Rod Rosenstein’s Insurrection

I left a comment two hours ago. Where did it go? Discussing the president's fitness for office is necessary for Article IV of the 25th Amendment to be invoked. If discussing the president's fitness is an "insurrection," then invoking the 25th Amendment is impossible, making it moot. An amendment can only be made moot by another amendment (like the repeal of prohibition). Therefore your characterization of Rosenstein's discussions is inaccurate and anti-Constitutional. Reporting on facts is expected of a newspaper. Mischaracterizing those facts to attack a public official doing his job as an act of corruption is not reporting facts. The fact that numerous members of Trump's own cabinet, and numerous Republicans in Congress and elsewhere have questioned Trump's fitness for office is the real story, not the fact that Rosenstein happened to be one of those people. Trump is blatantly unwilling and unable to put the business of We the People before his self aggrandizement. Every time Trump uses his personal interests as a measure of his official decisions that is an act of corruption. He has even nominated a Justice to obstruct justice, expecting him to help end the Mueller investigation. The fact that the Deputy Attorney General and many others question Trump's fitness for office is a reflection on Trump, not Rosenstein. It is Trump that is leading an insurrection from the Oval Office, against We the People. Why is the NY Times helping Trump turn reality on its head?

Please consider a follow up podcast with Michael S. Schmidt and challenge his decision to make the report on Rosenstein’s alleged behaviour as this had had the potential to seriously threaten the Special Counselor Mueller. Thank you and kind regards, Steven

You never asked his source on the alleged “wear a wire” strategy. So your “series” includes one unsourced allegation, one disputed account by McCabe, and one completely overt and totally justified appointment of special counsel. And for this nothingburger you and your colleagues are jeopardizing the future of our country. Well done, you.

The Republicans may want to take it easy on Mr. Rosenstein, lest he reveal to an overseigh committee just how bizzare and dangerous things were when he first ascended into his critical, current position.

Given this administration's behavior, I think it absurd to pretend that Rosenstien did anything wrong by merely suggesting to use an article of the Constitution. Maybe in Rome you either pull off getting the guy out of office, or you are killed, but we are a nation of laws, and that means it is a violation of his free speech, for him to suffer a consequence. Indeed, this guy holds the office where he certainly should suggest that if it is that case. MOST of America never wanted Trump in. What happened to our brains?

Like Brutus stabbing Caesar in the back , Rosinstein thought Comey had to go in order to install Mueller .

Rather than "Will those proposals cost him a job?" you should be asking "Will our greed cost America?" But you didn't ask yourselves that, and you don't care.

How can you call this an "insurrection? Why are you spinning Rosenstein as a traitor? Article IV of the 25th Amendment demands that if a president is unfit for office that the cabinet and possibly Congress vote to remove him. In order for the 25th Amendment to function, members of the government have to be able to discuss the president's fitness for office without it being called an insurrection. When Reagan's new Chief of Staff, Howard Baker asked his staff to monitor Reagan for signs of dementia, you don't call that an insurrection. If members of the cabinet and their subordinates are considered usurpers for merely questioning the president's fitness for office, or taking action to remove him for that, then the 25th Amendment would be moot. But an Amendment to the Constitution can only be made moot by another Amendment (as in the repeal of prohibition). Following the instructions of of the 25th Amendment cannot be corruption or "insurection" under our Constitution. The NY Times itself has run numerous stories about other members of the cabinet and Congress questioning Trump's fitness for office, without accusing the questioners of insurrection Why are you singling out Rod Rosenstein, who stands between Trump and the U.S. government's investigation of Russian interference in our elections as some kind of traitor for doing his job? Trump is unable and unwilling to put We the People and the Constitution above his personal interests. Trump's corruption is the insurrection.

Michael, I listen to your pod cast today, as I do every other day, and was interrupt by a thought several times. I don't understand why Rod Rosenstein's actions are being seen as negative. Isn't it a good thing to have considered the 25th amendment for a president that might not be able to do his job?

Please don’t handle this with a podcast. Please provide a written, coherent account.

Confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories, plays a very interesting role in this wheels-within-wheels drama. And which faction’s confirmation bias are we talking about, one may ask. Trump’s seeming complacency (at least so far) is, I believe, a result of Hannity’s cautioning of a “deep state set up,” which is, to most reasonable people, a confirmation bias reaction itself. Were Rosenstein’s concerns in the 8 day period, and the continuing concerns of the author(s) of the anonymous op-ed, a reflection of a different confirmation bias, or are they the collective prudent judgment of responsible and experienced government officials mindful of their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States? You be the judge.