Was the Rosenstein bombshell a deliberate plant? Conspiracy theorists speculate that Trump loyalists were behind the NY Times story in order to give President excuse to fire Deputy AG

  • An explosive NY Times report said a frustrated Rosenstein discussed using his phone to tape discussions with Trump in order to document Oval Office chaos
  • That, the Times said, would generate proof that Trump was unfit for office and should be removed via the Constitution's 25th Amendment
  • Rosenstein reportedly made the comment to then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page 
  • Rosenstein and Justice Department officials claim the comment was sarcastic

The explosive New York Times report claiming that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said he wanted to wear a wire to secretly record President Donald Trump in order to oust him from office has been met with widespread speculation.

A New York Times report Friday claimed the Deputy Attorney General had discussed the possibility of recruiting members of Trump's Cabinet to declare him unfit for the job during a May 2017 meeting with Justice Department and FBI officials.

In the wake of the report several Twitter users are saying it was leaked in an effort to oust Rosenstein from Trump's inner circle. 

Scroll down for video 

Speculation is circling the New York Times report that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (above) said he would wear a wire to secretly record Donald Trump in order to build a case for removing the president from office in May of last year

Dozens of Twitter users responded to Friday's New York Times report saying that it had been planted to set Rosenstein up to be fired by Trump, whose inner circle is famously volatile

Dozens of Twitter users responded to Friday's New York Times report saying that it had been planted to set Rosenstein up to be fired by Trump, whose inner circle is famously volatile

Several Twitter users also slammed the Times for its report as Rosenstein and several other officials responded by saying the AG's remarks were made in jest. 

Justice Department officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, claimed Rosenstein does not actually believe Trump should be removed from office via the Constitution's 25th Amendment. 

However, New York Times journalist Adam Goldman defended his reporting, telling CNN's Jake Tapper Friday: 'You know, my understanding of what happened is that this wasn’t a flippant remark.' 

 Justice Department officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told NBC Rosenstein does not actually believe Trump should be removed from office

Several Twitter users also slammed the Times for its report as Rosenstein and several other officials responded by saying the deputy attorney general's remarks were made in jest

Several Twitter users also slammed the Times for its report as Rosenstein and several other officials responded by saying the deputy attorney general's remarks were made in jest

Goldman continued: '[Rosenstein] was, in fact, very serious. And the circumstances in which it was described to me are different now than what's being put out I guess by the government.

'It's important that your listeners understand something. That as I was pursuing this story for a very long time, people were reluctant to talk about it, because of the gravity of the story.

'There was concern that if it got out, that, you know, Rosenstein had wanted to actually, you know, wear a wire, and suggested Andy McCabe, the acting director at the time wear a wire, that Rob might get fired. People were sincerely concerned about this. Not because he made a flip remark. Because of the seriousness surrounding the remark.'

Rosenstein disputed the New York Times account on Friday, and a Justice Department official who was reportedly in the room when Rosenstein talked about using the 25th Amendment to end the Trump presidency says he was being sarcastic.

That account agrees with a Fox News report based on sources who were in the room and said the meeting took place May 16, 2017. 

The Washington Post, too, cited a source who said Rosenstein's comment was biting but unserious.

The 25th Amendment allows for a majority of the president's cabinet, or 'such other body as Congress may by law provide', to decide if an Oval Office occupant is unable to carry out his duties – and then to put it to a full congressional vote.

Reports emerged Friday that then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe (pictured) was in the room when Rosenstein uncorked his idea, and an Obama-era DOJ spokesman hinted that he might have planted the story

Reports emerged Friday that then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe (pictured) was in the room when Rosenstein uncorked his idea

Fox also reported that then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page were in the room when Rosenstein raised the subject.

Page had been half of the infamous texting romantic-affair couple who mused in 2016 about how to 'stop' Trump from becoming president.

An Obama-era Justice Department spokesman suggested Friday afternoon that McCabe leaked the story to the Times.

'Dangerous game Andy McCabe is playing right now,' Matthew Miller tweeted.

Ari Fleischer, who was White House press secretary during the George W. Bush administration, lashed out separately at McCabe.

'This story reads like Andy McCabe trying to burn down the house he once lived in,' he tweeted. 

'Looks to me like McCabe is trying to get revenge on those he used to work with, after they challenged his honesty and fired him.' 

McCabe is himself facing a federal probe over allegations that he misled investigators about the sources of press leaks.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions terminated his employment this year, just days before he was scheduled to retire with a full pension.

In the Post's telling, McCabe had proposed opening an investigation into the president after the firing of FBI Director James Comey. 

'What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?' Rosenstein chided him, according to one source.

On Friday night at a campaign rally in Missouri, Trump pledged to rid the Justice Department of its 'lingering stench', saying it housed some 'great people' but also 'some real bad ones'.

