Rod Rosenstein’s Baltimore Club of Men Gunning for the Bidens

In an interview yesterday with Jake Tapper (transcript), Rod Rosenstein exhibited more familiarity with the Robert Hur report, which had been public for just three days, than he was about the Mueller investigation that he oversaw for two years, during ten months of which, Hur played a key role.

Tapper: He was your deputy at the Justice Department. Do you agree with his decision that Biden should not be charged, it was not a prosecutable case?

Rosenstein: Yes, Jake.

And it’s — most people haven’t read the entire report. And I don’t blame them. It’s 345 pages, about 1,400 footnotes. It’s very dense and well-reasoned. And I think, if you read the whole report, you will conclude that Rob reached a reasonable decision that, given all the circumstances, that prosecution is not warranted.

After all, Rod Rosenstein was personally involved in drafting (though did not sign) the Barr Memo making a prosecution declination for Trump for his obstruction-related actions. Yet not even Rosenstein, who had been involved in the investigation from the start, thought to address the pardon dangles — a key focus of Volume II of the Mueller Report — that continued to undermine ongoing investigations.

Then, over a year later and under pressure from Lindsey Graham for having signed the worst of the Carter Page FISA applications, Rosenstein agreed with Graham’s false portrayal of the investigation as it existed on August 1, 2017, when Rosenstein expanded the scope of the investigation.

Lindsey Graham: (35:02) I am saying in January the 4th, 2017, the FBI had discounted Flynn, there was no evidence that Carter Page worked with the Russians, the dossier was a bunch of garbage and Papadopoulos is all over the place, not knowing he’s being recorded, denying working with the Russians, nobody’s ever been prosecuted for working with the Russians. The point is the whole concept that the campaign was colluding with the Russians, there was no there there in August, 2017. Do you agree with that general statement or not?

Rod Rosenstein: (35:39) I agree with that general statement.

Rosenstein’s endorsement of Lindsey’s statement about the evidence as it existed in August 2017 was egregiously wrong. Mueller had just acquired a great deal of evidence of conspiracy, including several details implicating Roger Stone and Paul Manafort that were never conclusively resolved. Crazier still, George Papadopoulos had just been arrested for lying to cover up when he learned that Russia planned to help Trump, an arrest of which Rosenstein would have personally had advance notice.

By comparison, days after its release, Rosenstein exhibited great confidence in his knowledge of the 1,400 footnotes his former deputy included in the report.

To be sure, Rosenstein’s defense of Hur did not honestly present the content of the Report. For example, the only other reason  he provides for why Hur didn’t charge Biden, besides Hur’s opinion that Biden is a forgetful old geezer, involved the tradition of Presidents taking things home.

ROSENSTEIN: I think so, Jake.

And you identified the controversial elements of the special counsel’s report. It’s a very long report, 345 pages, and has a lot of information in there, other reasons why prosecution would not be warranted. And one of them is the history and experience of prior presidents and potentially vice presidents as well taking home classified documents.

This is simply a misrepresentation of the evidence.

Even if you ignore Hur’s misstatement of DOJ’s application of 18 USC 793(e) in cases where there is no other exposure (in something like a leak) or the challenges in applying it to someone who, like both Biden and Trump, didn’t hold clearance, for the primary set of documents he examined — the two folders of Afghanistan documents found in Biden’s garage — Hur admitted he couldn’t prove his already inventive theory of the case. He couldn’t even prove that the documents in question had been in Biden’s Virginia home when Biden made a comment about something classified in his home.

Rosenstein is, as Hur already did, emphasizing the most unflattering part of the declination decision, not the fact that after blowing  over $3M and reading through Joe Biden’s most personal thoughts, Hur simply didn’t find evidence to support a charge.

Twice, Rosenstein disputed that Hur’s focus on Biden’s age was the kind of gratuitous attack for which he had made the case for firing Jim Comey, the second time in direct response to a question about the memo he wrote.

Tapper: I want to read from a memo you wrote in 2017 in which you criticized James Comey’s infamous press conference in which he criticized Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified e-mails, even as he declined to prosecute her, a similar circumstance, although he wasn’t a special counsel — quote — “Derogatory information” — this is you writing — “Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously.

“The FBI director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial, it is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do” — unquote. By going to the lengths he did to critique Biden’s age and memory, even as he was clearing him of a crime, how do you differentiate between what Robert Hur did that you say is OK from what James Comey did that you say is not?

