Replies

lj flips, I flop ... and ransomnote continues to ponder. No matter what the outcome, it’s a glorious plan! ;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While I continue to believe RR is a black hat, I don’t have evidence for my current theory as to the “why” he was hired when he was. I’m okay with the theory that he was left there due to Deep State accusations that any attempt to remove him would be POTUS violating the rule of law (doesn’t mean I am right, but my mind stops toying with it for awhile).

I favor my theory that they chose RR because he was suitably tarnished to satisfy the baying hounds of the deep state (they’d let investigation continue without de-legitimatizing the Trump administration as would be the case if an obvious white hat was chosen). I suspect, if JHTH is correct, RR was loyal to himself first, and all about being AG. This would make him preferable to the white hats when their other options would be cabal loyalists, but RR’d still be a huge risk (anyone can make a man of no loyalty “happy” for a time).

So I suspect POTUS and Q et. al. chose him believing if they could give him enough of what he wanted (defacto AG with opportunities for AG position going forward) they could leave him in place as DAG and that would give the optics needed and the investigation would be sufficiently “normal”. RR could be expected to reason that if he played his cards honestly for all to see on the public stage, he could advance to AG. That little theory guess-timation thingamabob is the first time I’ve had a chance at explaining “why choose Sessions knowing he would recuse?” (because I do think they knew). So BOOM! RR is functioning as AG in all but formal title. That should keep him happy. Sessions would have to try to keep him away from undue deep state influence. But would it be enough for RR to stay fair and objective?

I think Mueller, RR were spoken to ahead of time to reduce the risk, and it was a “deal” of some other kind but not with all cards on the table (meeting between Mueller and POTUS). I guess they would try to take an interest in seeing what Mueller wanted and moving him closer to it. So dangle something Mueller wanted to keep him away from RR.

Despite those efforts, or the deal, Mueller got to RR behind Session’s back and convinced him that POTUS was going to be impeached and RR would be wise, heroic even, to get onboard and help lest he be left holding the bag after Trump’s “impeachment.” I think that’s why RR said that history calls etc. and that he stood with Mueller (which speaks of ego, IMHO).

RR’s choice of an SC and Mueller had to be a blindside to beat all blindsides, however I think the white hats believed RR and what he could do were risks they had to take to avoid “Plan Z”. The DS would have just pulled down the government with screams of corruption and dictatorship if a white hat was chosen instead of RR because they had too much to lose. Back then, no Q to help the public understand.

Ermmmmm....evidence for my theory is ....uh...not much! Well...uhm...NOTHING! I only like it because it could address some of these missing pieces are so annoying.

If parts of my theory are true (or at least RR’s “surprise” decision to have an SC and have it be Mueller regardless of motive) the white hats have been delayed by a year or two. I’ve always had the feeling that we are winning but it’s behind the schedule POTUS/Q/White hats set. I think at some point Q tried to make up for lost time. But hey - theories are free and plentiful!

That’s where security clearance would come in nicely. Very nicely.
*writes it on Q Christmas list* :D

I’d like to build my understanding about how such things are reasoned, as it doesn’t come naturally to me. Too many possible explanations etc. I went looking and found a framework, but I wonder if there is a simple(r) methodology?

~~~~~~~~~~~

“Raymond S. Nickerson (1987), an authority on critical thinking, characterizes a good critical thinker in
terms of knowledge, abilities, attitudes, and habitual ways of behaving. Here are some of the
characteristics of such a thinker:

z uses evidence skillfully and impartially

z organizes thoughts and articulates them concisely and coherently

z distinguishers between logically valid and invalid inferences

z understands the difference between reasoning and rationalizing

z attempts to anticipate the probable consequences of alternative actions

z understands the idea of degrees of belief

z sees similarities and analogies that are not superficially apparent

z can learn independently and has an abiding interest in doing so

z applies problem-solving techniques in domains other than those in which learned

z can structure informally represented problems in such a way that formal techniques, such as
mathematics, can be used to solve them

z can strip a verbal argument of irrelevancies and phrase it in its essential terms

z habitually questions one’s own views and attempts to understand both the assumptions that are
critical to those views and the implications of the views

z is sensitive to the difference between the validity of a belief and the intensity with which it is held

z is aware of the fact that one’s understanding is always limited, often much more so than would be
An Introduction to Critical Thinking Page 4 of 13
http://www.freeinquiry.com/critical-thinking.html 8/2/2008
apparent to one with a noninquiring attitude

z recognizes the fallibility of one’s own opinions, the probability of bias in those opinions, and the
danger of weighting evidence according to personal preferences

http://facultycenter.ischool.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Critical-Thinking.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I wonder to what degree some of this can be learned? In my search I read repeatedly that it can’t be lectured or “read” into use - the thinking skills have to be developed through actual use. I think we are doing that, and have been doing that all along, but I’d like a boost from outside info. In particular, I’d like some structure to my thinking so I’d trip over it (like an ottoman) if I was unwittingly factoring in bias etc.

I took one out of the list above: “z suspends judgment in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a decision”. In our case, we often have to theorize until more is known (classified intel - we may never know!). I think natural personality differences and skill sets make some more comfortable working with partial information (i.e., don’t we WANT bankers to know their facts first? don’t we want theorists to “do something” while waiting for more info?).

That list isn’t exactly what i had in mind, but I’d go for something like “The 5 points to consider when analyzing...”