Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at White House, expects to be fired

a reply to: soberbacchus

Meh, another premature, jump the gun, yawn "breaking" story.

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: underwerks
If Rosenstein gets fired, throw another log on the obstruction fire.

Even if the reports are alleged that Rosenstein taped Trump, both sides of the isle have set the precedence that's all they need. Something I don't agree with or support, but I'll call both sides out for cherry picking when they are guilty of it.

He can totally fire Rosenstein.

Of course he can fire him. I hope he does.

Obstruction will be an undeniable thing if he publicly fires the person overseeing the investigation into himself instead of letting it come to a natural conclusion.

Especially if it leaks out of the White House that someone there was behind the anonymous story on Axios about Rosenstein “verbally” resigning. And if they were, you better believe it will find it’s way out eventually.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: underwerks
If Rosenstein gets fired, throw another log on the obstruction fire.

Even if the reports are alleged that Rosenstein taped Trump, both sides of the isle have set the precedence that's all they need. Something I don't agree with or support, but I'll call both sides out for cherry picking when they are guilty of it.

He can totally fire Rosenstein.

Of course he can fire him. I hope he does.

Obstruction will be an undeniable thing if he publicly fires the person overseeing the investigation into himself instead of letting it come to a natural conclusion.

Especially if it leaks out of the White House that someone there was behind the anonymous story on Axios about Rosenstein “verbally” resigning. And if they were, you better believe it will find it’s way out eventually.

One slight problem - the SC is not investigating Trump ... according to Rosenstein.
So there goes your theory.

Given the spectacular unreliability of formerly reputable legacy media sources, it's advisable to corroborate their claims with more reputable sources, such as supermarket tabloids, middle school playgrounds and restroom walls, before believing them.

a reply to: underwerks

Especially if it leaks out of the White House that someone there was behind the anonymous story on Axios about Rosenstein “verbally” resigning. And if they were, you better believe it will find it’s way out eventually.

I'll go one step further and say the WH could have leaked the "Rosenstein taping Trump" to prime this whole thing.

Though I doubt the NYT would be reckless enough to run with a source they know could be using that angle. Why would they help the WH?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Now a different view.

Is it possible that Rosenstein leaked the NYT article to force Trump to fire him?

He already stated he will not resign and that "you'll fire me if you want".

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: underwerks
If Rosenstein gets fired, throw another log on the obstruction fire.

Even if the reports are alleged that Rosenstein taped Trump, both sides of the isle have set the precedence that's all they need. Something I don't agree with or support, but I'll call both sides out for cherry picking when they are guilty of it.

He can totally fire Rosenstein.

Especially if it leaks out of the White House that someone there was behind the anonymous story on Axios about Rosenstein “verbally” resigning. And if they were, you better believe it will find it’s way out eventually.

Lol, why would that be a problem? Is selectively leaking all of a sudden a problem? How do you like them apples??

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: underwerks

Especially if it leaks out of the White House that someone there was behind the anonymous story on Axios about Rosenstein “verbally” resigning. And if they were, you better believe it will find it’s way out eventually.

I'll go one step further and say the WH could have leaked the "Rosenstein taping Trump" to prime this whole thing.

Though I doubt the NYT would be reckless enough to run with a source they know could be using that angle. Why would they help the WH?

The NYTs might have gotten played with the RR 25th bit.

Rosenstein left the WH after meeting with John Kelly.
The WH announced that Rod Rosenstein and Trump will be meeting on Thursday.

I suspect it is no coincidence that is when Kavenaugh and his accuser are scheduled to testify in public hearings.

Trump is looking for dampen the media coverage on either with overload.

Or at least that is possible.

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Now a different view.

Is it possible that Rosenstein leaked the NYT article to force Trump to fire him?

He already stated he will not resign and that "you'll fire me if you want".

Interesting theory, one that crossed my mind... But if the NYT ran with that it would ruin them, the public would never trust them if they knew they would fabricate stories to influence the political environment.

There is a difference between media bias and orchestrating political outcome.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Actually he's at the U.N. security meeting and will only get back to Washington on Thursday.