ROSENSTEIN: Jake, there are several significant differences between those two examples.

One is, most fundamentally, that Jim Comey wasn’t the prosecutor. He was the head of the FBI. His job was to ensure the police collected the proper evidence, submitted it to the prosecutors. And, ultimately, it’s up to the prosecutors in the Justice Department and the attorney general to make a decision about what information is released.

Rob Hur was the prosecutor. It was his job to make that decision, to make that recommendation to the attorney general, who, as you acknowledged, has previously committed to make this report public. That’s one difference.

The second difference is the special counsel regulation. In the ordinary case, Hillary Clinton was not investigated by a special counsel. There was no procedure to make those reasons public. Here, it’s baked into this regulation.

Now we sit, Jake, 25 years down the road. That regulation was passed by Attorney General Reno in 1999. Now we have 25 years of experience. I think it’s worthwhile to sit back and ask whether or not this is the right procedure. Do we really think that we ought to have prosecutors writing reports for public release of everything they discover and all the reasons for not prosecuting?

Or is there a better way to do that without having all the embarrassing information come to public light?

The big tell in Rosenstein’s defense of his former deputy, though, is his suggestion there’s a comparison between Hur’s attacks on Biden’s age with what Mueller — under the direction of Rosenstein and Hur — included in his report, which spent far fewer pages laying out the prosecutorial analysis for far more potential criminal exposure by Trump.

The second issue is what you release in the public. And the problem here with — that’s really baked in the special counsel model is that it’s not really the function of a prosecutor to publicly announce the reasons why they’re not prosecuting.

And so when you layer that into the process, it can result in unfortunate consequences. The Donald Trump report, I think, got people upset in the same way that this one did.

Given his inclusion of Independent Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh here, Rosenstein’s comparison is insane, because he left out the Ken Starr Report (to which investigation, he reminded Tapper, he contributed), which included the most gratuitous descriptions of the subject of the investigation of any of these reports.

Rosenstein’s likening of the Mueller and Hur report is odd for a number of reasons. The part of the Mueller Report focused on Trump was 200 pages, far shorter than the Hur Report yet covering far more overt acts.

Mueller made absolutely no complaint that both Trump and his failson refused to appear before a grand jury whereas Hur’s attacks arose out of Biden’s willingness to sit for several days of a voluntary interview. Mueller let Trump’s decision to invoke the Fifth stand without ascribing criminal motive; Hur made Biden’s cooperation into cause for attack.

But even in smaller details, the reports don’t compare. One thing Hur made up, for example, is that Biden might have alerted his attorneys that there were classified records (in a ratty beat up old box) in his garage, but his team couldn’t find out because if they asked, the answer would be privileged.

We considered the possibility that Mr. Biden alerted his counsel that classified documents were in the garage, but our investigation revealed no evidence of such a discussion because, it if happened, it would be protected by the attorney-client privilege.

This claim only appears in the Executive Summary, where lazy journalists might find it. It appears nowhere in the body of the report (which has to deal with the fact that if Biden had really brought these documents home, he wouldn’t have so willingly let his attorneys search for them). It’s one of the things Biden’s attorneys asked to be corrected.

There are a number of inaccuracies and misleading statements that could be corrected with minor changes:

  • ‘We considered the possibility that Mr. Biden alerted his counsel that classified documents were in the garage but our investigation revealed no evidence of such a discussion because if it happened, it would be protected by the attorney-client privilege.” Report at 22. In fact, your investigation revealed no evidence of such a discussion because it did not happen–not because of any privilege. The President testified he was unaware that there were any classified documents in his possession. Tr., Day II, at 2, 41-42. You did not ask him in his interview or in the additional written questions if he had “alerted his counsel” about classified documents; if you had, he would have forcefully told you that he did not.

Hur’s decision to fabricate the possibility of an attorney-client conversation that did not happen — and his obstinate refusal to correct it — is especially telling given Mueller’s hands-off treatment of attorney-client privilege.

For example, Mueller didn’t even try to ask Jay Sekulow about his role in drafting Michael Cohen’s false claims about the Moscow Trump Tower, even though Cohen said Sekulow was involved.

