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

originally posted by: soberbacchus
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?

You have a neat-o list there.

Show me anything in that list that has evidence of wrongdoing by Trump or "Russian Collusion" (which, for the millionth time, is not a crime in and of itself).

See, the thing is, there could be a million people "willing to cooperate" or getting arrested, indicted, and convicted, but when nothing points to the original reason for which the special counsel was assigned, yes, the conclusion is that there is something "untoward" going on, but it's not what you imply.

And as a taxpaying citizen and one whose dayjob it is to understand the legal and investigative processes of federal agencies, I conclude that this is, at this point, a massive waste of time. This list that you typed out could be accomplished through regular investigatory means without a special counsel--and if it can't, then maybe there isn't any probable cause and these people should be left alone until there is.

You know, because of the constitution and all that. Investigating in hopes of finding criminal activity, especially when the approval for the investigation is knowingly (at this point) based on false premises, is a blatant abuse of the American legal system. If you are happy with that, so be it, I suppose. If you disregard my claim of my day job or my understanding of the legal system, so be it, I suppose. If you are unwilling or incapable of admitting that this entire special counsel is turning up NOTHING for which it was originally designed and approved, so be it, I suppose.

But let's not pretend that it's doing exactly what it was designed to do nor is the special counsel's existence and use in this instance is without reasonable and deserved disdain and speculation at this point.

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?

Who said this is helping the White House? That seems to be the current right wing way of thinking about it but it’s kind of divorced from reality.

I see this as the news media handing Trump some rope, and waiting for him to do the rest.

Publicly firing the person overseeing the investigation into your campaign and your cronies is pretty much an open and shut case. Especially when combined with everything else Trump has done to try and shift the course of the investigation.

If Trumpers want protests from coast to coast going into the midterms, have at it. Get rid of him. Try to stifle the investigation.

It’s not lost on me that these are things no innocent person would do either. And I’m sure I’m not the only one.

a reply to: soberbacchus

already a thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: underwerks

I see where you're coming from, but I doubt any of it transpires that way.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Another note on timing to ponder.

The Special Counsel is in the "election window" where DOJ policy is to hold off on anything that might be seen as effecting an immanent election.

If we hypothesize that with Manafort now cooperating, the Special Counsel team is lining up their ducks to conclude and issue final charges and conclusions after November 8th?

Then that might explain why Trump is not taking the advice of his allies in the senate who have begged him not to fire Rosenstein before the elections.

Trump's window to head off the conclusion of the Special Counsel might be closed come Nov. 9th when, post-election, Mueller feels free to proceed with indictments or final reports.

If Trump is going to shut it down or otherwise cripple it, he might have to do that before Nov. 8th despite GOP in congress telling him not to.

a reply to: UKTruth

It all relates to collusion. It all stems from the same investigation. Much like the obstruction charges will and the money laundering will and the collusion with the Russian government will. Piece by piece and bit by bit. all stemming from the same plant.

originally posted by: underwerks

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.

You seem to have forgotten that the SC is not investigating Trump.

a reply to: UKTruth

No just more proof that he is out of control. Reacting to circumstances instead of controlling them.

no one has been fired yet. No one has resigned yet. The status quo is still the status quo.

what is going on. trump is in NY.
apparently this is being put off until Thursday.

a reply to: vinifalou

Tell me something I dont already know.

Right on cue...what did the home serve you for lunch today?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

No just more proof that he is out of control. Reacting to circumstances instead of controlling them.

no one has been fired yet. No one has resigned yet. The status quo is still the status quo.

what is going on. trump is in NY.
apparently this is being put off until Thursday.

I believe Trump may be a bit busy chairing the UN Security Council meeting.
He's back to meet with Rosenstein on Thursday having had a lengthy phone call with him today.

a reply to: vinifalou

Sure... why does he want trump to fire him again?

a reply to: soberbacchus

Yup. Muddy the water on both issues.

Rosenstein floated the idea of “taping Trump” and “invoking the 25th”... who was that “Apprentice” that was taping everyone and speaking about the “25th” while promoting a book recently... wonder if she had assistance from anyone...

a reply to: CriticalStinker


Which is why the Times would never just run a story they could not confirm.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: underwerks

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.

You seem to have forgotten that the SC is not investigating Trump.

Are you really believing Mueller and the DOJ right now? Funny how they seem credible when it suits you.

Anyway:

Link

Do you really believe that Trumps lawyers being told he isn’t under investigation is the end of it? That’s it?

Mueller telling Trumps lawyers that he isn’t under investigation doesn’t mean he won’t be in the future. Gotta love that lawyer talk.

originally posted by: CADpro
Right on cue...what did the home serve you for lunch today?

I've always found that using substance in a debate is a better tactic than ad hominem.

Emotion doesn't win debates, substance and facts do.

Carry on.

a reply to: vinifalou

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

For example.....

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

Except its not 😏

Throw another bucket of water on the leftist smoke, considering there never was fire 🤣

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: CADpro
Right on cue...what did the home serve you for lunch today?

I've always found that using substance in a debate is a better tactic than ad hominem.

Emotion doesn't win debates, substance and facts do.

Carry on.

Like your poopy talk in the other thread? Turd with girth as you described? Yeppers...that's substance.