Replies

I posted an article not too long ago (not “Out there”, just on probably the last Q thread) in which RR’s statement about wiring were said incredulously/sarcastically, not seriously.

~~~~~

I weigh [RR]'s assertion that he was being sarcastic against his decision to hire a special counsel in the first place, his decision to hire Mueller, his decision to let Mueller continue as long as he did, his lack of interest in stopping Mueller. FACTCHECK.org is not impartial, but this account of the responsibilities of the DAG in relation to the special counsel matches what I've read elsewhere (I just like this concise format).

"Whom does the special counsel report to?

Mueller will report to Rosenstein. But the special counsel is supposed to act independently, with some limits. As the federal code explains, a special counsel must consult the acting attorney general (Rosenstein) if he wishes to expand the inquiry beyond what was spelled out in Rosenstein’s order “or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation.” In addition, Rosenstein can ask the special counsel to “provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step,” and if such step is deemed “inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices” the acting attorney general reserves the right to intervene, provided Congress is notified.

SNIP

Can Mueller be fired?

Yes, but not by the president, at least not directly. Only the acting attorney general — in this case, Rosenstein — can discipline or fire a special counsel, and then only for cause. According to the federal code, “The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.” The president can, however, fire the deputy attorney general.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/05/special-counsel-qa/

Emphasis (bold text) within paragraph mine.

I believe the text above explains why Q said that logically, if [RR] is guilty, then Mueller is guilty; a white hat would not choose, maintain, protect, and widen the scope of Mueller's investigation based on information available to the DAG. I don't believe [RR] was unaware of what Mueller was doing or the contents of Muellers ridiculous report; [RR] was responsible for initiating and condoning the investigation of history-making allegations against a sitting president.

I can't conceive of [RR] allowing the witch-hunt to continue for over two years without knowing what Mueller was doing.

I can't conceive of POTUS complaining for over two years about the witch hunt while his white hat requested, maintained, and protected the witch hunt. It would be HORRIBLY destructive for the president to tell the public for about 2.5 years that he's being persecuted by those who want him removed for office, then have the public become aware that his white hat [RR] started and maintained it - it would look like the president had been lying to them for 3 years, and make it almost impossible for the public trust the rest of what POTUS tells them about the coup and the Deep State.

I believe our white hats are "true" white hats; they want to restore the country to the rule of law so they won't set the precedent of "It's alright to commit crimes if there's good reason for it".

I believe that all the white hats expect to have to defend themselves in lawsuits by the lefties and remnants of the DS when this is exposed and so they would not engage in illegal actions in order to entrap DS. They would be subject to prosecution and the effort to save the country would be confounded by public distrust. [RR]