An immediate investigation must be launched into whether Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed wearing a wire to capture privileged conversations with President Trump, and also considered plotting Trump’s removal from office under the 25th Amendment.
If either of those allegations against Rosenstein is true, as two New York Times reporters alleged on Friday, Rosenstein should be fired without delay. For what it’s worth, Rosenstein disputes their report, saying, “Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.”
Regardless, there is no question that a prompt and vigorous investigation is now needed. That course of action is the only way that the truth can be established and public confidence in Rosenstein either retained or dissipated.
That said, Trump would be wrong to fire Rosenstein immediately. An official of otherwise impeccable integrity, Rosenstein’s vehement denial of the New York Times story must be taken seriously.
That brings us back to the investigation. It shouldn’t be that hard for a joint investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and the U.S. Inspector General’s office to establish the truth here. The report alleges that four individuals including then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe heard Rosenstein’s remarks in a meeting shortly after Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey back in 2017. The report also says that McCabe referenced Rosenstein’s comments in his notes.
So if the meeting did indeed take place and the notes exist, the DOJ and the IG can quite quickly come to a judgment as to whether Rosenstein said what he is alleged to have said, and whether he meant it in jest or seriously. The investigators can do so by interviewing all those who were in the room (the DOJ will have a record of the meeting participants), and taking their statements under oath. They can then confront Rosenstein with whatever they find.
To be sure, this is not an ideal scenario in any sense. Yet it is the only proportionate way of ensuring Rosenstein is treated fairly, and thus the cause of justice upheld. Because it’s not just Rosenstein who is at stake here. After all, Rosenstein carries immense responsibility in his role as deputy attorney general, especially in relation to his authority over special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. And that investigation matters not simply on its merits, but rather for the independence of the judiciary from the executive in upholding the law.
Of course, if Rosenstein is found to have made the comments as the report suggests, he cannot continue to hold his office. Regardless of commanding respect within government itself, Rosenstein would not be able to command the nonpartisan respect of objective Americans. And that retention of respect is an intrinsic requirement of our democracy, an ideal far more important than Rosenstein, Mueller, and Trump.