I've got a theory, and we'll see if it plays out: Sessions is going to fire Rosenstein some time before Thursday. This will create the appearance that Sessions took the initiative in canning him, and will help shield Trump, who as we all know can't stand Sessions *wink, wink*

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I was just about to post this EXACT same theory.
I agree 💯%

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: underwerks
If Rosenstein gets fired, throw another log on the obstruction fire.

Even if the reports are alleged that Rosenstein taped Trump, both sides of the isle have set the precedence that's all they need. Something I don't agree with or support, but I'll call both sides out for cherry picking when they are guilty of it.

He can totally fire Rosenstein.

Especially if it leaks out of the White House that someone there was behind the anonymous story on Axios about Rosenstein “verbally” resigning. And if they were, you better believe it will find it’s way out eventually.

Lol, why would that be a problem? Is selectively leaking all of a sudden a problem? How do you like them apples??

If it’s part of a bigger push to discredit an investigation into yourself and your campaign, how could it not legally be a problem?

Even if Trump ends up firing Mueller, the investigation and what it’s uncovered doesn’t magically go away.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Now a different view.

Is it possible that Rosenstein leaked the NYT article to force Trump to fire him?

He already stated he will not resign and that "you'll fire me if you want".

Interesting theory, one that crossed my mind... But if the NYT ran with that it would ruin them, the public would never trust them if they knew they would fabricate stories to influence the political environment.

There is a difference between media bias and orchestrating political outcome.

From the reporting I have seen. RR did make the comments, but did so in jest.

So it's possible someone used it to provoke his ouster.

Even his denial was not a denial that he might have said such a thing, only that he meant it seriously.

"The New York Times's story is inaccurate and factually incorrect," he said in a statement. "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."

Rosenstein issued an updated statement saying he "never pursued or authorized recording the President and any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the President is absolutely false."

"There is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment"
"Never PURSUED or AUTHORIZED recording the President"
Never "ADVOCATED for the removal of the President"

What he doesn't say is that he never suggested it.
He might not have "pursued" the idea of recording the President.
He might not have "authorized" the recording of the President.
He might not have "Advocated" for the removal of the President.

But he still might have "suggested" it, in jest, or otherwise.as the article claims.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

They've been fabricating stories to influence the political environment for a long time.

And when they get caught they retract the story and say it was a mistake.

You don't think the Nikki Haley's curtains story was an attempt to orchestrate the political outcome?

a reply to: soberbacchus

From the reporting I have seen. RR did make the comments, but did so in jest.

I've worked in some stressful environments, sometimes jesting is the only way to decompress. Any place I've worked the subordinates when together will talk about their bosses jokingly, that comes of no surprise.

Even his denial was not a denial that he might have said such a thing, only that he meant it seriously.

Wow, someone attempting to be honest in politics? Mind blowing.

All that said, none of us have the full story, as it stands everything is alleged at this point, most from anonymous sources.

a reply to: vinifalou

And when they get caught they retract the story and say it was a mistake.

You don't think the Nikki Haley's curtains story was an attempt to orchestrate the political outcome?

It's not out of the realm of possibility. I do humor though that journalists like all of us are just trying to climb the ladder any chance they get. Sometimes they run with a juicy story before they fully check it out.

Let's not forget that our government has done sketchy things at times too, most of their sources are government ones... Politicians know how to play the game.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there are many ways it could be seen.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: soberbacchus

Can we now agree that the Russian bull # is bull #?

So Trump's Personal Lawyer, Former Campaign Chief, National Security Advisor, Foreign Policy Advisor, Deputy Campaign Manager etc. are all cooperating with the Special Counsel about what?

100 plus charges, 30 plus indictments, 10 plus convictions, 5 or more plea deals and offers to cooperate?

Nothing untoward going on?

Zero charges, indictments, convictions or plea deals relating to collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
That's ZERO. Just in case you missed it the first time.

Weird.

Of course not? If there were Indictments, Charges, Convictions with regard to TRUMP CAMPAIGN plus RUSSIANS the investigation would be over, Mueller would have filed his report already and congress would be discussing impeachment.

What we have at this stage of the investigation is over a hundred charges of both Russians and Americans, a half dozen cooperation agreements of Trumps key figures, several convictions etc.

If the Special Counsel was charging people with collusion (or more accurately Conspiracy to Defraud The United States of America and Obstruction of Justice) the investigation would be over.