Archive

ShareThis Page
McCabe memos say Rod Rosenstein considered secretly recording Trump | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

McCabe memos say Rod Rosenstein considered secretly recording Trump

258985AP18264653451658
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is denying a report in The New York Times that he suggested last year that he secretly record President Trump in the White House to expose the chaos in the administration. Rosenstein says the story is ‘inaccurate and factually incorrect.’

WASHINGTON — Memos written by Andrew McCabe, then the acting FBI director, say deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein suggested he secretly record his talks with President Trump, and that Rosenstein discussed possibly trying to remove him from office, according to people familiar with the matter.

The account, first reported by The New York Times, paints Rosenstein as so concerned in May 2017 in the wake of Trump’s firing of then-FBI director James Comey that he contemplated secretly recording conversations with the president. He also initiated discussions about invoking the 25th amendment, which details how the Cabinet can decide whether a president is no longer able to discharge the duties of the job, one of the McCabe memos said.

McCabe was fired earlier this year, and a grand jury is weighing possible charges against him for allegedly misleading investigators in a leak probe.

McCabe’s lawyer, Michael Bromwich, said in a statement that his client “drafted memos to memorialize significant discussions he had with high level officials and preserved them so he would have an accurate, contemporaneous record of those discussions. When he was interviewed by the special counsel more than a year ago, he gave all of his memos — classified and unclassified — to the special counsel’s office. A set of those memos remained at the FBI at the time of his departure in late January 2018. He has no knowledge of how any member of the media obtained those memos.”

Rosenstein denied the account.

“The New York Times’s story is inaccurate and factually incorrect,” Rosenstein said. “I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda. But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.”

People familiar with the 2017 discussions — and the memos written about the discussions — offered wildly divergent accounts of what was said and what was meant.

The key meeting took place at a time of high stress and concern within the upper echelons of the Justice Department and the FBI. Comey had just been fired, and McCabe, like many in the FBI, was deeply upset about that action by Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.

Comey’s firing also alarmed Justice Department officials, but they had an additional concern. Rosenstein had written a key memo criticizing Comey’s handling of the earlier FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for government business. That memo was used by the White House as a central justification for Comey’s firing, but many law enforcement officials suspected that was a pretext, and that Rosenstein had been manipulated into providing cover for possible obstruction of justice.

Rosenstein was under tremendous pressure from Congress to show that both he and the entire Justice Department had not caved to political pressure from the White House.

In that setting, senior Justice Department and FBI officials gathered to discuss how to proceed with the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and any possible conspiracy with Americans.

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.

A third person familiar with the discussions said McCabe had privately asserted previously that Rosenstein suggested invoking the 25th amendment and the idea of a senior law enforcement officials wearing a wire while talking to Trump.

A key issue now is how the White House will respond to the revelations and disputes, as some high-profile conservatives suggested the new information might be grounds to fire Rosenstein, who is overseeing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe.

The president’s son Donald Trump, Jr. tweeted: “No one is shocked that these guys would do anything in their power to undermine” the president.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.