Posted on 09/22/2018 1:16:22 AM PDT by dangus
I'm sure I'm not the first here to catch this; This probably has been mentioned in the comments in one of the many threads about Rosenstein's involvement in what was actually Comey's attempted coup-d'etat. But given that HOLY COW! AMERICA HAD A REAL-LIFE ATTEMPTED COUP D'ETAT!!!, I think this deserves being bumped up into an article.
Rosenstein disputed the core of the story, that the head of the FBI and the head of the Justice Department had formal discussions about a coup-d'etat. Here's what Rosenstein DID say:
"The New York Times 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. But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment."
From a later press release: “I never pursued or authorized recording the President and any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the President is absolutely false."
Well, the original story is that the coup d'etat was Comey's idea. So "pursued" and "advocated" are very fuzzy words. A lawyer like Rosenstein doesn't use fuzzy words when he wants to make an absolute denial. We knew he never AUTHORIZED the recording, otherwise it would have happened. But that doesn't mean that the idea wasn't proposed by Comey, or entertained by Rosenstein.
Let's look at other wordings to assess Rosenstein's candor
"The New York Times story is inaccurate and factually incorrect." Not false. Inaccurate. Usually when someone says you're inaccurate, it means you measured poorly, not that there wasn't anything to measure. So did they blow the details, or was the substance wholly invented?
"I will not further comment..." Which he did a few hours later.
"On a story based on anonymous sources..." Nice try to play on conservative's well-earned distrust of fake news, but this one actually has documentary evidence to help at least partially back up the anonymous sources.
"... who are obviously biased against the department..." To the casual conservative, he's defending the administration, but carefully not standing up for Trump. To the casual liberal, he's defending the Justice Department, but wait, these sources, if real, are from the department? And if they're biased, that means that he just confirmed their existence. The criticism against "anonymous sources" has frequently been that they're fake news!
"...and are advancing their own personal agenda..." What would that be? Exposing treason, or opposing the Trump administration. Wait, you don't honestly expect us to believe that CNN and the New York Times' sources' agenda is to strengthen the Trump administration by spreading lies about you? "But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment." Well, of course not. That doesn't mean that Comey didn't propose the idea to you. I'll take it for what it's worth: it IS a defense of Donald Trump. One whose timing seems self-serving, but a real one, nonetheless.
To be clear: The New York Times put Rosenstein in the headline, when the meat of the story reveals that Rosenstein was reacting to Comey's attempted coup-d'etat. Even though he's newsworthy in a headline because he's running the justice department and Comey now has time to pursue his story-writing career, Rosenstein seems to have a legit reason to be upset that the headline leads as if he's the architect of the coup, whereas he may be the one who decided it was infeasible to pursue further. But what I'm NOT hearing is, "That conversation never took place!"
I totally agree. “Inaccurate and factually incorrect” does not mean it is wrong. It just means some part of it 9maybe a very narrow part) is wrong.
It reminds me of denying an affair by saying “I am not having sex with that woman!”. That is true if you are not having sex with the woman at this very moment. However, it says almost nothing about the substance of the allegation.
Bkmk - Rosenstein denial
We've been talking about the coup d'etat on Free Republic for 18 months. Where have you been?
Worse advice ever.
Wasn’t it Rosenstein who started this by requesting, in a formal letter, that Comey be fired?
At least as far as the DEMAND by the Left for a “special counsel”?
The media never brings this up because it would exonerate the President and place the whole thing on Rosenstein.
‘They’ know that PDJT KNOWS. For the plotters, lots of internal jitters and fitful sleep.
Trump is being dared to fire Rosenstein. Part of me says he should. The other part says keep him and let him be part of the fast sinking ship. Why give him a lifeline?
If you look at what is being said by the MSM and certain liberal politicians (and Deep Stater actors), it is clear they are trying to foment a coup.
If any of Rosenstein’s minions are monitoring this forum, you can go tell your shitweasel of a boss that his day of reckoning is coming.
Same person who wrote the op-ed against Trump?
As with Dallas, the purposes of the conspirators could not have been achieved without a legend, a cover story that could capture the allegiance - and the silence - of patriots who would be needed to pull the trigger - so to speak, in the recent affair.
I imagine with JFK it was abandoning the CIA invasion of Cuba, leaving the CIA troops to die because he was f***ing a Russian spy (the East German). In my imaginary novel, Allen Dulles and J. Edgar Hoover cook this up in 1962 and then draw in some patriots with convincing (fake but accurate) documentary evidence.
Here, they almost succeeded (and we don’t know if there’s an Oswald involved in the end game, yet), but they thought, wrongly, that we all hate “Russians” enough to blind us to reality.
So, untangling this mess involves separating the sheep (like Rosenstein) from the goats (like Obama), and turning the sheep who aspired to be goats (like Comey) to be state’s evidence.
That.
Yes we did have a coup, Obama the illegal President put in place by wide scale voter fraud. Trump is America turning on the lights in the kitchen at midnight and discovering a million giant cockroaches
What he actually said (and implied), is that he never followed up on the suggestion of invoking the 25th Amendment. That is a classic legal non-denial, denial.
LBJ. His mistress, in a radio interview, admitted he had had people killed but it was only “business” She then said that he met with several men in Dallas (in a hotel suite) the day before Bobby Kennedy was shot, and then told her that RFK would no longer be a problem after the following day. She said he was really a moral man, defending him. Deep state goes a long way back.
I’m about 100 miles from a couple of large lakes.
In Dallas? Day before Bobby was shot — or JFK?
Rosenstein is a rat but not on this....he’s responding to McCabe who wants to go after trump.
Rr should never have appointed a special council. He knew trump wasn’t guilty of collusion but he wanted to investigate some of trumps shady business deals.
The cabal is McCabe, Strzok, and Brennan. These people need to be behind bars....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.