Daniel Goldman Profile picture
Sep 23, 2018 12 tweets 3 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter

As a prosecutor who had cases covered by the national media, I’d like to offer my perspective on the @nytimes piece on #Rosenstein.

I don’t doubt that @nytmike and @adamgoldmanNYT sourced this story in typical top-notch fashion. But their reporting is only as good as their sources’ accuracy. Having been on the other side when @nytimes and others reported on my cases based on leaks, consider:

1) sources get things wrong on the best of days, even without an axe to grind. This is bc sources are usually at least one step removed (if not more) from the nitty gritty details, and details matter.

2) From the way this is sourced - several people briefed on the meeting or who had read memos about it - it does not seem like any sources were in the room for the mtg, or heard follow-up convos. The one possible exception to this is McCabe, who is reported to be a source.

3) it goes without saying that context matters, and being in the room would allow for an understanding of tone that reading memos or being briefed wouldn’t necessarily provide. This is particularly true when other sources in the room say it was said sarcastically.

5) the biggest issue I have with the report is the far-fetched nature of both propositions: wiring up (NOT wiretapping) on the president and a push to invoke the 25th Am. As to the latter, RR is not even a cabinet official, so it would really be a stretch for him to do that.

6) As to the former, in the normal case, the FBI has extensive protocols and layers of authorization to get approval for an undercover recording of a subject of an investigation. This would not be a normal case, and the pres was not yet under investigation for obstruction.

The article does not address these protocols and how that would impact the determination that RR was serious about it. To me, it is preposterous that anyone in RR’s position would seriously consider wiring up on the president under these circumstances.

7) In considering whether RR made comments in jest or seriously, the story does not seem to adequately consider the facts that a) RR had not been on the job for long and b) that, by all accounts, RR is a measured, meticulous, cautious pros - both inconsistent w seriousness.

8) If McCabe (or his attorneys) are a source - and plenty of indication that is the case - one must take his comments w a grain of salt, partic where interpret matters, given his history of conflict with RR and his axe to grind with DOJ for referring him for crim invest.

In sum, the notion of wiring up on pres or pushing for 25th am are far-fetched, extreme, and cumbersome actions that are inconsistent with RR’s character and reputation. Couple that w fact that sources weren’t in the room, and at least one may have an axe to grind...

And this seems like it may be a case where the sources embellished or exaggerated the true nature of what happened, something I personally witnessed directly with regard to cases I worked on.


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Daniel Goldman

Daniel Goldman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @danielsgoldman

Oct 5, 2018
Let’s debunk this whole “no corroboration” straw man once and for all.

1) you don’t need corroboration. Ford’s compelling and credible testimony, partic in the case of Kav’s less-than-credible response, is sufficient in court and thus certainly for these purposes.

2) corroboration is NOT narrowly defined as “someone else who witnessed the same event.” Corrob comes in all forms, incl docs (Safeway records, calendars), prior consistent statements, design of the house, etc. Unlikely anyone not in the room wld remember party 36 yrs ago.

3) There IS corrob here for Dr Ford. She remembers the people Kav hung out with, there is a July 1 calendar entry about a small party that included the people she said were there (and others, who could have come later or she didn’t know), and prior consistent statements.

Read 6 tweets
Aug 26, 2018
THREAD: There has been a lot of confusion about what is going on in the Michael Cohen SDNY case and where it goes from. As a prosecutor in the SDNY for 10 years handling both organized fraud and white collar/securities fraud cases, this is my best guess as to where we are now. 1/
Cohen pled guilty to a straight plea agreement, not a cooperation agreement. And, even though Cohen seems desperate to cooperate, it sounds like he did not meet with the SDNY to explore cooperation before his plea. I see two potential reasons why that happened: 2/
1) the SDNY wanted to charge him before considering cooperation, perhaps in part bc Cohen said earlier he wanted to evaluate the charges against him before deciding on coop or perhaps to charge him before the election moratorium, and then begin the lengthy cooperation process. 3/
Read 15 tweets
Jun 3, 2018
Technically, @jedshug may be correct (though I’m not at all convinced that a proceeding was anticipated at this time), but practically, no prosecutor worth his/her salt would charge witness tampering on these facts. Two important reasons why:
1) Did Don Jr adopt this statement? Statements/affidavits are often drafted for others but the question is whether the affiant adopted and agreed with it.
2) This was a false statement to the media/public, not to investigators. And there is no indication that they knew or anticipated that there would be an investigation related to the substance of the statement. (For the same reason, it is not “standard” obstruction of justice.)
Read 6 tweets
Jun 2, 2018
A few thoughts after my 1st appearance on @IngrahamAngle and seeing responses on twitter:

1) We are a remarkably partisan nation right now. I have no idea whether anyone in the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election, but the right does not seem to care. 1/
2) the whataboutism and misdirection from the right is pervasive. As is the degree to which folks on the far right declare things as fact when they can’t know. Say what you want about Albana and his policies, but the degree of venom directed at him personally is unwarranted. 2/
3) Whatever comes out of the upcoming IG report, it does not mean that Trump or others did not ALSO commit crimes. Those are separate issues. Even if the FBI mishandled the FISA process, or wrote improper texts, that does not mean that campaign ppl did not collude with Russia. 3/
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!