Talk:Rod Rosenstein

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States courts and judges Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Pennsylvania

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Maryland Low‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A couple of problems

A couple of problems need fixing:

-- The article says in a couple of places that President Trump nominated Rosenstein before actually taking office. Either the date is wrong, or else a phrase such as "announced the nomination of" should be used.

-- The article describes Rosenstein's previous job in the present tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.237.202 (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For this position "nomination" indeed occurs long before the person takes office. The incoming president normally nominates cabinet secretaries and maybe other top officials before he himself takes office. The nominee must be approved by the Senate before taking office, and that normally takes months. The phrasing around "nomination" looked okay to me. -- econterms (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same confusion - perhaps it would be better to refer to "President-elect Trump" for actions he took prior to his inauguration?

What was wrong with that last edit? I for one strongly question Rosenstein's judgement after this debacle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.180.170 (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Trump announced his intention to nominate Rosenstein on January 31, 2017”. This seems to be a typo and should read “January 13”, as is stated further below in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.142.216 (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. He was actually nominated on February 1, so I fixed this in the article. Marquardtika (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Comey, FBI director firing

A section regarding this needs creating. --Wikipietime (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2017 (UTCIt is inaccurate to say that RR recommended Comey's dismissal. https://www.justsecurity.org/40771/strange-perhaps-telling-omission-rosenstein-memo/

I think a sentence like this is worth adding, "Rosenstein's conclusions upon the appropriateness of Comey's actions was drafted before an internal review by the FBI Inspector General report on the same actions was completed." http://fortune.com/2017/01/13/james-comey-hillary-clinton-fbi/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.27.54.161 (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. --Wikipietime (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Memo on Comey

It is inaccurate to say that RR "recommended Comey's dismissal." The memo itself did not state such a recommendation. https://www.justsecurity.org/40771/strange-perhaps-telling-omission-rosenstein-memo/ It would be more accurate to say that RR's memo "articulated Comey's shortcomings as FBI Director."

It is also inaccurate to say that Rothstein interviewed anyone for the memo. All the quotes were from previous op-eds or interviews. I will edit the article to reflect that fact. Just saw that the article was semi-locked. I do think that detail is important and should be clarified ASAP.160.111.254.17 (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.111.254.17 (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Error in last sentence of "Fourth Circuit nomination under Bush".

The sentence changes paragraph focus from Rosenstein to somebody called Davis. I think "Davis" should be replaced with "Rosenstein" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.54.144 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is referring to Andre M. Davis, who is mentioned earlier in the article as a previous nominee to the seat. Marquardtika (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify pic

This is a DOJ photo of Brand's swearing in. The DOJ only identifies Sessions and Brand, but I'm 99% sure Rosenstein is in the middle. Can anybody verify 100%?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's Rosenstein. Per the discussion at Talk:Rachel Brand, it looks like Brand's husband. But since we have no definitive proof either way, we shouldn't be guessing. Marquardtika (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not Rosenstein. It looks a lot like her husband, whose photo is linked from Talk:Rachel Brand. -- econterms (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenstein political party affiliation

I acted in accordance with the suggestion which some other editor had inserted (to wit, ) and Huffington Post is unreliable as a legtwing propaganda outlet. Nor am I crazy about NBC or WaPO, either. I will keep searching for a genuinely reliable source. Quis separabit? 20:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NBC and the Washington Post are absolutely classic examples of Reliable Sources. HuffPo is usually regarded as one also, and the HuffPo article goes into great detail about his history as a Republican. Why the question, anyhow? We state people's party affiliation all the time, and one source is regarded as sufficient; what possible reason can there be for doubting it? --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN -- You are entitled to your own personal opinion re HuffPo, WaPO, whatever MSM you like, irrelevant to me. Quis separabit? 21:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: However, this is an interesting information regarding Rosenstein ([1]):

"During his Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, Rosenstein said that he has not “been a member nor held office in or rendered services to any political party or election committee."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk • contribs)

