told you to fire comby which is so untrue. so it is the combination that he was lying about it and then admitted that it was really russia which raises the whole obstruction issue. there are two scenes in this book that are not together but in our minds they come together. one is rod rosenstein goes into the white house after it is revealed that he wanted to wear a wire, and everyone thinks donald trump will fire him, and you remind us there was split screen coverage of the kavanaugh confirmation and roebs going into the white house. we expect him to be fired and he s not fired. so the question in your book is what did rod rosenstein say. in the oval office to keep his job and then the other scene is rod roebs is standing right there when the report comes out
screen coverage. he is expected to be fired and he is not fired. so the question in your book is what did rod rosenstein say. so what about him standing right there beside bill barr demolishing the mueller report. there you see the transf transformation in our fire eyes. and the price he paid for surviving was essentially to become the foot soldier for trump and stand there mutely while he heard barr make untrue characterizations of the mueller report. those meetings with trump are critical. the justice department was drafting the press release that he was fired when he went over there. he was being taken to the wood .
if you could do it all along, why do you have to put it in a memo? congressman jordan, first of all, i was because of general sessions recusal from the special counsel s investigation, i was also recused from that investigation, and so i was not i m asking. you said you were fully briefed you re asking me why at the time rod rosenstein i m asking you why two and a half months after the broadest order you can have, why did rod rosenstein say, hey, you could do this all along but now i m putting it in a memo. what really troubles me, mr. whitaker, right after that statement the final orders were within the scope of the allegation and within the scope of the order. right after that, you know what happens? everything is redacted. look at this. the whole darn thing. so if you could do it all along and you have to send a memo to him two and a half months later, and then you redact everything
that is still the policy of the department of justice. have you spoken to deputy attorney general rosenstein about his statements on invoking the 25th amendment in wire tapping president trump? i have seen the statements by deputy rosenstein that he made to the press regarding those statements, and i have no reason to believe that he did not that those statements were consistent with what he believed at the time. i m not sure i understood that. you said no reason to believe that they were not consistent, so there are a couple negatives there. do you believe they were consistent to what he believed at the time? i do. i believe that what deputy attorney general rosenstein said to the press when it was first reported about his discussion you re talking about his comments to the press, not the ones about him wearing a wire? i m talking about deputy attorney general rosenstein s comments to the press after it was reported that he had considered the wire andinvoking
the 25th amendment. did you talk to him about these issues at all? again, i m not here to talk about the internal discussions that i had this is a critical issue. with all due respect, this has nothing to do with an ongoing investigation. what it has got to do with is mr. rosenstein in his role as an unbiased overseer of the mueller investigation. it has to do with his capacity to be unbiased. i m not asking whether i m not trying to get into the substance or even the periphery. i want to know, though, did you have a conversation with mr. rosenstein about his comments as reported? this is an important question to you, but i m not going to answer questions about deputy general rosenstein. i m fulfilling the duties of the