Rosen Offers Range Of Excuses For Not Telling Congress Anything About Trump’s Bids To Overturn Election | Talking Points Memo

Former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen stonewalled a House Oversight Committee hearing on the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, citing privileges that nobody had claimed in a bid to avoid discussing what former President Trump asked of him as he sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election. 


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1373873

So Rosen thinks he has no obligation.to reveal that Trump asked him to commit crimes? Spent a lot of time pointing out that the DOJ did not participate in phony challenges to the election results. This is something we should be able to take as a given, not some special display of courage we should be grateful for. If he was under pressure to take illegal.actions he has a right and a duty to tell us.

19 Likes

Your photograph of Jeffrey Rosen at the top of this article has a major error. Jeffrey Rosen is in no way Honorable.

9 Likes

A few answers later, he made it sound like the conversation was private due to executive privilege. It’s unclear to what privilege Rosen may have been referring.

So we are back the Trumper Schrodinger’s Cat interpretation of Executive Privilege: where they are not formally invoking it (cause only the President can do so), but they can’t answer the question because the President could invoke it in the future.

Apparently, the fact that the President-in-question is no longer President and, therefore cannot actually invoke Executive Privilege anymore, makes no difference to the logic.

22 Likes

In Georgia, such discussions are, themselves, felonies. I should think that’s true in other jurisdictions, as well. Failure to tell appropriate authorities about it would be misprision of a felony, which is also a felony.

16 Likes

Did anybody expect Jeffrey Rosen to testify candidly?
There was a reason that all of the manipulation went on to maneuver Rosen into the position of acting Attorney General - and it was because he would willingly implement any and all elements of what ever conspiratorial schemes that Trump desired … and would behave not like the Attorney General of the United States - nope - he would behave like he was a personal attorney with loyalty only to Donald J. Trump.

There will be NO honest answers provided by Jeffery Rosen.

15 Likes

Frankly, the Chair should have found him in contempt, given him one chance to speak the truth and then had the Sgt at Arms lock him up. Right away.

10 Likes

Rosen also declined to describe what took place on Jan. 6 as an “insurrection,”…

“It was nothing more than a simple surrection.”

5 Likes

I wonder how much of this was him trying to cover for Trump, and how much of it was him being worried about the DoJ investigations that are going on, and saying something that would disagree with what actually happened. These folks are very exposed, and there are people who will actually investigate instead of cover up whatever happened. This kind of performance isn’t allowed if you’re talking to investigators, you answer questions or say nothing and hope the trial goes your way.

It’s really important that the DoJ get through their investigations by September next year, at least far enough so we see some convictions or trials and plea bargains. If they can do that, then at least some of the nonsense about the election and insurrection will lose its power, and without that anger suffusing it supporters the Republican party is in real trouble.

16 Likes

Or, we could just hang him, and then, if anyone complains about it, we can just explain that WE are the true victims. I mean, that does seem to work.

6 Likes

“We’ll see whose logic is correct after the 2024 election.”

7 Likes

Executive privilege is one thing, and if (very big if) any such privilege existed at the time of the communications, it continues to exist. But there’s no attorney-client privilege between the AG and the president. Despite the way Barr, et al, acted, the president is not the AG’s client. The USA is his/her client.

Merrick Garland (who also testified on the Hill today) understands these principles.

22 Likes

Former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen stonewalled a House Oversight Committee hearing on the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, citing privileges that nobody had claimed in a bid to avoid discussing what former President Trump asked of him as he sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
… … …
It’d be interesting to see Rosen’s reaction after a night in the Hoosegow in a cell with Bubba.

7 Likes

Rosen also declined to describe what took place on Jan. 6 as an “insurrection,” instead saying he found the events “abhorrent.”

Remember when GOPFOXLAND was all in a lather because Obama supposedly wouldn’t use the words “Islamic terrorism”?

10 Likes

Why in god’s name are none of these people ever punished?

18 Likes

Money

10 Likes

Except before Trump, the President had to invoke the privilege himself for it to apply. An administration official couldn’t just refuse to answer a question because the President could invoke the privilege at some point in the future.

What the Trump administration realized is that even if they were in the wrong, neither Congress or the Courts would truly hold them to account for their behavior.

18 Likes

For God’s sake Speaker Pelosi, it’s time to change the House rules and invoke inherent contempt. Don’t bother farting around with the courts. Learn the lesson. And be a co-equal branch.

12 Likes

Also, haul in the current DOJ people and put them on the spot about why they told him he couldn’t talk. Enough.

9 Likes

Attorneys don’t have the privilege. This also is the People’s business, not to mention that any privilege doesn’t apply to criminal planning activities.

11 Likes