Why Did DOJ Delay Seven Months before Letting Jeffrey Rosen Testify?

On January 22 — after Jeffrey Rosen was no longer Acting Attorney General but before Trump’s second impeachment trial — Katie Benner published a story describing Trump’s efforts to get Jeffrey Bossert Clark to undermine those at DOJ, including Rosen and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, who refused to endorse Trump’s lies about the election.

As I noted the other day, that story included all the details that have been dribbling out from the House Oversight Committee in recent weeks: Trump’s efforts to get DOJ to intervene in Georgia, Rosen and Donoghue’s refusal, followed by Trump’s effort to put Clark in charge at DOJ on January 3. Benner had all that nailed in January.

The day after Benner’s January 22 story, the holdover members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to DOJ citing the story and asking for documents behind it.

On January 22, The New York Times reported astonishing details about an alleged plot between then-President Donald Trump and then-Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division Jeffrey Bossert Clark to use the Department of Justice to further Trump’s efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election.[1]  These efforts culminated on January 6, when Trump incited a violent mob that attacked Congress as it counted the electoral votes and prepared to affirm President Biden’s victory.  The information revealed by this story raises deeply troubling questions regarding the Justice Department’s role in Trump’s scheme to overturn the election.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct vigorous oversight of these matters.  As a first step, we seek your immediate assurance that the Department will preserve all relevant materials in its possession, custody, or control.  Please also produce the following materials as soon as possible, but no later than February 8, 2021:

  • All documents and communications, including emails, text messages, and calendar entries, referring or related to the reported December 15 meeting between then-President Trump and then-Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and reported follow-up calls and meetings between President Trump and Mr. Rosen;
  • All documents and communications, including emails, text messages, and calendar entries, referring or related to reported complaints President Trump made to Justice Department leaders regarding then-U.S. Attorney Byung J. Pak prior to Pak’s resignation;
  • All documents and communications, including emails, text messages, and calendar entries, regarding a reported draft letter that Mr. Clark prepared and requested be sent to Georgia state legislators; and
  • All documents and communications, including emails, text messages, and calendar entries, involving the reported January 3 White House meeting involving Mr. Clark and Mr. Rosen.

That letter set a deadline of February 8, over a month before Merrick Garland was confirmed and over 70 days before Lisa Monaco was confirmed.

In May, House Oversight Chair Carolyn Maloney sent Rosen a request (which hasn’t been made public) for a transcribed interview.

Seemingly in response to that — though the letter cites both the January request and the May one — DOJ (in the guise of Bradley Weinsheimer, who was elevated from NSD to DOJ’s institutional accountability role at Associate Deputy Attorney General by Jeff Sessions, and so was a colleague of those DOJ officials), wrote Rosen and five other former top DOJ officials permitting them to testify about a carefully defined set of events. The testimony is basically limited to, “any efforts by President Trump or any DOJ officials to advance unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud, challenge the 2020 election results, stop Congress’s count of the Electoral College vote, or overturn President Biden’s certified victory.” It is limited to events that happened after Attorney General Barr resigned on December 14. The letter specifically prohibits discussing any prosecutorial decisions the men made, or discussing investigations that were ongoing when they left.

Discussion of any pending criminal cases and possible charges also could violate court rules and potentially implicate rules of professional conduct governing extra-judicial statements.

But within that scope, the letter permits these former DOJ officials to answer questions that would otherwise be covered by executive privilege.

[T]he Department authorizes you to provide unrestricted testimony to the Committees, irrespective of potential privilege, so long as the testimony is confined to the scope of the interviews as set forth by the Committees and as limited in the penultimate paragraph below.

Of particular note, DOJ asked President Biden — via the White House Counsel — whether he wanted to invoke privilege; he chose not to.

Because of the nature of the privilege, the Department has consulted with the White House Counsel’s Office in considering whether to authorize you to provide information that may implicate the presidential communications privilege. The Counsel’s Office conveyed to the Department that President Biden has decided that it would not be appropriate to assert executive privilege with respect to communications with former President Trump and his advisors and staff on matters related to the scope of the Committees’ proposed interviews, notwithstanding the view of former President Trump’s counsel that executive privilege should be asserted to prevent testimony regarding these communications. See Nixon v. Administrator of General Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 449 (1977) (“[I]t must be presumed that the incumbent President is vitally concerned with and in the best position to assess the present and future needs of the Executive Branch, and to support invocation of the privilege accordingly.” see also id. (explaining that the presidential communications privilege “is not for the benefit of the President as an individual, but for the benefit of the Republic”) (internal citation omitted).

