"The Justice Department will not bring federal charges against a New York City police officer in the death of Eric Garner, ending a yearslong inquiry..."

"... into a case that sharply divided officials and prompted national protests over excessive force by the police, according to three people briefed on the decision....  A state grand jury declined to bring charges against Officer Pantaleo in December 2014.... But a federal investigation into Mr. Garner’s death proceeded, sharply dividing the Justice Department under four attorneys general and two presidents.... The attorney general at the time of the death, Eric H. Holder Jr., said that evidence strongly suggested that the federal government should bring charges against Officer Pantaleo.... While career civil rights prosecutors agreed with Mr. Holder, prosecutors under the United States attorney in Brooklyn, Loretta E. Lynch, sharply disagreed.... After Ms. Lynch succeeded Mr. Holder in April 2015, officials... worked to convince her that the officers had used excessive force and had likely violated Mr. Garner’s civil rights.... But the case stalled again after Mr. Trump won the presidential election and appointed Jeff Sessions as his attorney general. Civil rights division prosecutors recommended that charges be brought, and they asked the deputy attorney general at the time, Rod J. Rosenstein, about indicting Officer Pantaleo. But Mr. Rosenstein did not allow the department to move forward on an indictment, and many officials said they believed that there was a good chance that the government would lose the case should it go to trial...."

From "Eric Garner’s Death Will Not Lead to Federal Charges for N.Y.P.D. Officer/The decision came five years after Mr. Garner’s dying words — 'I can’t breathe' — became a rallying cry" (NYT).

Rosenstein resigns.

Axios.

I know, Kavanaugh and sex sex sex are so distracting that this big story will just waft by unnoticed....

ADDED: Everything is spinning out of control...



(Image is what you see at Axios, displaying from the next story down after the one I link to.)

AND: The post title is inaccurate. I'm seeing now that he's only considering resigning and that Rosenstein is currently at the White House and we're waiting to hear more.

MORE: WaPo is saying that R has offered to resign.

PLUS: "With Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s ouster, Solicitor General Noel Francisco is slated to oversee the Robert Mueller probe under the Justice Department’s succession plan" (Washington Times).

Vox: "Meet Noel Francisco, the man who will oversee the Mueller probe if Trump fires Rosenstein":

"Rosenstein Suggested He Secretly Record Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment."

NYT headline.

The deputy attorney general, 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....

Mr. Rosenstein was just two weeks into his job. He had begun overseeing the Russia investigation and played a key role in the president’s dismissal of Mr. Comey by writing a memo critical of his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But Mr. Rosenstein was caught off guard when Mr. Trump cited the memo in the firing, and he began telling people that he feared he had been used.

Mr. Rosenstein made the remarks about secretly recording Mr. Trump and about the 25th Amendment in meetings and conversations with other Justice Department and F.B.I. officials. Several people described the episodes, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations....

Thanks to commenter readering for saying — on my post about the "Battle of Brett" Drudge graphic — "Much better Drudge headline now."



Drudge rarely uses the siren in recent years, so it has a big impact now.

"'It’s fantastic,' Mr. Trump said about his rapport with Mr. Rosenstein when a spokesman told him The Wall Street Journal was seeking a comment."

"'We have great relationship. Make sure you tell them that.' Mr. Rosenstein declined to comment for this article. In a statement, a Justice Department spokeswoman said he has a 'productive working relationship' with Mr. Trump. As the Mueller investigation proceeds, their relationship may sour. Mr. Trump has consistently called it a 'witch hunt,' and Mr. Rosenstein has said protecting the probe is a priority. But the rapprochement may signal that, despite the president’s public statements, the investigation isn’t in immediate danger of being halted. Senior White House officials privately praise Mr. Rosenstein’s handling of demands by congressional Republicans to share internal documents on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigations of Hillary Clinton’s email server and any Trump campaign contacts with Russia. Some Trump allies—such as Reps. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.) and Jim Jordan (R., Ohio)—accuse Mr. Rosenstein of stonewalling, but White House officials say they view their effort to impeach Mr. Rosenstein as a sideshow. Indeed, the president has recently come to rely on Mr. Rosenstein, the No. 2 at the Justice Department whom the White House increasingly views as the No. 1, given the president’s disenchantment with Attorney General Jeff Sessions over his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation because he served on the Trump campaign...."

From "'It’s Fantastic!' Trump Warms to Rosenstein/Nearly fired by the president, the No. 2 Justice official—the man in charge of the Mueller probe—builds a rapport" in The Wall Street Journal, which seems available without a subscription. I got in anyway.

"The special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election charged 13 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations on Friday with illegally using social media platforms to sow political discord..."