He said the bad ones are gone, 'but there's a lingering stench and we're going to get rid of that, too'.

It was unclear what Trump was referring to and he didn't specifically name anyone. However, the president is in a running war with the Justice Department, starting with Jeff Sessions, his hand-picked attorney general. 

Matthew Miller called the Times story the result of a 'dangerous game' McCabe is playing while he is himself under federal investigation

Matthew Miller called the Times story the result of a 'dangerous game' McCabe is playing while he is himself under federal investigation

President George W. Bush's former press secretary Ari Fleischer blasted McCabe on Twitter for 'trying to burn down the house he once lived in'

President George W Bush's former press secretary Ari Fleischer blasted McCabe on Twitter for 'trying to burn down the house he once lived in'

'Shocked!!! Absolutely Shocked!!!' the president's eldest son tweeted. 'Ohhh, who are we kidding at this point?'

'Shocked!!! Absolutely Shocked!!!' the president's eldest son tweeted. 'Ohhh, who are we kidding at this point?'

Sixteen days ago the Times published an unsigned opinion essay from a purported senior administration official who claimed the Constitution's procedure for firing a president was discussed quietly in the first days of Trump's tenure.

'Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president,' the author wrote. 'But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.'

Donald Trump Jr. had a different take on Friday, casting the Times report as substantially true and evidence of a cabal out to hamstring his father.

'Shocked!!! Absolutely Shocked!!!' the president's eldest son tweeted. 'Ohhh, who are we kidding at this point?'

'No one is shocked that these guys would do anything in their power to undermine @realdonaldtrump.' 

Friday's explosive allegation, based on unnamed sources, stems from a period of time when the White House seemed to ratchet up its chaos level with each day.

Trump had just fired Comey and was pilloried in the press for sharing Israeli intelligence about the ISIS terror army with Russian emissaries in the Oval Office.

And Rosenstein, the Times reports, thought the president had turned him into a patsy by leaning heavily on a memo he wrote when he swung the axe at Comey.

Trump had asked him to summarize the reasons he could use for firing Comey; Rosenstein reportedly never expected his response to be made public.

As a result, Rosenstein began recruiting Cabinet members to execute on a future 25th Amendment plan and suggesting that FBI officials who were on Trump's short list to replace Comey could make clandestine tapes of their job interviews with Trump.

Rosenstein was at the time acting as the de facto attorney general on matters related to the longstanding probe of alleged ties between Russian agents and Trump's presidential campaign.

Sessions had already recused himself from those mattters since he had been a campaign adviser and could be a fact witness in the investigation. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, laid down a marker on Friday, warning the president in a statement not to leverage the Times story as a rationale for jettisoning Rosenstein. 

Trump has long loathed Rosenstein for appointing Special Counsel Robrt Mueller after the Sessions recusal. 

'This story must not be used as a pretext for the corrupt purpose of firing Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein in order install an official who will allow the president to interfere with the Special Counsel's investigation,' Schumer said.

Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, was also reportedly in the room with Rosenstein and McCabe when the idea of secretly taping Trump came up

Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, was also reportedly in the room with Rosenstein and McCabe when the idea of secretly taping Trump came up

Rosenstein said Friday in a statement to reporters: 'The New York Times's story is inaccurate and factually incorrect.'

'I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda. But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.'

The Times reports that Rosenstein never actually recorded conversations with Trump. 

The newspaper's sources said Rosenstein spoke about a constitutionally director bloodless coup with Andrew McCabe, who was acting FBI director after Comey's ouster.

McCabe memorialized the conversations in writing, including notes about Rosenstein's desire to recruit Sessions and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly to help bring a 25th Amendment plan to fruition.

Rosenstein, according to the Times, had said recording an Oval Office discussion would be easy because White House staff never checked his cell phone before he entered. 

In a statement to The Washington Post, McCabe lawyer Michael Bromwich said his client 'drafted memos to memorialize significant discussions he had with high level officials and preserved them so he would have an accurate, contemporaneous record of those discussions.'

'When he was interviewed by the special counsel more than a year ago, he gave all of his memos – classified and unclassified – to the special counsel's office. A set of those memos remained at the FBI at the time of his departure in late January 2018. He has no knowledge of how any member of the media obtained those memos.'

Page wrote her own memo, the Post reported, but made no mention of the 25th Amendment. 

WHAT DOES THE 25TH AMENDMENT SAY? CAN TRUMP'S CABINET REALLY TOPPLE HIM?

The 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution deals with presidential authority in the event of death or removal from office, and was ratified in 1967, in the wake of John F Kennedy's assassination.

What does the 25th Amendment say?

It is in four sections, all dealing with the president leaving office during his or her elected term. 