As Benner wrote in a story offering details of Jeffrey Rosen’s testimony, Rosen has been trying to get permission to testify for “much of the year.” As soon as DOJ gave it, he rushed to testify before Trump could intervene.

Mr. Rosen has spent much of the year in discussions with the Justice Department over what information he could provide to investigators, given that decision-making conversations between administration officials are usually kept confidential.

Douglas A. Collins, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, said last week that the former president would not seek to bar former Justice Department officials from speaking with investigators. But Mr. Collins said he might take some undisclosed legal action if congressional investigators sought “privileged information.”

Mr. Rosen quickly scheduled interviews with congressional investigators to get as much of his version of events on the record before any players could ask the courts to block the proceedings, according to two people familiar with those discussions who are not authorized to speak about continuing investigations.

He also reached out directly to Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, and pledged to cooperate with his investigation, according to a person briefed on those talks.

The question is why. After all, these events were knowable to DOJ since they happened, and for the entirety of that time, DOJ has been conducting an investigation into efforts to obstruct the vote count. For some of that period, in fact, Rosen himself was in ultimate charge of the investigation, and he could have ordered or authorized himself to testify.

Benner didn’t specify whether Rosen might have been interviewed by the FBI, though the implication is he has not been asked.

Similarly, DOJ IG has been investigating related issues since then as part of a specific investigation into the BJ Pak firing and a general investigation into January 6. While Michael Horowitz could not subpoena Rosen, he could simply have asked Rosen to provide testimony. But Benner is quite clear that Rosen has not yet testified even to Horowitz.

During that period, too, there was an instance where DOJ IG asked someone for an interview, but the person quit to avoid the testimony.

During the course of an ongoing administrative misconduct investigation, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) informed a then senior DOJ official, who was a non-career member of the Senior Executive Service, that the senior DOJ official was a subject in the investigation and that the OIG sought to interview the senior DOJ official in connection with the investigation. After several unsuccessful attempts to schedule a voluntary interview with the senior DOJ official, the OIG instructed the senior DOJ official to appear for a compelled interview and informed the senior DOJ official that neither the answers the senior DOJ official provided nor any evidence gained by reason of those answers could be used against the senior DOJ official in a criminal proceeding. The senior DOJ official failed to appear for the compelled interview and resigned from Department employment shortly thereafter.

The OIG concluded that the senior DOJ official violated both federal regulations and DOJ policy by failing to appear for a compelled OIG interview while still a DOJ employee. The OIG offered the senior DOJ official the opportunity to cure that violation by participating in a voluntary interview after leaving the Department, but the senior DOJ official, through counsel, declined to do so. The OIG has the authority to compel testimony from current Department employees upon informing them that their statements will not be used to incriminate them in a criminal proceeding. The OIG does not have the authority to compel or subpoena testimony from former Department employees, including those who retire or resign during the course of an OIG investigation.

Those events were reported on April 19.

There are two more dates of interest. First, DOJ only released its new contact policy — under which the request for a privilege determination may have been passed — on July 21. I’m curious whether the request for a  waiver of executive privilege waiver came after that. Executive privilege considerations were a key limitation on the Mueller investigation overseen in its final days partly by Rosen himself.

At least as interesting, however, is that DOJ sent the letter just one day before DOJ submitted a court filing in the Eric Swalwell lawsuit — speaking of members of Congress but using more generalized language — arguing that no federal officials can campaign in their official capacity and further noting that attacking one’s employer is not within the scope of someone’s job description.

The record indicates that the January 6 rally was an electioneering or campaign activity that Brooks would ordinarily be presumed to have undertaken in an unofficial capacity. Activities specifically directed toward the success of a candidate for a partisan political office in a campaign context—electioneering or campaign activities—are not within the scope of the office or employment of a Member of the House of Representatives. Like other elected officials, Members run for reelection themselves and routinely campaign for other political candidates. But they do so in their private, rather than official, capacities.