It’s not my opinion; it’s Wikipedia’s opinion. And you still haven't said what reason or evidence you have for doubting it. His testimony said that he has not held partisan office or worked for a political or election committee; neither have I but I can still lean toward one or the other political party. Two Republican presidents have nominated him for positions. Everyone comments that he does not allow partisanship to affect his professional work. Is that what he would have to do - enforce the law in a partisan Republican manner - for you to accept him as a Republican? --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's a registered Republican and this has been documented sufficiently for our purposes. He's not a "partisan" Republican, which is how he managed to stay at DOJ during the Obama administration. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu -- see the above quote which I provided. Quis separabit? 21:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw it. He can say he has not "been a member" and I read that to mean someone involved. It doesn't change the fact that he is a registered Republican even if he doesn't describe himself as a "member". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation / Removal from office

Axios is reporting that Rosenstein will resign on 9/24/2018 from the 37th United States Deputy Attorney General position because he expects to be fired for suggesting secretly recording President Trump and invoking the 25th Amendment, to remove Trump from office. It was reported he verbally resigned to General John Kelly over the phone. https://www.axios.com/rod-rosenstein-resign-justice-department-trump-cf761f4c-fca3-4794-92d4-a56c9e32ff43.html ~ Bought the farm (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Followup:: Mark Simone is reporting that Rosenstein is reporting to the White House and will be fired for plotting and conspiring against Trump and for not properly supervising the Mueller investigation and insubordination [refusal to turn over documents requested by Congress]. - 710 WOR ~ Bought the farm (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point we just need to wait. Spreading misinformation is too dangerous, and I'm glad that it's been locked. 199.74.8.4 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We better wait for a reliable source and for something to actually happen.- Mr X 🖋 16:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reason why we are correct to keep the rumors out: The ABC White House News Chief has tweeted that Rosenstein did not resign, was not fired, and is now attending a previously scheduled cabinet meeting. "This may be the strangest day yet at the Trump White House. Rod Rosenstein was summoned to the WH to meet with John Kelly this morning. He expected to be fired. He wasn't. And now Rosenstein is attending a previously scheduled cabinet-level meeting (filling in for Sessions)." [2] Of course we can't put that in yet either until it is actually reported. We just need to keep an eye on things and demand solid sources. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is conflicting information and the situation is evolving. It should stay out until there is consistent reporting from good sources.- Mr X 🖋 16:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have a stable situation for now. He met with Kelly, maybe he offered his resignation or maybe he didn't, but he is still on the job according to an official White House statement. He will meet with Trump on Thursday. Trump is in New York right now, at the UN meeting. I think we can leave it at that for the time being. --MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did hear on Fox News 9/25/2018 that he actually did resign, he did do it. It was suggested that Trump may well just accept the resignation as submitted and be done with him. we'll see... ~ Bought the farm (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't believe anything you hear on Fox News. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current event / updates

This article (Rod Rosenstein) will probably be updated continuously. Can someone also update the following article: United States Deputy Attorney General? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point there is nothing to update. Rosenstein is still the DAG. If and when he quits or is fired, that will be the time to edit the DAG article. Not now, when it's all just talk and speculation and contradictory reports. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

babies in cages

Rosenstein's crimes against humanity deserves its own section in the body of this article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably provide a source for "crimes against humanity" or else strike it per WP:BLP. Marquardtika (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance on History Channel

Rosenstein was a contributor and interviewee on History Channel's program "America's Book of Secrets" season 2, episode 11. He first appears at 10m 57s into the episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:8400:8180:1C32:225D:D5A9:69B8 (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Work for NSO Group

Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article (if only briefly) that Rosenstein has worked since at least 2020 for the NSO Group? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add A Fact: "Rosenstein resisted Trump's pressure"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

Rod Rosenstein, who served as deputy attorney general during the Trump administration was pressured by Trump to pursue political opponents and go easy on political allies, but resisted because "the Justice Department’s decisions about which cases to investigate and prosecute need to be based on evidence.”

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/09/30/trump-doj-revenge-political-enemies-00178218

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

Shimbo (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]