It is a conundrum, to me. Since Trump had all the rest of the bad guys fired, he could have fired RR any time, as well. In fact, RR was a US attorney in Maryland, and didn’t even join the DoJ as DAG until April 2017. And then there is RR’s happy farewell party with Barr, Sessions and all getting along like the best of friends. I cannot imagine a scene like that if Comey, McCabe or any of those bad guys were retiring.
The AG, whether Sessions, Whitaker or Barr, could have fired RR any time. Why didn’t they? Why was he hired in April? Certainly his status, whatever it might have been, was known.
It’s not clear to me.
It is a conundrum, to me. Since Trump had all the rest of the bad guys fired, he could have fired RR any time, as well. In fact, RR was a US attorney in Maryland, and didn’t even join the DoJ as DAG until April 2017. And then there is RR’s happy farewell party with Barr, Sessions and all getting along like the best of friends. I cannot imagine a scene like that if Comey, McCabe or any of those bad guys were retiring.
The AG, whether Sessions, Whitaker or Barr, could have fired RR any time. Why didn’t they? Why was he hired in April? Certainly his status, whatever it might have been, was known.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The left claimed in advance that POTUS would fire Rosenstein to protect discovery of his crimes. They actually planned protests (a.k.a riots) to occur the same day that Mueller/Rosenstein was removed or their performance was “interfered with” in any way. Any effort to remove Rosenstein would have been portrayed as a despotic president removing a DAG to replace him with a “friendly” (compliant with crimes) DAG.
Further - without Sessions reviewing or accessing Mueller/Rosensteins work at all, what reason could POTUS give to fire [RR]? POTUS wouldn’t have evidence other than the investigation continued - this at a time when Mueller (and one of our trolls) was claiming their side was collecting scalps (Flynn, Manafort, etc.) so it would look like POTUS was nipping successful prosecution in the bud.
The professional “happy scene” upon his departure assures the public that it is not personal, that POTUS’ administration was not “out to get him” (e.g., with his recusal, Sessions could not know anything about what [RR] was doing (was wrong).
But for me, the 2 plus years of witch hunt provide evidence which takes precedent over statements by [RR] (unlikely he would ever admit to offering to wear a wire) or a positive exit party (for God and country, our patriots would slap a smile on their faces and cheer him on). The white hats have to show impartiality until a court rules otherwise; the public is watching and wants to see fairness.
I think I helped cloud the analytical waters earlier when I offered Sessions’ positive send off as “evidence” that he was in good standing; my only information explaining “Trust Sessions” resides with Q and I couldn’t post that on the forum and even if I could, the same people ridiculing us for trusting Sessions hate us for trusting Q. In reality, the stakes are far too high to trust appearances at a social gathering - we are watching a show. :)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm with you, LJ. I have always had the strongest hunch that when the 20 redacted FISA pages are finally revealed, RR is going to be proven a white hat.