Read on Twitter
THREAD
As a prosecutor who had cases covered by the national media, I’d like to offer my perspective on the @nytimes piece on #Rosenstein.
1/
As a prosecutor who had cases covered by the national media, I’d like to offer my perspective on the @nytimes piece on #Rosenstein.
1/
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:
2/
2/
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.
3/
3/
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/
3/
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.
4/
4/
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.
5/
5/
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.
6/
6/
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/
7/
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/
8/
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.
9/
9/
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...
10/
10/
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.
END
END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