The President’s personal counsel declined to provide us with his account of his conversations with Cohen, and there is no evidence available to us that indicates that the President was aware of the information Cohen provided to the President’s personal counsel. The President’s conversations with his personal counsel were presumptively protected by attorney-client privilege, and we did not seek to obtain the contents of any such communications.

Nor did Mueller attempt to interview John Dowd about whether he left a threatening voicemail for Mike Flynn’s then-attorney Rob Kelner, to find out whether Trump directed Dowd to make the threat.

Because of attorney-client privilege issues, we did not seek to interview the President’s personal counsel about the extent to which he discussed his statements to Flynn’s attorneys with the President.

In both cases, Mueller let privilege close off investigation into more egregious evidence of obstruction.

So where Mueller let Trump hide behind attorney-client privilege as a shield, Hur flipped that, and used a fabricated attorney-client conversation as a shield to insinuate evidence of guilt where none existed.

In short, Rosenstein went on teevee and made a bunch of cynical claims, defending Hur’s attack on Biden even while claiming that the Mueller Report was just as damning.

As I and others contemplate how Merrick Garland made such a shitty choice for Special Counsel here, I keep thinking about the fact that there’s a little club of Rod Rosentein associates gunning for the Biden men. There’s Hur, and Rosenstein’s hypocritical and remarkably hasty defense of him.

There’s also the reference that Gary Shapley, who is based partly in Baltimore, made about a prosecutor who became Deputy Attorney General, a reference that can only describe Rosenstein.

Mr. Shapley. No. I think I’ve said it, that this is not the norm. This is — I’ve worked with some great guys, some great prosecutors that went on to be U.S. attorneys and went on to be the deputy attorney general and, I think I have experience enough to where it means something.

After having agreed with the IRS that the case against Hunter Biden couldn’t move forward if Shapley were on the team, David Weiss then decided to appoint two AUSAs who would have worked for Hur and Rosenstein as AUSAs in MD USAO, in the case of Leo Wise, for years.

That is, the cabal of men gunning for Joe Biden and his son — all of whom have already engaged in questionable games — have ties to Rod Rosenstein, who still seems to be trying to make it up to Trump for his role in appointing a Special Counsel.

And Rod Rosenstein, as he demonstrated in that interview, is giving Hur, at least, special license to engage in precisely the kind of conduct for which he endorsed firing Jim Comey.

44 replies
  1. EW Moderation Team says:

    A reminder to all new and existing community members participating in comments:

    — We have been moving to a new minimum standard to support community security over the last year. Usernames should be unique and a minimum of a minimum of 8 letters.

    — We do not require a valid, working email, but you must use the same email address each time you publish a comment here. **Single use disposable email addresses do not meet this standard.**

    — If you have been commenting here but have less than 1000 comments published and been participating less than 10 years as of October 2022, you must update your username to match the new standard.

    Thank you.

  2. Joe Stewart says:

    Would you consider doing an org chart of the Baltimore Club, the cabal? Maybe color code it to indicate Federalist Society and Ginnie Thomas connections? And maybe that guy who has made it his life’s work to stack the Federal Judiciary?

    • emptywheel says:


      First, because I think Fed Society membership is a crutch for people who don’t understand the real source of conflicted lawyers. It’s not an explanation. Relationships like this are.

      Second, because I’m not aware any role of Ginni. Another analytical lens that is worthless without any evidence.

      Finally, while Leo Leonard is critical to the corruption of the judiciary, this is a discussion about (mostly) prosecutors.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Donald Trump extorting his siblings into doing his high school homework is a fine illustration that there’s no substitute for doing your own homework.

      • BobBobCon says:

        He published a book last year called “Who Speaks For You?” promoting himself and his career even as he was wrapped up in all of the stuff described in that article.

        He signed away the profits, but even then, writing that book seems awfully inappropriate for a prosecutor who is still in office.

        • emptywheel says:

          What’s weird is he seems to have been the one who organized the letter calling on Barr not to deviate from normal processes on voting fraud investigations in 2020.

          Maybe someone got to him after that.

          • anaphoristand says:

            After a summer of hyping baseless mail-in ballot conspiracy theories, that 11/9/20 memo from Barr (along with the pushback it occasioned) has always been a tough one to parse his intention on. On the one hand, DOJ’s investigating a range of bullshit fraud claims lent them an air of legitimacy. On the other, dispatching with them quickly somewhat weakened Trump’s ability to browbeat a range of Executive agencies with otherwise debunked claims.

