Thursday, May 18, 2017

On Rosenstein Finally Doing What He Was Morally Obligated To Do

I am not taking back what I said about Rod Rosenstein now that what must be an unusual wave of criticism for him has forced him to do what he should have done, named a credible special prosecutor to do the investigation he had a hand in trying to hamper into Trump regime high crimes and treason. I didn't say anything that wasn't true and if there is a possibility that what I said helped pressure him to do the right thing, I'm happy to have said it.

As to whether or not his own sweet fat is out of the fire, that is yet to be seen.  I certainly think he must come clean about what he knows about Jeff Sessions' part in trying to come up with an excuse for Trump doing what he admitted to, trying to end the investigation into his own regime.  Jeff Sessions is a cancer on the Department of Justice and so on the country.  If Rosenstein conceals any wrong doing or even appearance of impropriety so as to let the hypocritical, Jefferson "Maximum Sentence" Sessions to get away with wrong doing, he belongs in the fire, as well.  But that's up to him. What's up to us is not being duped by him being pressured to reluctantly name the special prosecutor.  I haven't read his order doing so but if I do see it,  I'll be looking for foot snares and loop holes in it.  Rod Rosenstein has earned my distrust.

Update:  My brother told me that Rachel Maddow talked to Eric Holder about the document establishing the special prosecutor and he's got concerns that it may be too restrictive in how Robert Muller can follow up on crimes he discovers during his special investigation, concerns hinging on the word "directly" discovered matters as opposed to those discovered "indirectly."   If Rosenstein doesn't either remove those ambiguities or alters the order I'm not buying his good faith.

2 comments:

  1. Your note in the update is the problem with special prosecutors: too limited, and they give cover to crimes they can't investigate properly. Unlimited, and they create crimes by uncovering matters well beyond their original remit.

    The Starr investigation is the classic example. Appointed to look into Whitewater (a nothing burger of the first order), Starr eventually "got" Clinton on obstruction of justice charges and perjury for refusing to reveal under oath that he'd had oral sex from Monica Lewinsky. The whole Lewinsky angle only came up because "enemies" of Clinton got through to Starr, and Starr hared off down that road (perhaps because of a breach of security? If so, what did Trump do with the Russians in the Oval Office? If not, because Starr was a Pecksniffian prude who disapproved of extra-marital activities? But Clinton's acts with Lewinsky were not criminal, and his refusal to bluntly admit to it under oath was not perjury (because it wasn't material to any matter that could be charged under criminal law. Starr was not acting as a civil lawyer representing a plaintiff.).

    Hard to know how to set these things up so they are fair to everyone, in other words.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem started because the process that appointed Starr was that the panel of judges choosing the prosecutor was politically corrupt. He had a partisan, political agenda and he got away with pursuing it, the biggest irony is that the person who paid the most for that was the victim of Bill Clinton's adultery, Hillary Clinton. Well, that is if you don't count the rest of the world who are suffering due to that corrupt process now.

      It is a puzzle, how to hold such people accountable. Especially when people with no sense of shame so no sense of honor or morality hold power.

      Delete