The NYT reports, as I'm sure you already know. Sorry to take so long putting up a post, but I sense that you've begun the conversation in another thread. We were out running errands and walking on Picnic Point, but we listened to the news on the car radio [tuned to Fox News TV]. The newswoman exclaimed "Wow! Wow! Wow!" but I did not see the big wow. So there were some Russians trolling social media. Or is the "wow" that nobody on the Trump team is said to have done anything wrong?

“The nature of the scheme was the defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear that they were ordinary American political activists,” Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing Mr. Mueller’s inquiry, said in a brief news conference on Friday afternoon at the Justice Department....

All were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Three defendants were also charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants with aggravated identity theft....

The goal of the Russian operation, which was dubbed the “translator project” and began in 2014 with a monthly budget of $1.25 million, was “information warfare against the United States,” the indictment alleges.

"Information warfare." In other words: speech.

Some of the Russians, posing as Americans and seeking a coordinated effort, “communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign and other political activists.” They communicated with members of the campaign, volunteers, supporters and grass-roots workers, court papers show.

"Unwitting" — none of the Trump people knew.

Individuals involved in the conspiracy traveled to and around the United States, visiting at least eight states, court papers show, and worked with an unidentified American. That person advised them to focus their efforts on what they viewed as “purple” election battleground states, including Colorado, Virginia and Florida, the indictment said.

Ha! The "person" forgot Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan — just like the Clinton campaign.

The indictment cites a series of political advertisements paid for by the Russians, all of them against Mrs. Clinton and in favor of Mr. Trump. “Hillary is a Satan, and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is,” one advertisement created by the Russians stated.

That's ludicrously unsophisticated. Doesn't even sound American. Who says "a Satan"? Either you are Satan — the one character — or you're one of his minions — and the word would be "demon" or "devil." Why did these people bother, and why should we care?

While the indictment does not directly accuse the Russian government of running the operation, American intelligence agencies have said that Russian President Vladimir V. Putin authorized a multipronged campaign to boost Mr. Trump’s political chances and damage Mrs. Clinton.

In other words, Putin is off the hook, according to the indictment, and the Times has to go back to "American intelligence agencies have said" to breathe life into the Putin monster.

Trump leverages the anti-Trump press.

That's my theory, as I read — at Politico — "Trump escalates his war with U.S. law enforcement after memo release/The president hinted openly that he might yet fire senior officials over claims of bias against him."

What did Trump say that "hinted openly that he might yet fire senior officials"?

A reporter asked him if he's "likely to fire Rosenstein" and if he still had "confidence in" someone whose name I couldn't catch (maybe Rosenstein). And Trump just said "You figure that one out."

So the press takes that no-comment comment and runs with it, basically reporting on The Future. What might Trump do?

I was laughing about this last night as I tried to watch CNN. The Nunes memo had just come out, and the night before the memo came out, the talk had been about what might be in the memo, i.e., News of The Future. Once the memo was out, it was old news, because we'd already talked about what was in it, back when it was News of the Future. So the subject had to be who Trump will/will not fire in the coming Saturday Night Massacre.

Trump doesn't need to move a muscle. The media throw his weight around for him.

Trump's executive power and the political cost of trying to fire Mueller.

On "Meet the Press" this morning, Chuck Todd asked Senator Joe Manchin (Democrat of West Virginia) whether he was concerned about the report that Trump ordered the firing of Special Counsel Bob Mueller. Manchin said:

Chuck, here's the thing, you have a person who's the president of the United States that has been totally in control of his life, personally and his professional. He's been very successful. He's been able basically to either do things incentive-wise through checks, bonuses, money or organization or organization changes, things of this sort. He's had total control. Now all of a sudden he's understanding there's equal branches and there's equal powers. But also there's checks and balances. He's having a hard time with that. Hopefully I think that'll all come. But right now what you hear saying and what he's going to do. Let's see if he moves on [Deputy Attorney General Rod] Rosenstein.... I think at that time there'll be Democrats and Republicans saying, "Time to protect the judicial system and the three branches of government having equal power." Absolutely.

Does Manchin think the Special Counsel is part of the judicial branch?

Later in the show, Todd talked to former C.I.A. director Robert Gates and asked him, "Do you think Congress should do whatever it took to protect [Mueller] if somehow the president decided to fire him?" Gates, making a lot more sense than Manchin, said:

Well, this is tough, because it is an executive branch appointment. And I don't know how you, how you, how the Congress extends an umbrella of protection legally through legislation over what is an executive branch nomination or appointment. I would say this. I think that the one thing that can be done is to try and figure out how to make it clear the magnitude of the political cost that would be incurred, should he be fired.

It is the power of the executive branch that is at issue, though Gates doesn't attempt to explain why. Instead he, wisely, shifts the focus to "the political cost" to the President if he were to try to fire Mueller. I think they're talking about unconstitutional limitations on the President's power to remove an executive branch official, so the President's opponents (and supporters) ought to keep the political pressure on the President to endure the investigation and let us see the outcome.