  3. Error Prone says:

    As to the Hur speculation Biden may have told his lawyers, but privilege exists, if Biden told them he held docs, the collateral fact – continued holding. Privilege between attorney – client as to future “wrongful” behavior, as opposed to past, what’s the story there? Would a duty exist to inform of continued holding of the docs, if known, and in particular if the holding was with any wrongful motive? It’s all kind of, docs were there, Biden realized it at some point and gave notice and surrendered them in due course, and did not obfuscate nor obstruct. Apples and oranges?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Speculation has no place in a DoJ prosecutor’s report. It’s a fiction, meant to embarrass a president and aid his electoral opponent. That doesn’t belong in a DoJ prosecutor’s report either.

  4. vigetnovus says:

    As I mentioned in a previous comment, Rosenstein successfully landed the Trump plane so that the Biden plane could take off.

  5. Error Prone says:

    Wikipedia – – “Rosenstein joined King & Spalding in January 2020, a white-shoe international law firm. He works primarily in assisting clients with federal investigations.[93]”

    From the Wiki on Robert Hur career – “From 2007 to 2014, he served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Maryland, where he prosecuted gang violence, drug trafficking and firearms offenses, and white-collar crimes. He was formerly a partner with King & Spalding in Washington, D.C., where his practice focused on government investigations and complex litigation.[4]”

    W/o looking at King & Spalding size, both there different times (or not?), both specializing in that firm re federal investigations. Hur noted as a former partner there; RR likely went there as a partner.

    Coincidence only, or cumulative Maryland old boy ties info? (Wiki indicates Hur was a partner with Gibson Dunn when tapped as Special Prosecutor, not returning to King Spalding.)

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I would focus on the DoJ connection. Most law firms are parking places for networked movers and shakers, not a key part of the network. Two exceptions that come to mind are Kirkland & Ellis and Jones, Day.

  6. earlofhuntingdon says:

    It’s tangential to the post, but for those interested in a fuller description, former federal judge and DoJ official Lawrence Walsh was appointed “Independent Counsel,” under a now-lapsed law, to act as a prosecutor independent of the DoJ, to investigate potential crimes committed by senior Reagan administration officials during the Iran-Contra affair.

    Why becomes clear when considering that his investigation was obstructed by systematic non-cooperation by administration agencies and officials, orchestrated by then Attorney General, Bill Barr.

  7. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Anyone have a cite for the text of Trump’s application to the Sup. Ct. in his immunity case, which he apparently filed less than an hour ago?

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Thanks. As expected, it’s an application for a stay, requiring five votes to succeed, with an application for a writ of cert., requiring only four votes, to follow at some indeterminate time.

        An usual entry in a Table of Authorities in an application for a stay to the Supreme Court. It fails even as snark, let alone as a humorous way to introduce a brief:

        Yogi Berra Museum & Learning Center, “Yogi-isms,”

      • c-i-v-i-l says:

        And a discussion from Steve Vladeck of what may happen from here, written before the request for a stay was submitted, so not an analysis of that:

        His assessment is that of 4 possibilities — deny the application for a stay, grant the application “and say nothing else,” “Grant the application for a stay, treat it as if it were also a cert. petition, grant that petition, and set the case for expedited briefing and merits argument,” and “Treat the application as a cert. petition, grant the petition, and summarily affirm the D.C. Circuit” — the first and third are the most likely.

        More discussion here: (scroll down to “The One First ‘Long Read’: Trump and the Court, Redux”)

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Typical belt and suspenders arguments from the eight lawyers – from three firms, none based in DC – representing Trump in the case before Judge Chutkan, the DC Circuit, and the SCt. They are whinging that the DCC expedited the post-judgment schedule.

          This Court should stay the D.C. Circuit’s mandate to forestall, once again, an unprecedented and unacceptable departure from ordinary appellate procedur and allow President Trump’s claim of immunity to be decided in the ordinary course of justice.

          That excerpt from the introduction is mangled English. But it’s nothing compared to the mangled arguments.

          For starters, Trump misstates how he could have obtained a stay from the DCC. Had he petitioned the panel to rehear the case, or asked for a rehearing en banc, by today, he would have his stay, at least until the DCC made a decision on his request.

