This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45606746

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Rod Rosenstein denies voicing plot to remove Trump Rod Rosenstein denies voicing plot to remove Trump
(35 minutes later)
US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has denied a report alleging he discussed ousting President Donald Trump under the 25th Amendment. US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has denied a report that he discussed invoking a constitutional clause to oust President Donald Trump.
America's second most senior law official said it was "inaccurate and factually incorrect".America's second most senior law official said it was "inaccurate and factually incorrect".
The New York Times, citing anonymous sources, also said Mr Rosenstein had suggested secretly recording Mr Trump to expose chaos in the White House.The New York Times, citing anonymous sources, also said Mr Rosenstein had suggested secretly recording Mr Trump to expose chaos in the White House.
The claims relate to the period when Mr Trump fired FBI chief James Comey. The remarks allegedly happened after Mr Trump fired the FBI director last year.
Mr Comey had been overseeing the FBI investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. Mr Trump referred to the "Russia thing" when asked why he was removed. James Comey had been overseeing his law enforcement agency's investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. Mr Trump referred to the "Russia thing" when asked why he was removed.
What does the paper allege? What is the claim?
It says Mr Rosenstein discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment, a US constitutional clause providing for the removal of a president if he is unfit for office. The New York Times reported that Mr Rosenstein had discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th amendment of the US constitution, which provides for the removal of a president if he is deemed unfit for office.
It also says he suggested secretly recording Mr Trump to expose White House turmoil and dysfunction.It also says he suggested secretly recording Mr Trump to expose White House turmoil and dysfunction.
The suggestions came during meetings and conversations with justice department and FBI officials, the paper says, citing as sources several people who were either briefed on the events or on memos relating to them and who had insisted on anonymity. The suggestions came during meetings and conversations in May 2017 with justice department and FBI officials, the paper said.
Correspondents say Mr Trump might see the article as vindication of his belief there is a "deep state" seeking to unseat him. But he has also in the past railed at stories, in the New York Times and Washington Post in particular, that tap anonymous sources for their material. It cited several unnamed sources who were briefed on the events.
According to US media, the source of the allegations are memos created by former FBI acting director Andrew McCabe, who was fired by Mr Trump in March this year.
Mr McCabe's lawyer, Michael Bromwich said his client "has no knowledge of how any member of the media obtained those memos".
Mr Bromwich said the memos had been submitted to the special counsel who is investigating possible Russian meddling in the 2016 election and obstruction of justice, and another copy had remained at the FBI.
How did Mr Rosenstein respond?How did Mr Rosenstein respond?
Mr Rosenstein issued a statement saying: "The New York Times's story is inaccurate and factually incorrect. The deputy attorney general issued a statement saying: "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."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." "But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th amendment."
Who's telling the truth?
Other US media reports said Mr Rosenstein's comment about secretly recording the president was a joke.
There was also scepticism that the deputy attorney general would earnestly suggest ousting the Republican president.
Activating the 25th amendment of the US constitution would be unprecedented, requiring a majority of the Trump administration's cabinet, the vice-president and majorities in Congress, which is currently controlled by Mr Trump's party.
ABC News quoted one person who was present at the Rosenstein meeting as saying: "The statement was sarcastic and was never discussed with any intention of recording a conversation with the president."
The Washington Post also reported that Mr Rosenstein's remark about surreptitious recordings was not serious.
The newspaper said the deputy attorney general had been responding to Andrew McCabe's suggestion that the justice department investigate the president.
According to the Post, Mr Rosenstein replied sarcastically: "What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?"
The newspaper also said that someone who was present at the meeting denied the 25th amendment had ever come up.
Will Trump sack Rosenstein?Will Trump sack Rosenstein?
Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC WashingtonAnalysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC Washington
Donald Trump has spent a lot of time disparaging "fake news" reports from the "failing" New York Times largely based on anonymous sources. It will be interesting to see how he responds to an article that seemingly confirms his suspicions that members of his own administration are out to get him.Donald Trump has spent a lot of time disparaging "fake news" reports from the "failing" New York Times largely based on anonymous sources. It will be interesting to see how he responds to an article that seemingly confirms his suspicions that members of his own administration are out to get him.
Or maybe they're not. It all depends on whether you believe sources who talked to people who were in the room when Rod Rosenstein reportedly entertained notions of secretly taping the president or organising a constitutional manoeuvre to remove Mr Trump from office.Or maybe they're not. It all depends on whether you believe sources who talked to people who were in the room when Rod Rosenstein reportedly entertained notions of secretly taping the president or organising a constitutional manoeuvre to remove Mr Trump from office.
On some level, it doesn't matter if the reports are true. They alter events and perceptions either way. Mr Rosenstein has been on thin ice with the president for so long his feet probably have frostbite. The New York Times story could be the ominous crack that presages a plunge into the cold abyss.On some level, it doesn't matter if the reports are true. They alter events and perceptions either way. Mr Rosenstein has been on thin ice with the president for so long his feet probably have frostbite. The New York Times story could be the ominous crack that presages a plunge into the cold abyss.
Given Mr Rosenstein's position overseeing Robert Mueller and the Russia probe, any move against him by the president would be fraught with political peril. The president has vowed that he won't make a decision about Jeff Sessions until after the mid-term elections in November. Would that reluctance extend to the attorney general's second in command?Given Mr Rosenstein's position overseeing Robert Mueller and the Russia probe, any move against him by the president would be fraught with political peril. The president has vowed that he won't make a decision about Jeff Sessions until after the mid-term elections in November. Would that reluctance extend to the attorney general's second in command?