This understanding that the scope of federal office excludes campaign activity is broadly reflected in numerous authorities. This Court, for example, emphasized “the basic principle that government funds should not be spent to help incumbents gain reelection” in holding that House or Senate mailings aimed at that purpose are “unofficial communication[s].” Common Cause v. Bolger, 574 F. Supp. 672, 683 (D.D.C. 1982) (upholding statute that provided franking privileges for official communications but not unofficial communications).


Second, the Complaint alleges that Brooks engaged in a conspiracy and incited the attack on the Capitol on January 6. That alleged conduct plainly would not qualify as within the scope of employment for an officer or employee of the United States, because attacking one’s employer is different in kind from any authorized conduct and not “actuated . . . by a purpose to serve” the employer. Id. § 228(1)(c). Brooks does not argue otherwise. Instead, he denies the Complaint’s allegations of conspiracy and incitement. The Department does not address that issue here because the campaign-related nature of the rally independently warrants denial of certification, and because the Department is engaged in ongoing investigations into the events of January 6 more generally. But if the Court were to reject our argument that the campaign nature of the January 6 rally resolves the certification question, the Court should not certify that Brooks was acting within the scope of his office or employment unless it concludes that Brooks did not engage in the sort of conduct alleged in the Complaint. [my emphasis]

It’s possible that this seven month delay is inexcusable.

It’s also possible that it reflects the time DOJ took to come to other determinations about whether privileged information could be used to investigate a former President and if so how to obtain it.

Update: On both June 24,

I assure the American people that the Department of Justice will continue to follow the facts in this case and charge what the evidence supports to hold all January 6th perpetrators accountable.

And July 6,

The Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General encouraged the team to continue to follow the facts in this case and charge what the evidence supports to hold all January 6th perpetrators accountable.

Garland made statements reiterating his commitment to charge all perpetrators against whom the evidence supported charges.

44 replies
  1. yogarhythms says:

    DOJ’s two tracks: 1;Jan 6 was campaign event for elected officials and or 2;elected employees holding office in DC can’t attack employer, Jan 6 participants included elected employees holding office in DC including TFG,. Seven months and two prosecutorial pathways displayed.

    • Summertime Blues says:

      If the Insurrection is considered an endpoint of the effort by TFG to cheat his way to victory it would make sense to work backward chronologically. It should be no surprise that these events have taken place as TFG from the outset has said if he loses it is because “The election is rigged”. Truly a “heads I win tails you lose” strategy and ironic as TFG tried his best to rig the election. Even now he is pushing the same narrative.

  2. Ginevra diBenci says:

    I remembered all those “breaking news” revelations about J. Bossert Clark in January. Their failure to gain traction back then seems like one more side effect of Mitch McConnell’s obstruct-and-delay tactics in the Senate, whereby Biden’s intended DOJ leadership got held up for weeks. McConnell knows that justice delayed can mean a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court. It’s a tactic that’s always worth his effort.

  3. Molly Pitcher says:

    I originally posted this early, early this morning on the Fairlamb post, but this is where it belongs.


    “Jeffrey A. Rosen, who was acting attorney general during the Trump administration, has told the Justice Department watchdog and congressional investigators that one of his deputies tried to help former President Donald J. Trump subvert the results of the 2020 election…The investigations were opened after a New York Times article that detailed efforts by Jeffrey Clark, the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division, to push top leaders to falsely and publicly assert that continuing election fraud investigations cast doubt on the Electoral College results. That prompted Mr. Trump to consider ousting Mr. Rosen and installing Mr. Clark at the top of the department to carry out that plan.”

  4. Savage Librarian says:

    Thanks for the timely post, Marcy. I was wondering about this yesterday and this morning. Then up popped your post. I’m definitely going with the option that reflects my understanding of how Merrick Garland operates. From what I’ve read, he is thorough and has high professional standards. So, I think this statement of yours about the time it took to get to this point is most likely correct:

    “It’s also possible that it reflects the time DOJ took to come to other determinations about whether privileged information could be used to investigate a former President and if so how to obtain it.”