          Trump chose, instead, to ask for a stay from the SCt, because he intends to file both a petition for cert. and for a rehearing en banc. He needs the stay to obtain a final decision, “in the ordinary course of justice,” wtf that is.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            Correction: Filing a petition for rehearing or for an en banc hearing with the DCC would not have stayed proceedings in the district court.

            • WilliamOckham says:

              I made a comment about this on the trash talk thread. The way they asked for the ability to petition for en banc review isn’t just about delay, delay, delay. It’s one of Trump’s ritual humiliation moves:

              As additional relief, in issuing its stay, President Trump requests that this Court direct that the D.C. Circuit’s mandate is stayed pending the resolution, not just of proceedings in this Court, but also of President Trump’s planned petition for en banc consideration in the D.C. Circuit…

              It’s not enough for Trump that he asks for five justices to pretend that he has a chance on the merits. He wants them to do it and make it clear they’re total sycophants.

              • Peterr says:

                The arguments about the applicability of Youngstown are hilarious. From Team Trump:

                To be sure, Article III courts sometimes review the validity of the official acts of subordinate executive officials below the President, see, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), and such review may reflect indirectly on the lawfulness of the President’s own acts or directives. But the authority of judicial review of the official acts of subordinate officers has never been held to extend to the official acts of the President himself.

                From Youngstown itself:

                MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

                We are asked to decide whether the President was acting within his constitutional power when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the Nation’s steel mills. The mill owners argue that the President’s order amounts to lawmaking, a legislative function which the Constitution has expressly confided to the Congress, and not to the President. The Government’s position is that the order was made on findings of the President that his action was necessary to avert a national catastrophe which would inevitably result from a stoppage of steel production, and that, in meeting this grave emergency, the President was acting within the aggregate of his constitutional powers as the Nation’s Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.

                Sounds like a pretty direct review of the President’s authority to me. Did Team Trump even *read* Youngstown?

                • earlofhuntingdon says:

                  Heavens, no! Trump’s lawyers only troll the Constitution, statutes and case law for quotes. Meaning and holdings only work against their client.

                  The fabrication that Youngstown involved the courts only restraining a subordinate officer, not the president, ought to elicit rebuke. It misstates the case, as their arguments baldly misstate other precedent. I think I’d start it with a pun, shifting from “subordinate” to insubordinate, and then move on to frivolous, which is sanctions territory.

                  • WilliamOckham says:

                    I have a question for you about Trump’s lawyers’ reliance on Wilkinson’s dissent in Trump v DC (the emoluments case). Is their use of it as nutty as it seems to me? (beyond their usual cherry-picking). I mean, sure the majority got overruled by SCOTUS, but the case was remanded to be vacated as moot. That dissent isn’t any sort of precedent, the logic in it was adopted by the Supremes, afaict. And they build Trump’s entire case by misconstruing it over and over. At least Youngstown was an actual Supreme Court ruling.

                    • earlofhuntingdon says:

                      I don’t see the logic or persuasiveness in Trump’s position. When the S.Ct. dismissed the cases as moot, they vacated the lower federal appellate and trial court decisions. There is no precedent to rely on, persuasive or not.

                      They could separately raise the arguments raised in those cases, but should recognize they are unprecedented. Trump’s lawyers have not shown themselves capable of such honest debate.

                    • WilliamOckham says:

                      ugh… the word I most commonly leave out of a sentence by mistake is “no” or “not”. In this case, I meant to say the logic in it was NOT adopted by the Supremes, afaict.

                    • Peterr says:

                      William, might one of your ancestors have had a hand in the Wicked Bible, in which the printer famously rephrased one of the commandments to read “Thou shalt commit adultery”?

                  • dopefish says:

                    Egregious misstatement of precedent seems to be a hallmark of Team Trump’s lawyers in all of these cases.

                    If they wanted to, could the Supreme Court rebuke this without causing extra delay?

                    I suppose by denying the stay and then affirming anyway, with a ruling that calls out the b.s. and states what the proper application of law is? (do they ever do stuff like that, when they could just deny cert?)

                    • earlofhuntingdon says:

                      If the S.Ct. wanted to go that route, it would have to accept cert., that is, assume jurisdiction, in order to affirm the lower court.

                      The easier route would be to deny the stay and the inevitable later petition for cert. The utility of asking for an en banc hearing after that would be nil, but Trump would still do it.

                      Meanwhile, the trial before Judge Chutkan would have resumed.