The first section states that the vice president takes over the Oval Office if the president dies or resigns – or is removed – something which the original Constitution did not clearly state.

Presidents of course can be removed by impeachment, a feature of the constitution from the start. They can also be removed through the 25th Amendment - of which more below.

Section II states that if the vice president dies, or resigns – or is fired – both the House and Senate have to confirm a new vice president. Until 1967, presidents could change vice presidents mid-term on their own if they got the vice president to agree to resign - not something that actually happened, but which was possible in principle.

Section III makes clear that a president can temporarily delegate his powers to the vice president, and later reclaim them when he - or she - is capable of serving. This is most often invoked if a president is under the influence of surgical anesthetic for a short period of time. 

Section IV is the amendment's most controversial part: it describes how the president can be removed from office if he is incapacitated and does not leave on his own.

The vice president and 'a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide' must write to both the president pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, saying that 'the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.'

The term principal officers of the executive departments would normally mean the cabinet secretaries.

So at least eight of the president's 15 most senior Cabinet members together with the vice president must agree that a president should be removed before any plan can move forward.

Notifying the House Speaker and the Senate president pro tempore is the act that immediately elevates the vice president to an 'acting president' role.

The deposed president can contest the claim, giving the leaders of the bloodless coup four days to re-assert their claims to the House and Senate. 

Congress then has two days to convene – unless it is already in session – and another 21 days to vote on whether the president is incapable of serving. A two-thirds majority in both houses is required to make that determination.

As soon as there is a vote with a two-thirds majority, the president loses his powers and is removed, and the vice president stops acting and is sworn in as president.

But if 21 days of debate and votes ends without a two-thirds majority, the president gets back his powers.

What could happen to trigger the 25th Amendment?

Vice President Mike Pence and eight of the 15 'principal' Cabinet members would have to agree to notify Congress that President Donald Trump was incapable of running the country.

That group is made up of the Secretary of State, Treasury Secretary, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Interior Secretary, Agriculture Secretary, Commerce Secretary, Labor Secretary, Health and Human Services Secretary, Transportation Secretary, Energy Secretary , Education Secretary, Veterans Affairs Secretary and Homeland Security Secretary.

Their formal notification would go to the House Speaker and, in the senate, to the 'president pro tempore', the Senate's most senior member. As soon as the letter is sent, Pence would become 'acting president.'

Alternatively, Congress could set up its own mechanism to decide if he is fit for office - maybe a commission, or a joint committee. Pence would still have to agree with its conclusion and then write formally to the Speaker and president pro tempore.

Or another possibility is that the pool of 'principal officers' is considered to be bigger than the 15 and a majority of that group call Trump incapable.

What if Trump does not agree?

If Trump claims he is capable of holding office, he would write to the House Speaker and the president pro tempore of the Senate within four days, setting up three weeks of intense debate in both houses of Congress.

Trump would be removed from office if both two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate agreed with Pence and his cabal. 

If either of both chambers fell short of that mark, Trump would retain his powers and likely embark on a wholesale housecleaning, firing Pence and replacing disloyal Cabinet members.

Are there any loopholes?

The 25th Amendment allows Congress to appoint its own panel to evaluate the president instead of relying on the Cabinet – the men and women who work most closely with Trump – to decide on  a course of action.

It specifies that some 'other body as Congress may by law provide' could play that role, but Pence would still need to agree with any finding that the president is incapable of discharging his duties.

That commission could hypothetically include anyone from presidential historians to psychiatrists, entrusted to assess the president's fitness for office. 

Another loophole is that it does not spell out that the Cabinet is needed to agree, but says that the 'principal officers' of the departments are needed. That term is undefined in the constitution. In some departments legislation appears to name not just the secretary but deputies and even undersecretaries as 'principal officers', so many more people could be called in to the assessment of Trump's fitness. 

But Trump's cabinet has a swathe of 'acting' cabinet officer - and it is unclear if they could therefore take part in removing him. 

Could Trump fire Pence if he rebelled?

No. The vice president can resign or be impeached and removed - but he does not serve at the pleasure of the president.  

Is there any precedent for this?

No.  Only Section III, the voluntary surrender of presidential powers, has ever been used - and only very briefly.

In December 1978, President Jimmy Carter thought about invoking Section III when he was contemplating a surgical procedure to remove hemorrhoids. 

Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both voluntarily relinquished their powers while undergoing procedures under anesthetic. 

Section IV has also never been invoked, although there have been claims that Ronald Reagan's chief of staff Donald Regan told his successor, Howard Baker,  in 1987 that he should be prepared to invoke it because Reagan was inattentive and inept.

The PBS documentary 'American Experience' recounts how Baker and his team watched Reagan closely for signs of incapacity during their first meeting and decided he was in perfect command of himself.  

Advertisement

 

The comments below have not been moderated.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.