  5. Badger Robert says:

    I would not like to be in Clark’s position at this point.
    But as I follow Ms. Wheeler’s articles I wonder if there isn’t a basic asymmetry at work.
    If the prosecutors go after the stooges who conducted the riot for TFG, and the higher placed officials who set it up, does the MAGA cult care? If the Justice Department leaves Trump alone, then there is no direct bad news to keep the MAGA fraction incited and mobilized. It could be that prosecution of the other conspirators may be seen as good news for what seems to be a pro democratic alliance, but non news to MAGA adherents. In other words, is the MAGA faction so narrowly focused on a cult of personality, that news about other prosecutions not involving Trump is non news to them?
    Because Biden wins when all the news is good news. Mass psychosis wins when there is any form of bad news. TFG being indicted and tried would seem to keep the panic going.
    Thanks again to Ms. Wheeler for all her efforts.

    • skua says:

      I read the base as being already “outraged at the unfair legal actions being taken against” the insurrectionists/”free speech protestors”.

      Next week the wind may have changed, again, and this particular “outrage” will be re-manufactured into next week’s “outrage”.
      s/ Go Tucker! /s

    • cavenewt says:

      “news about other prosecutions not involving Trump is non news to them?”

      Maybe that’s partly why Marjorie Taylor Green, Matt Gaetz, and other assorted wingnuts were trying to stage the protest where some rioters are jailed. To focus attention on them.

  6. some_monkeyboy says:

    So, Jeffrey Rosen is the guy, ‘This stops here, this stops now.’ Like Barry Goldwater to Nixon?

      • Badger Robert says:

        I take that there was a lot more Gorbachev than Goldwater in Rosen, I suspect he was consulting his weather person to see which way the wind was blowing.

    • Charles Wolf says:

      Even though he was not in on the plot, it seems to me to Rosen is more like Nixon’s John Dean,

  7. What Constitution? says:

    I’m going with “a certain degree of prudence” as the most logical explanation for the noted “delay”, and it may well be useful to vindicating our Constitution and the Rule of Law.

    Looking at everything publicly known by January 6 — including the fact that 147 Republican congresspersons voted to decertify the Electoral College tally notwithstanding these events — there was a plain risk that “immediate” enforcement of consequences for the evident sedition associated with Donald Trump and his supporters could result in either (1) malevolent reaction by Trump and the Republicans still holding the reins of the government prior to Biden’s inauguration, including the possibility of refusal to step aside or declaration of martial law efforts due to “reflexive” criticisms, or (2) open rebellion with everything that might entail should the successor Biden Administration be perceived as “arbitrarily retributive”. By building out the contours of the evidence, the appearance of Justice actually has a better chance of being accompanied by the achievement of Justice.

    The Republicans occupied vast swaths of the structure of government – including not only legislative positions but also control over the structure of the Department of Justice. It’s nice to learn that Mr. Rosen may have actually stood up to Trump in a meaningful fashion and nicer still to learn that he may have offered (not publicly, but apparently effectively) to so testify over the course of the past several months, but that was neither a given nor a sufficient reason to bet that he would be listened to. But affording the Republican legislators a “decent interval” providing the opportunity to come clean about what they knew had been going on was not stupid nor was it acquiescent – indeed, if one assumes that it was in fact known and believed that Rosen ultimately would have an opportunity to disclose the facts he has now formally disclosed, one very real consequence of that happening now is that the obsequious duplicity of the Grahams and the Johnsons and the McCarthys of the Republican Party (let alone the crassness of Barr’s resignation and the despicably deflective “resignation letter” he stunk up the Justice Department with) would be laid more openly bare and the scope of the duplicity better understood. It’s little wonder that McConnell has been “strangely detached” from Trump’s butt recently, in my view – he wants to be left standing when the wreckage clears, his goal is personal and deference to Trump has never been anything but situational and will not be likely rewarded.

    While Trump is a megalomaniacal narcissist bent on personal aggrandizement above all else, what is now completely clear is that the Republican Party is and has been simply using him as a means to an end: the end being to steal future elections because – as Trump himself, Graham himself, and every legislative and electoral effort of the Republican Party has screamed — “if everybody entitled to votes actually votes, no Republican will ever win another election”. The Republican Party has no platform beyond “Trump,” has no legislative agenda beyond “assuring Republican electoral victories”, and has no shame about how they achieve that — which translates into preventing non-Republicans from voting and sowing distrust over the integrity of election results that do not empower Republicans. In that environment, any effort to “rush to enforcing the Constitution and the Rule of Law” would more likely play into Trump/Republican Party memes of how it’s the Democrats who are “authoritarians” – when, of course, it is the opposite that is apparent.

