Response to your reporting. He said, quote, the New York Times story is factually incorrect. I will not respond on a story thats biased against the department and 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. I want to give you a chance to respond to that. I also want to point out when he says there is no basis, hes talking the present tense. Hes not saying, i never thought there was a basis. Yeah. That was my read. I mean im not going to parse rods statement. I think, myself and other news outlets have all now, including cnn, have recorded the basic facts that are now in dispute. The two basic facts are rod raised the idea of wearing a wire and in a second basic fact, in a memo Andrew Mccabe road that Special Counsel has rod raced the idea of the 25th
release of the transcripts of the witnesses in the russian investigation. The republicans refused. Mr. Nunes refused
of the president from office, but the mere fact that the deputy attorney general might have discussed, gee, is the president out of his mind, i think that is in and of itself pretty remarkable even if he didn t advocate for it. jeff, if you were donald trump, would you want rod rosenstein working there? no. and i think he s gone. i think the day after the election if not the hour after the polls close, both sessions and rosenstein are gone and we ll have an extraordinary fight over who the replacement is and whether that person can be confirmed because that person or those people will be the people deciding robert mueller s fate. senator santorum, if you were still in congress, would you want to get to the bottom of this? your party has control, they can summon rosenstein to the hill right away. no. i don t think it s really necessary for congress to get involved in this. it s a matter between the president and his number two man
well, if it s a joke, i think it might be appropriate. i think we ve got to look at a number of factors here. one is, we are in a constitutional crisis. part of that crisis is, for instance, there ought to be committees of congress to which mr. rosenstein could explain what happened, what he said, and there be a bipartisan committee of congress at which some facts could come out in an impartial way and we would learn the full story after the new york times has broken this hugely important piece of reporting. unfortunately, there is no such committee because we re in a constitutional crisis where the congress of the united states is totally dysfunctional. on top of that, we have a president of the united states who s contemptuous of the rule of law, that one of the things that mr. rosenstein, we know, has been concerned about for months and months, is that contempt for the rule of law,
don t want to have this in the middle of the campaign. carl, is it appropriate to have him talking whether it was jokinging or not about surreptitiously recording the president of the united states? well, if it s a joke, i think it might be appropriate. i think we ve got to look at a number of factors here. one is we are in a constitutional crisis. one of those is, for instance, there ought to be committees of congress to which mr. rosenstein could explain what happened, what he said, and there be a bipartisan committee of congress at which some facts could come out in an impartial way and we would learn the full story after the new york times has broken this huge important piece of reporting. unfortunately there is no such committee because we re in a constitutional crisis where the congress of the united states is totally dysfunctional. on top of that, we have a
that s what a lot of this is all about. do you see congress at some point wanting to question rosenstein about what he said or didn t say? i noticed before we went on the air, a number of tweets, one from a member of the house judiciary committee asking that there be hearings where rosenstein and everybody in the meeting as well as the documents be brought forward so they can be seen. anderson, another thing on what would happen if he did fire rosenstein to mueller, the next person the last time i looked, the next person who has a confirmed post in the rankings in the seniority rankings of the leadership is the solicitor general, and that s who would take charge of the investigation at that point. anderson, here s the important thing to keep in mind about rod rosenstein also. right now there s negotiations going on about the president testifying, and if bob mueller decides that he wants to