one Nation under Law So when Rosenstein said that the story is "factually incorrect", he was admitting that the story is factually correct? I'm not sure we're talking about the same planet.
1
@one Nation under Law: It’s the NYT expression, not Mr. Rosenstein’s. They also write “falsehood”, instead of “lie”.
2
@one Nation under Law
Huh???
1
“If I did one mistake with Comey, I should have fired him before I got here. I should have fired him the day I won the primaries,” Mr. Trump said.
This is one of uncountable reasons this person should not be in the Oval office.
He is so delusional about his presumed power and authority, and that the position is one of such extreme autonomy, that he could fire someone before he has the job as that person's boss.
12
I realize that Michael Schmidt has a Pulitzer, but this article seems to have issues.
The sources are first described as follows, i.e. these sources were apparently not in the room.
"The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that documented Mr. Rosenstein’s actions and comments."
Somewhat later in the article, we discover that the writers had access to a statement from someone in the room, based on the following.
"A Justice Department spokeswoman also provided a statement from a person who was present when Mr. Rosenstein proposed wearing a wire. The person, who would not be named, acknowledged the remark but said Mr. Rosenstein made it sarcastically."
Sarcasm seems more like Rosenstein. Some sources have indicated that Rosenstein and McCabe were in a heated argument, when Rosensenstein replied with something similar to "what do you want me to do, wear a wire?'. Obviously,this is not how McCabe's notes would have recorded the discussion.
Also, it seems odd that the deputy AG would have been conspiring with anyone regarding the 25th amendment, when action is required by the VP and the cabinet.
I believe the writers were told what has been reported in this article. I question whether some of the sources had ulterior motives.
49
I listened to responses to this story before I read it. I believe the version that says the remarks about wearing a wire were sarcastic; it's hard to imagine they were made seriously. The 25th Amendment issue is more plausible, but it is hard to think anyone working around Trump would not have had the though. If this story is used as an excuse to fire Mr. Rosenstein, the Times has a lot to answer for. Of course, informed readers already know you created the myth of crooked Hillary and brought us President Trump.
19
The Times has outlived its usefulness.
1
Why would you report on this rumor, knowing the many dangerous implications it could have? Personally, I'm tired of the media not taking responsibility for getting Trump elected in the first place. He would never have been able to reach as many people as he did without the coverage he received and now you are aiding those looking for any excuse to impede a just investigation. Truly terrible and alarming decision making from the NY Times.
35