To: Brumar89 who wrote (1016946 ) 5/21/2017 4:44:38 PM From: Brumar89 Respond to of 1577918 Did Rod Rosenstein let it slip that he may have been witness to a crime? Though regularly drowned out by the clanging of major developments— I mean , holy crap! —one of the biggest guessing games in Washington right now revolves around Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and his role in James Comey’s firing. Specifically: What the hell was he thinking? I was struck by this exchange between reporters and Congressman Jim Himes, who sat in on a briefing Rosenstein provided to the full House of Representatives today. Himes, according to The Washington Post , “recalled the ‘dissonant moment’ when Rosenstein refused to say ‘who had asked him, if anyone had asked him to write his memorandum.’” “He said, ‘That is [Special Counsel] Bob Mueller’s purview,’ and that was puzzling to a lot of us,” said Himes, a member of the House Intelligence Committee. It strikes me as fairly revelatory that the question of who was involved in laying the pretext for firing Comey is now a matter for the special counsel to examine. Rosenstein’s representations here read like a tacit admission that, in the wind-up to the firing, he may have been witness to a crime—the obstruction of justice, perhaps. And if Rosenstein thinks that’s possible, it’s worth considering both the text of the memo itself, his selection of a Comey ally as a special counsel, and everything he’s told members of Congress in a new context. Remember, Rosenstein has told Congress that Trump made it clear he intended to fire Comey before Rosenstein wrote the memo, and that the memo was “ not a statement of reasons to justify a for-cause termination .” Rosenstein is acting like a law enforcer confronted with a subject—who just happens to be his boss—trying to inculpate him in wrongdoing. New Republic