My consideration has always been that just “let them be” ... let them (meaning the Mule op) setup & hire on all these rabid partisans, etc., and let them do their think, lie + hide evidence, etc.. There is nothing dishonest with that - it relies on the deep state bad guys to do the right things and tell the truth, etc.. That’s the way I’ve always read RR’s prior statements and his testimony again today - ala ‘hey, this requires sworn testimony by an officer whom I trusted etc.’ ... before it was ‘it must be right because these were high law enforcement officers and they can’t lie or else something really bad will happen’ ... now today it’s ‘hmmm they lied’.
Today’s testimony was again very weasely - but not beyond that ... and the most incensed was Sheldon Whitehouse that RR would never do his bidding. I still find all these things curious. I’d never believed that even after today I’m still in the TBD mindset; the black hat is very easy to see - not because it doesn’t fit ... but because he keeps placing it on his head at the wrong angle ... if that picture applies.
WWG1WGA :)
Steven: My consideration has always been that just “let them be” ... let them (meaning the Mule op) setup & hire on all these rabid partisans, etc., and let them do their think, lie + hide evidence, etc.. There is nothing dishonest with that -it relies on the deep state bad guys to do the right things and tell the truth, etc..
Me: "Let them be" does not exist in the framework of responsibility/authority nor does it apply to this instance. He was DAG; his oath of office dictates that he uphold the law. The highest law enforcement office (DOJ) in the nation directing underlings to undertake criminal actions at the president's request, even if it didn't 'coincidentally' drive the effort to unseat our duly elected president, exceeds my definition of dishonesty.
For your theory to work, president Trump's DOJ was thoroughly dishonest, appointing a special counsel without basis likely rises to a crime in it's own right, signing false FISA's (conflict of interest) which were the only way that wiretapping, fake prosecutions were falsely justified. I can't find the legal analysis of RR's responsibility and authority I used to post, but here's similar content contained in an AP article.
FROM AP NEWS: "Rosenstein makes nearly all the pivotal decisions in the Mueller investigation, including signing off on indictments. In an interview with USA Today in March, Rosenstein said Mueller was “not an unguided missile.”
In an investigation kept decidedly out of the public spotlight, it was Rosenstein — not Mueller — who briefed the president and then stood before the microphones when indictments were announced. He did so most recently in July, when the Justice Department charged 12 Russian intelligence officers in the hacking of Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton campaign emails during the 2016 election."
https://apnews.com/fb171988d4bb4b99b31e4cb219074b2d
Me: How would "signing off on indictments" constitute "let them be"? All these actions focus on destroying the Trump administration by any means necessary. No decent person "lets" that happen for 2 years and then quietly resigns in order to take up a position in a black hat lawyer factory.
Democrats have been working overtime to portray Trump's administration as corrupt - do we hear them demanding further investigation into the actions of Trump's former DAG right about now?
Steven: That’s the way I’ve always read RR’s prior statements and his testimony again today
Me: I note that you base your theory on what Rod Rosenstein says, instead of what he actually did, what his actual job description was, and what it did to the country and innocent people like Flynn. A guilty man will lie to save himself; why is that ruled out as a possible explanation for Rod's evolving statements? .
Under the law, guilt is determined by the sum of the evidence, not limited to positive interpretations of someone's statements and nuanced communication.
Today, Rod pretended to be incompetent because the only other alternative to explain his literal, well-documented swamp behavior would be to confess to treason.
Steven: today - ala ‘hey, this requires sworn testimony by an officer whom I trusted etc.’ ... before it was ‘it must be right because these were high law enforcement officers and they can’t lie or else something really bad will happen’ ... now today it’s ‘hmmm they lied’.
Me: Yes. Liars change their stories as they are increasingly exposed. Today, Rod either had to confess to treason or make excuses; he made an excuses. The evidence against him (e.g., failure to recuse, signing the FISA), his responsibilities as AG, etc. are not outweighed by his eagerness to shift blame.
Your analysis re his innocence and that of others on the Q threads, seems to depend upon knowleadge his unknowable "intentions" or other unavailable possibilities. Yet, the rule of law uses evidence and conduct to indicate intentions, not the other way around.
Steven: Today’s testimony was again very weasely - but not beyond that ...
Me: Today's testimony was quite damming; even with Lindsey Graham trying to protect him from exposure; Rod Rosenstein refused to accept responsibility for his well documented actions. Is he supposed to destroy his own credibility before revealing the "sting" and accusing his underlings of wrong doing?
Biden, Mueller, and now Rosenstein all "took a knee" to portray themselves as well-intentioned but incompetent in order to escape justice; they would try ANY another tactic if any were feasible.
Steven: ....and the most incensed was Sheldon Whitehouse that RR would never do his bidding. I still find all these things curious. I’d never believed that even after today I’m still in the TBD mindset;
Me: What Sheldon Whitehouse said does not impact Rod Rosenstein's actual, documented deeds and responsibilities as DAG. The Deep State is protecting Rosenstein because of his central role in the blockade and attempted coup; any of theirs will say what is needed to protect him (e.g., Graham, Whitehouse).
Steven: the black hat is very easy to see - not because it doesn’t fit ... but because he keeps placing it on his head at the wrong angle ... if that picture applies.
Me: Rod Rosenstein's black hat is very easy to see due to his documented actions and public conduct over the course of almost 2 years.
Objective investigation relies upon observed conduct/evidence/documentation/testimony to render a verdict. Excluding all but subjective, nuanced speculation (intentions, role playing), and the witness' own statements will render as many different verdicts as their are investigators.
The rule of law requires fairness and objectivity - just one more reason RR's decision not to recuse himself in an investigation into his own actions is not excusable.
The "RR-is-a-whitehat" theory falsely implies President Trump had knowledge of crimes being committed at his direction, by those he appointed, and failing to act to stop them. It elevates criminals like RR and Mueller to white hat status while making Trump a black hat, and falsely implies he criminally weaponized his DOJ to achieve his goals, just like Obama did.
I've seen zero evidence of a sting, and after 3 years of Deep State effort, There's still no evidence implicating Trump in criminal conduct or of having betrayed the public's trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
White hat theory also portrays Q as faking accusations against black hats.
In Q4005, Deep Staters talk about RR appointing Mueller before it was announced (and they have that intel from where?) Early in that chat log, they say that RR knows their "friends" have dirt on him if he doesn't.
So, either Q faked that chat log and falsely portrayed black hats as confident they have dirt on RR to leverage him - or the chat log is authentic and the DS is confident their friends have dirt on RR, that they can leverage him as needed, and they posted about Mueller before it became public knowledge.
There's also a prior drop wherein Comey meets with RR to convince him or make him select Mueller as Special Council - Q would have to fake that accusation against Comey as well.