But if Manchin and others want to keep accusing Trump of threatening the constitutional balance of power among the 3 branches of government, the President's constitutional authority should be defended with something more than the kind of subtle nudge we heard from Gates. And yet, it's probably not in the President's interest to lecture us legalistically about the extent of his constitutional power here because it would have a political cost.

Did Rod Rosenstein tamp down suspicions about the lack of constraint on the Mueller investigation?

On "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, Chris Wallace interviewed Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel. Here's the part of the interview that deals with the suspicion some people have that perhaps Mueller is inadequately constrained and out to take down President Trump. I've added boldface:

WALLACE: When you appointed Mueller, and you were the one who did, you had to sign an order authorizing the appointment of a special counsel, and you said that he was authorized to investigate any coordination with Russia and -- I want to put these words on the screen -- any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation. My question is, does that mean that there are no red lines that Mueller or any special counsel can investigate under the terms of your order, anything he finds?

ROSENSTEIN: Chris, the special counsel is subject to the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice, and we don’t engage in fishing expeditions. Now, that order that you read, that doesn’t detail specifically who may be the subject of the investigation... because we don’t reveal that publicly. But Bob Mueller understands and I understand the specific scope of the investigation and so, it’s not a fishing expedition.

WALLACE: I understand it’s not a fishing expedition, but you say any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation. In the course of his investigation of the issues that he is looking at, if he finds evidence of a crime, can he look at that?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, Chris, if he finds evidence of a crime that’s within the scope of what Director Mueller and I have agreed is the appropriate scope of the investigation, then he can. If it’s something that’s outside that scope, he needs to come to the acting attorney general, at this time, me, for a permission to expand his investigation. But we don’t talk about that publicly. And so, the speculation you’ve seen in the news media, that’s not anything that I’ve said. It’s not anything Director Mueller said. We don’t know who’s saying it or how credible those sources are.

WALLACE: I mean, people ask about this, of course, because you had Ken Starr and Whitewater, and this began with a failed real estate deal in Arkansas and ended up with Monica Lewinsky. To expand, he would need to get approval from you to expand the investigation?

ROSENSTEIN: That’s correct. Just as did Ken Starr. You know, Ken Starr received an expansion we believe was initiated by the Department of Justice by Janet Reno that resulted in that investigation....

Watch the whole interview:

"Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation."

The NYT reports.

“I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authorities and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,” [Deputy Attorney General Rod J.] Rosenstein said in a statement. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination.”

Mueller was the FBI director just before Comey. He began as FBI director on September 4, 2001, that is, immediately before 9/11. He was appointed by George W. Bush and not only continued under Obama, but was asked to stay on an extra 2 years beyond the normal 10 year term.

ADDED: I see no reason not to say this is the perfect move.

AND: NBC reports:

Former Trump aides Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort have emerged as key figures in the FBI's investigation into Russian campaign interference....

Officials say multiple grand jury subpoenas and records requests have been issued in connection with the two men during the past six months in the ongoing probe into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian attempts to influence the election, an inquiry that will now be overseen by former FBI Director Robert Mueller....

ALSO: This is useful: "The Comey memo offers no proof for impeachment of Trump."

"President Trump appeared to acknowledge Tuesday that he revealed highly classified information to Russia — a stunning confirmation of a Washington Post story..."

"... and a move that contradicted his own White House team after it scrambled to deny the report," WaPo reports.

“As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety,” Trump wrote Tuesday morning. “Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.”...

Trump's tweets undercut his administration's frantic effort Monday night to contain the damaging report. The White House trotted out three senior administration officials — National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Powell, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — to attack the reports.

The president's admission also follows a familiar pattern. Last week, after firing FBI director James B. Comey, the White House originally claimed that the president was acting in response to a memo provided by Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.

It looks like they're not merely lying, they're incompetently lying, failing to get their story straight before they start talking. That's the simplest explanation of what we are seeing. Or do you think it's some "genius" move and I'm just failing to see the brilliance?

I wonder how McMaster, Powell, and Tillerson feel about the way they were used. Did Trump exploit them and then immediately blindside them? If so, would they resign and talk about it?

ADDED: Ben Sasse explains it: McMaster didn't really say what the media were saying he said:

“When I look at McMaster’s quote, it’s a pretty technical quote,” Mr. Sasse said. “I think it’s actually something quite different from a full rebuttal of the story.”

Incredibly, the NYT article where I got the Sasse quote, doesn't have the verbatim "pretty technical quote" from McMaster that Sasse is talking about. It only says: "General McMaster told reporters on Monday that The Post’s account “as reported” was 'false'...". I had to google it! Here:

The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time, at no time, [were] intelligen[ce] sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of the State, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. [They're] on the record accounts should outweigh anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn't happen.