                • dopefish says:

                  Like the 2017 inauguration photo crowd size thing.

                  Trump forcing Sean Spicer and various other Trump-orbiting sycophants to humiliate themselves in public by parroting his “alternative facts”.

              • Ginevra diBenci says:

                I only made it a third of the way through the Trump application before massive (real) migraine hit.

                His desire to pull the rug out from under the panel who denied his immunity claim, by engaging in legal tomfoolery in a tone of condescension, incited rage in me. But I kept imagining Thomas and Scalia nodding along in agreement. Will they stoop this low? Maybe.

                Will two other justices? That’s the question, if the court decides to treat this as a petition for cert,

  8. Old Rapier says:

    Rosenstein’s suggestion of eavesdropping Trump back in the day is the gift that keeps on giving. Gold standard bona fides of not simply impartiality but as a Trump hater. So let’s see. Ten million or so rabid MAGA’s have visions of Rod as target on a bullseye yet he stands up in support of the crews of Roman Catholic boy fascists always roaming around the DOJ. What the upside is I don’t have a clue. I hope the fullness of time doesn’t reveal an upside for Rod.

  9. wetzel-rhymes-with says:

    Rosenstein making it up to Trump is not sufficient motivation for Hur to destroy his professional reputation or to explain Shapely’s role or how a guy like Leo Wise gets the job to investigate the President’s son unless they are very sympathetic friends.

  10. Savage Librarian says:

    Spot Rod Slinkin’

    Verse 1]
    Well, you heard the story
    of the Spot Rod trace
    that fabled day,
    The scoreboard full of pillory
    was on display,
    Well this is the inside story,
    and I’m here to say,
    a quid pro quo was hiding estoppel, okay?

    Verse 2]
    There’s a stinking promoter,
    Who got them all duped up,
    That estoppel prey body:
    Donnybrook, Putin’s pup,
    They’ve got conspirators, using them all,
    And with 45, it’s off the wall.

    Verse 3]
    They’ve got a referral prob
    and a doublecross,
    47 fears, (you remember who lost!)
    They’ve got nasty rubes,
    But they’re prepared,
    The fakes are good, all the liars will swear

    Verse 4]
    They left Baltimore late one night,
    The goons & co-stars were out of sight,
    Everything went fine up on Capitol Hill,
    They passed off memoirs,
    like there was Billy Barr still.

    Verse 5]
    And all of a sudden, in the flick of an eye,
    A maverick madman had passed them by
    The remark was made,
    “There’s the czar for me”
    But by then the states’ rights
    were all they could see.

    Verse 6]
    Now the fellas ribbed me for bein’ behind,
    So I started to make their thinking unwind,
    I took my foot off the gaslight, man alive,
    They shoved it down into overdrive.

    Verse 7]
    Well, they wound it up
    with an encumbered pen,
    Twisted the biographer label
    to their trend,
    Then they hotfooted it to the House floor
    Said that’s all there is,
    and there ain’t no more.

    Verse 8]
    They cut plenty of corners
    to produce their muck,
    and whispered a prayer just for luck,
    Members were chuckin’ guardrail posts,
    Counsel beside me
    tried to ghost the ghost.

    Verse 9]
    I guess they thought
    they made some sense,
    But their disowned goals
    looked like something they’d fence,
    They said, “Get down, connect dots,
    The lines that we wrote
    are our best shots.”

    Verse 10]
    Koch was polling out in the back,
    When things started waning
    on that maverick,
    They knew he would cadge them
    and hoped it would pass,
    But when it did, they’d be short on brass.

    Verse 11]
    They cut another corner
    with the liars by their side,
    You could feel the tension
    by how they tried,
    They said, “Hold on,
    we’ve got a license to lie,”
    Then the maverick pulled over,
    Don’t ask me why.

    Verse 12]
    And all of a sudden
    the Rod started knockin’
    and movin’ his lips,
    When he started to talkin’
    he made it most clear
    just what dirt he was thinkin’,
    ‘Cause that’s the way
    of Spot Rod Slinkin’.

    Verse 13]
    Well they arrested me
    and put me in jail,
    Then called my pop
    to throw my bail,
    He said, “Son,
    you’re gonna drive me to drinkin’
    You don’t quit jivin’
    with Spot Rod Slinkin’ “

    “Hot Rod Lincoln – Charley Ryan (1st version)”

Comments are closed.