a couple of points.....

And Rosenstein too. You are not allowed to challenge Trumps authority. It's in the manual.

any replacement and even the jackass in the White House would have to deliver a reviewable "good cause" to remove the special counsel.

NOT.

Listen, these guys are a band of comrades. They're all the same, and they will not rock the boat.

I don't trust any repubs these days.

But, I guess he's afraid of being part of this and what the history books could say about him.

was??? - Should that be the bench mark Rosey????

---Rosenstein underscored that the memo he wrote was "not a legal brief" and was "not a statement of reasons to justify a for-cause termination...[and] not a survey of FBI morale or performance" but instead "a candid internal memorandum about the FBI director's public statements concerning a high-profile criminal investigation." http://www.npr.org/2017/05/19/529147240/rosenstein-on-comey-memo-i-wrote-it-i-believe-it-i-stand-by-it

Meaning, I think Rosenstein believed he was contributing to the behind-the-scenes discussion about replacing Comey, not writing the excuse note Trump intended to wave in the air to shift the responsibility from his own self.

Democrats were calling for his head after the Hillary kerfuffle. The memo stated things that had victimized her campaign. It was common knowledge he probably was going to be eventually replaced--Obama could have done it. But Rosenstein probably didn't predict it would be *the day after* his memo with it publicly cited as the reasoning.

True, the memo was accurate in assessing Comey's disregard of FBI protocol and ethical guidelines in his handling of the Clinton emails. Comey should have been fired by Obama. Trump just took advantage but was going to fire him anyway (I love that admission to Lester Holt).

Rosey knew that before writing the memo. This from the NY Times:

"The entire Senate, in a highly unusual gathering, was briefed on the Justice Department inquiry by Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who stunned some lawmakers when he suggested that he had known President Trump had planned to fire James B. Comey as F.B.I. director before he provided a memo to the president outlining a rationale for his dismissal."

So he knew it could and likely would be used as justification to fire Comey.

However, he said the memo was an internal document and did not recommend firing Comey yada yada...

I'm a lot dumber than Mr. Harvard law deputy AG, and if the world's biggest con-man tells me he's going to fire Comey and asks me, representing the justice dept, to write a memo describing Comey's faults, wtf do I think he's going to use it for? On the other hand, I don't think he had any choice.

Also, he wrote the memo to Sessions. Sessions recused himself. That seems to be in breach of the recusal.

What got Rosenstein mad was getting caught in what smells like a collusive arrangement - he didn't know Trump would publicly announce he based his firing on Rosenstein's non-recommendation justification, and call it a recommendation.

Also, he got caught writing it to Sessions. No explanation given that I'm aware of.

My question is, what's stopping tRump from firing AG's till he finds one that will fire Muller???
m

but there could be such a person.

died.

It's always newsworthy whenever a Republican or Republican appointee says he'll comply with the law, because its optional for "the party of law and order". For post-Reagan Machavellian Republicans, the law is a meaningless tool.

Not that Rosenstein will comply, but it's a BIG DEAL for a Republican to say they'll follow the law if it may harm Republican interests. However, he's a pariah if he follows through.

First rule of Republican party- You don't follow the law if it may do harm to another Republican!!

Second Rule of Republican Party- If a democrat can be alleged of anything, you shove that law, ethical code, or whatever you can down their f*cking throats.

...by that I mean he doesn't plan to run for office.

So he's not guided by whatever Trump wants today - or tomorrow.

My guess is that Rosenstein really is motivated to uphold the Constitution, and he's probably a "Republican" in name only. Sort of like Comey is, or was, before he quit the GOP altogether.

For now I'm taking his word on this, only because he's -not- implicated in the Russian clusterfuck.

This is more of an aside, but Trump will try to throw out the regulations allowing appointment of a special counsel, fire Rosenstein, fire Sessions and replace him with a loyal AG, etc. We KNOW he'll try obstructing the investigation.

I'm sure he has a list of options he's reviewing and waiting to implement at the right moment based on a manipulated set of facts.

He's a street thug sociopath businessman and the media and democrats seem to miss this. He's extremely incompetent and uninformed on many things, but has 50 years of experience planning and shamelessly executing clever little criminal ruses that catch people by surprise.

Federal rulemaking is a process. A regulation can't be undone by executive order alone. Also, there is a doctrine at law that if you can't do something directly, you also can't do it indirectly. So if Trump obligingly tweets that he is rewriting the regulations so he can fire Mueller, he will face a strong legal challenge. He made the same mistake with the travel bam and he doesn't learn from his mistakes.

Define "good cause"

Trump to Rod..."Say Rod, about that cocaine habit
you've got?"

is pretty damn terrifying.

1) give each a sequential number
2) tattoo a scarlet R on the forehead of the odd numbers
3) renumber
4) rinse, lather and repeat

..."good cause" is quite open. Rosenstein must receive a good paycheck, which could cause concern if ended.

Define "good cause" and "lawful and appropriate."

I don't trust a man that looks like a cockroach wearing glasses.