While I try to post a picture on weekends, I don't want to fail to put in this record that today's testimony by Jeffrey A. Rosen, acting attorney general during the Trump administration, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, strikes me as being a game-changer. New York Times reporter Katie Benner broke the news way back in January that a relatively unknown lawyer in the Justice Department, Jeffrey Clark, worked secretly with then-president Donald Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Clark was a political appointee in the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice until he was moved in September 2020 to the civil division. Rosen replaced Attorney General William Barr when Barr resigned on December 23, 2020. But immediately, when Rosen refused to entertain the idea of overturning the election, Trump considered firing Rosen and replacing him with Clark. Rosen and his acting deputy attorney general, Richard P. Donoghue, along with top leaders in the Department of Justice all threatened to resign if Trump made the change, and the then-president backed down. The news that Clark and Trump were working together to overturn the election sparked congressional investigations in the House Oversight and Reform Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. On Wednesday July 28, from the House committee, we learned that Trump had pressured Rosen daily to help him overturn the election. And we learned that Donoghue had taken notes of the calls. On Friday, July 31, the House Oversight and Reform Committee released some of those notes. They were explosive. On December 27, Rosen said that the Department of Justice had concluded the election was legitimate and that it "can't + won't snap its fingers + change the outcome of the election." Trump replied that he just wanted the department to "say the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R[epublican] Congressmen." The next day, Clark tried to get Rosen and Donoghue to sign off on a letter claiming that the election had been fraudulent and saying that the Georgia legislature should appoint a different set of presidential electors on the grounds that the election there was full of irregularities. The Justice Department had already determined that the election was, in fact, legitimate, and not marred by fraud. Donoghue responded to Clark that "there is no chance that I would sign this letter or anything remotely like this…. [T]his is not even within the realm of possibility." Rosen wrote: "I confirmed again today that I am not prepared to sign such a letter." According to an article in the New York Times by Katie Benner today, Rosen has been in talks with the Department of Justice for months to determine what information he could offer without disclosing information covered by executive privilege. On July 27, the Department of Justice said it would not restrict the testimony of former officials to the House Oversight and Reform Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, and shortly after, former president Donald Trump said he would not sue to stop them from testifying. Clark did not comment, but in January he said that while he had "a candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the president," all of his official communications with Trump "were consistent with law." According to Benner, as soon as he got the all-clear, Rosen scheduled interviews with the congressional committees and with the inspector general of the Department of Justice to tell as much as he could of what he had seen before anyone tried to stop him. He met with the inspector general yesterday, and today he talked to the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than six hours. Richard P. Donoghue has also agreed to testify, as have other Department of Justice officials. What this means is that congressional investigating committees now have witnesses to Trump's efforts to overturn the election. With that in mind, it's worth noting that tonight the Senate voted 67-27 to move the bipartisan infrastructure bill forward, just hours after Trump called it a "disgrace" and warned, "It will be very hard for me to endorse anyone foolish enough to vote in favor of this deal." And yet, 18 Republicans joined the Democrats, reflecting the reality that 72% percent of Americans support the measure and going on the record against it, as Republicans did in March with the popular American Rescue Plan, is even less attractive now than it was then. Tonight's vote suggests that Republicans are not all going to continue to move in lockstep with the former president. Those cracks could well widen as more and more information about his administration comes out. —- Notes: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/27/us/politics/trump-officials-jan-6-testify.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/03/us/politics/trump-justice-dept-officials-testimony.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/jeffrey-clark-trump-justice-department-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/07/us/politics/jeffrey-rosen-trump-election.html |
Juan
- Going to church doesn't make you a Christian, any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
- You're never too old to learn something stupid.
- I'm supposed to respect my elders, but it's getting harder and harder for me to find one now.
No comments:
Post a Comment