    The timing is now right for connecting the dots about the flagrantly illegal coup plotted by Trump, his sycophants and the aligned power-hungry schemers of the Republican Party, supported by the easily manipulated “base” they have cultivated through vile exhortations of racism, self pity and victimization. It’s probably not the best idea to simply wait for all the Deep Red Maroons to die from lack of vaccination to secure that vindication, but establishing the clarity of the Big Lie manipulations could actually help increase the vaccination rate itself. And the likelihood of obtaining the right result – a ban on further public office for Trump and the exposure of his minions for the charlatans they are – can be achieved. Thanks to Professor Tribe et al for re-emphasizing this.

    And to get there, we won’t have to resort to Trump’s own flagrantly discordant battle cry, which is what he uttered to his assembled multitudes on the Ellipse near the White House on January 6: “When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules.” That statement, intended to justify violent insurrection by his followers in the absence of anything but Trump’s say-so, is diametrically opposed to the bedrock principle that actually proving something is fundamental to the concept of the Rule of Law. In fact, proof of “fraud” is required by clear and convincing standards of proof – conjecture and mere accusation is utterly insufficient in American jurisprudence – and no American President can be suffered to claim otherwise in any circumstance, much less when exhorting his rabid followers to attack the United States Capitol in order to disrupt Congress in its Constitutional obligation to certify the results of a presidential election in order to deprive the newly elected President, and the substantial majority of American voters, of the position to which he had been elected for no reason beyond the unsupported lie that Trump falsely insists be presumed true.

    It’s taken seven months to get the former Acting Attorney General to publicly testify that the former President harangued him to “just say that the election was corrupt” and that he advised the former President that he would never do that – just days before that same former President nonetheless incited his invited mob to “go by very different rules” in punishing Congress for doing its job. But it’s time to work the system efficiently, promptly and with integrity, and defend our Constitution and the Rule of Law against such duplicity and mayhem.

    • Badger Robert says:

      Go after the functionaries and fund raisers who made it possible, They are not identifiable to the MAGA contingent. Never give TFG a platform, but make him a witness to the collapse of the conspiracy that attempted to sustain him in power.

    • vvv says:

      That’s a 7 paragraph post from an infrequent poster (I think) that I just can’t be arsed to read, sorry.

  8. Wm. Boyce says:

    The Times reported that Mr. Rosen testified for seven (7) hours before the committee.
    He really wanted to testify.

    • OmAli says:

      If the Rs on the Senate committee are anything like those on the House’s, they likely wasted at least half of that testimony time.

      • Charles Wolf says:

        Most of them are bomb throwers.
        The list includes Hawley, Cruz, Graham, Blackburn, and more.

  9. joel fisher says:

    “Inexcusable”. And not just the Justice Department, Congress as well. An important theme of law enforcement is that the general public perceives that committing crimes is likely to get you arrested or at fucking least draw the curious attention of a Congressional committee. Did the incurious SJC and HJC forget they could subpoena all Former’s pardonees? Their 5th Amendment privilege ain’t what it used to be. A short duration between crime and consequences re-enforces the perception and a long one lessens it. It would be hard to convince anyone at this point that the Justice Department or Congress has any sense of urgency. The most important thing in our semi-sham democracy is a peaceful transition of power and the attack on this occurred before our very eyes. The “inexcusable”–thank-you EW for that adjective–delay serves as a statement that what happened after the election was not that big a deal; I didn’t see what I saw; and rich GOP criminals can flout the law with impunity.

      • joel fisher says:

        You’re right; I’m operating under the delusion that, if Congress woke up and issued subpoenas, it would stop acting unconcerned about the whole nightmare and enforce them. The Dems might want to take notice that they only have a year and a half of sure power. One plus is that the fight with the pardonees is 1 issue shorter due to their shrunken 5th Amendment privileges.

        • bmaz says:

          Exactly. But even shrunken privileges can be litigated for a good long while. Do the Dems have the guts to do it expeditiously? Usually they do not. They could not even muster the effort to do it right when they were under an impeachment proceeding, which exponentially elevated their power.

