Trump: Rosenstein “mentioned certain things to me that are very positive about that event”
by digby
Fox News and the House wingnuts are very upset that Rosenstein isn’t coming before congress but the president is weirdly fine with it:
Steve Doocy: You know the rumor is the day after the midterms, you’re gonna fire him and you’re gonna fire the Attorney General.
Trump: Well I actually get along well with Rod
Doocy: (interrupts) Right but Mr. President, the people in your Administration, Rod Rosenstein, will not show up on Capitol Hill to, because Congress …
Trump: I was surprised at that. Actually I was surprised at that. I would think he would. He mentioned certain things to me that are very positive about that event and I would imagine that he’d want to put that down, and frankly whether you were under oath or not shouldn’t matter But he mentioned things to me that I would think would be fine for him to testify and so, you know when Congress calls. So I’m a little surprised that Rod wouldn’t do it.
This is what he’s talking about:
Rep. Jim Jordan said that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should be subpoenaed if he refuses to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee for his role in the FBI’s Russia probe and for allegations that he wanted to invoke the 25th Amendment against President Trump.
“He’s got to come in and answer questions,” Jordan, R-Ohio, said during an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.” “If it takes a subpoena, then that’s exactly what needs to be done.”
Rosenstein had been tentatively scheduled to appear Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee, but that meeting has been delayed. A House Judiciary Committee aide told The Hill that the panel does not have a time confirmed for Rosenstein to appear on Capitol Hill.
Jordan’s comments come just days after Trump declared that he has no plans to fire his deputy attorney general.
“He mentioned certain things to me that are very positive … I’m a little surprised.”
Please. Something has happened with all this and we don’t have clue about what exactly it is. And by “we” I mean the New York Times who said this on MSNBC earlier today:
Michael Schmidt: We don’t know. What is it about the president’s relationship with the Trump that Rosenstein has been able to keep him at bay? If Rosenstein has told him something that the president thinks is favorable to him, why is it that he doesn’t want to testify about it on Capitol Hill? It seems Rosenstein told him that it was sarcastic, at the same time not willing to go up to Capitol Hill. Going back further to earlier in the year, what has Rosenstein has done to manage this, to protect Mueller? It’s just one of these things that we don’t know and it’s one of these sort of mysteries that we won’t know until after Rosenstein is gone?
Schmidt is one of the reporters who “broke” the big story about Rosenstein and the wire, apparently uninterested in the fact that the New York Times was being used by their sources and without any concern for reporting the context that might make that clear. Maybe they could work on finding out exactly what in the hell happened there because they are right in the middle of it.
.