Ryan against Rosenstein impeachment campaign
WASHINGTON » House Speaker Paul Ryan spoke out against an effort by a small group of conservatives to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Thursday, dooming the endeavor for now and easing a months-long standoff between House Republicans and the Justice Department.
Ryan said the tussle over document requests between House Republicans and Rosenstein, who oversees the federal Trump-Russia investigation, doesn’t rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that could warrant impeachment under the Constitution.
“I don’t think we should be cavalier with this process or with this term,” Ryan said. He also said he is encouraged by progress on the document production.
Ryan made the comments a day after the group of 11 House Republicans sharply escalated the extended clash with the Justice Department by filing articles of impeachment against Rosenstein, who oversees special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Their move late Wednesday came after months of criticis maimed at the department — and the Russia investigation in particular— from President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress. Trump has fumed about Mueller’s probe and has repeatedly called it a “witch hunt,” a refrain echoed by some of the lawmakers.
Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether Trump’s campaign was involved.
The impeachment effort was led by North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus who talks to Trump frequently and often defends him to colleagues.
As Ryan voiced his disapproval, Meadows acknowledged that he didn’t currently have the votes to pass the impeachment resolution and said he wouldn’t use procedural maneuvers to trigger an immediate vote — something he had threatened to do. The House left Thursday afternoon for a five-week recess.
Instead, Meadows said he had a commitment from leaders to vote on holding Rosenstein in contempt of Congress when the House returns in September if certain documents are still outstanding. The agreement came after discussions on the House floor with Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., and the No. 3 House GOP leader, Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana.
The contempt resolution would first have to move through the Judiciary Committee, according to Republican aides.
Meadows said the five-week delay would give the department “one last chance” to deliver. He didn’t rule out trying for an impeachment vote in the future.
“Now it’s in Rod Rosenstein’s court,” Meadows said. Ryan’s tone was far different. “We do not have full compliance, and we have to get full compliance, but we have been making tremendous progress to that point,” he said of multiple document requests.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended Rosenstein in a Boston speech, saying he has the “highest confidence” in his top deputy. Rosenstein has overseen the Rus- sia investigation since last year, when Sessions recused himself following reports of his own meeting with the Russian ambassador.
Asked in May about rumblings that House Republicans might move to impeachment, Rosenstein was defiant.
“I think they should understand by now, the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted,” he said.
Meadows, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan and the other Republicans who introduced the resolution have criticized Rosenstein and Justice Department officials as not being responsive enough as House committees have demanded documents related to the Russia investigation’s inception and a now-closed investigation into Democrat Hillary Clinton’s emails.
The five articles of impeachment would charge Rosenstein with failing to produce information, though the department has provided lawmakers with more than 800,000 documents. The resolution notes that Rosenstein was one of several department officialswho approved what some Republicans say was improper surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
The impeachment resolution also criticizes Rosenstein for refusing to produce a memo that outlines the scope of the investigation and questions whether the investigation was started on legitimate grounds.
It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for lawmakers to demand documents that are part of an ongoing criminal investigation.