[Steven W.]

You are right! I was extrapolating. Looking at it again I think the two things are mutually exclusive:

Post # 1318 (May 7)

Why are confusing questions asked as to outcome re: Mueller?
What would be the purpose of creating confusion?
What was Sessions' Senate confirmation vote?
What was RR's Senate confirmation vote?
If RR is dirty, Mueller must also be dirty.
If Mueller is dirty, RR must also be dirty.
Common denominator.
Why did Sessions pick RR?
Everyone has an opinion.
Few have the facts.
Few know the plan.


I'm looking again and I don't see how one can be white hat and the other not but that does not eliminate the stooge factor but I consider that the same as dirty.

What irks me this morning is seeing Sleepy Chuck Todd yucking it up with Mark Warner re Friday "indictments" - it's a FRAUD. The whole timing and contents of that filing are IMO antithetical to truth.

I'm back to 97.53% likely they're both dirty ... I think there are a number of scenarios that could be in the plan - it certainly provides a setup for several things to occur.

[pinkpig]

Yep, Nunes said today with Maria that the information was in the report the dems would not allow to be seen. They have had this for months. Political stunt.

[ichabod1]

That is, unless President Donald Trump, the Maestro, WANTED them to put out those indictments to provide him with a lever to use in his discussions with his Excellency President V.V. Putin.

[little jeremiah]

Why did Sessions pick RR?
Everyone has an opinion.
Few have the facts.
Few know the plan.

Sessions is nobody’s fool.

[truthluva]

To me, the ‘common denominator’ in those two sentences is the word ‘Dirty’.

I think they are both dirty.

I think Sessions chose RR in order to expose him.
I think Mueller was appointed for the same reason, to expose him.

jmho

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

“Common denominator” is DIRTY.

That should take you to 188%.