        • joel fisher says:

          To use a poor metaphor: you can’t win the game unless the game gets started. So far no delaying is necessary as the Dems show a distinct lack of urgency.

        • OmAli says:

          What does “do it right”, as far as subpoenas, even mean? Not snarking, truly.

          The past performance has been so discouraging…

        • Marinela says:

          Dems can hire outside lawyer help. Any reason why they didn’t take that route?
          If bmaz knows of things that could be done I’m sure other lawyers would know what to do as well.
          So I am puzzled on why the dems don’t use the tools they could have and “leave money on the table”, as they say in poker?

        • bmaz says:

          They either do not want to, or are too timid to do so. People on these committees are not stupid. But the hard edge is the road their bosses will never follow.

        • OmAli says:

          It’s like the USPS board. Biden could dismiss that Dem Trump-appointed member that still supports DeJoy, for “cause”. The fact that he won’t even make the argument, and try, even if he failed, is infuriating.

        • Marinela says:

          “or are too timid to do so…”

          Yes, cannot stop to think about similar situation in Germany when the parties were too weak to predict, let alone stand up to the nazi party brutal ascend to power.

          We know GOP party is scared of their own base, and caters to them instead of leading them.
          Sure doesn’t make sense for dems to do the same. None in the GOP base are going to vote for democrats because the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed. The ones in the middle are going to vote for democrats because dems are taking the treats seriously, precisely for this reason, with or without the infrastructure bill.

  10. Manwen says:

    This discussion led me to think of a counterfactual question. What would have happened if VP Pence had been incapacitated and unable to fulfill his duties in the joint session? As I understand it, the President of the Senate presides over the session to certify the votes. With Pence rendered unavailable due to any number of factors (execution, injury, evacuation to unknown location), several possibilities open up.
    One, the president pro tempore takes over the role of President of the Senate as prescribed. By tradition this is the oldest sitting member of the majority (meaning Grassley). But, officially they are elected by majority vote.
    Two. Perhaps the Senate could have voted a new pro tempore, if Grassley would not play along.
    Three. There could have been a chaotic argument over whether the count could proceed without the VP, further delaying the vote and providing Trump time to appoint a successor to Pence.
    In Pence’s absence, Trump would have retained more options to apply pressure: on Grassley, failing that, on other Senators to replace Grassley, and failing that to delay the vote until a new VP is appointed.
    I still do not accept the premise that Trump is a brilliant strategic thinker, but his behavior is one that reserves commitment to the last possible moment in order to keep all of his options at hand as long as possible. Many options would have been on the table if Pence had been unable to fulfill his duty. Did I mention the possibility of declaring martial law if members of Congress and/or the Vice-President were injured in a clash between Antifa and right wing militias required bringing in the guard to protect Congress and the peaceful demonstrators? All of this is of a kind for Trump, play every card you have to keep your options open as long as possible, before you have to commit. At some point, Trump simply had to give up. So, he told his folks to go home in peace and remember this wonderful day–the day when he got his pro-law enforcement fans to viciously attack police officers, proving they are more loyal to Trump than they are to law enforcement. It was a wonderful day for fulfilling Trump’s need for public adoration and a fortunate day in that it did not end far more horribly.

    • OmAli says:

      “I still do not accept the premise that Trump is a brilliant strategic thinker, but his behavior is one that reserves commitment to the last possible moment in order to keep all of his options at hand as long as possible.”

      This seems right, to me. And I think of him sometimes as a pool player taking that first shot, breaking? All the balls go careening off in every direction…. no telling what possibilities for malicious mischief can open up…

    • RWood says:

      “I still do not accept the premise that Trump is a brilliant strategic thinker.”

      He’s not.

      But he has those around him that recognize his mental issues as an opportunity to advance their own agendas. Trump was on his way to prison the second he won the election as no criminal enterprise the size and shape of his can withstand the constant scrutiny of the office. He doomed himself with his failed marketing scheme/run for office. The real danger has always been the Miller, Bannon, and Mercer types that steered their narcissist in chief from the sidelines.

      All it took was one of them telling him the options you mentioned for him to go along with them. They just did so for different reasons. I can only hope that these investigations catch them as well.

      Especially Kushner.

  11. Robert Sexton says:

    Who resigned from DOJ rather than sit down for an interview with the IG? That sounds significant.

Comments are closed.