Replies

I don’t trust the NY times story regarding Rosenstein. I think this is a trap to get Trump to fire Rosenstein so then they can try and get him for obstruction of the SC investigation. If Rosenstein gets fired, I think he can’t be compelled to testify right?

No way the NYT turns on Rosenstein, the attack dog running the DOJ against the President.
___________________________________________

The Deep State piranhas appear to be now eating their own, but this latest has the stench of just another DS setup attempt. There is so much more to the story. You should ask, why would the NY Slimes publish a critical article on their Deep State cohort, Rosenstein? Because the Deep State continues to collude and display their stupidity by telling themselves they are so much smarter than Trump and they’re going to bag their prey one way or the other. So, McCabe’s leak of this latest story is nothing more than an attempt to bait POTUS. The revised Deep State playbook is now to pull out all the stops to goat Trump into firing Rosenstein, which would then be used as an obstruction of justice impeachment charge. The obstruction card is the only one left in their deck. Problem is Trump is not taking the bait. Remember, Rosenstein tried twice in recent weeks to meet with the President, again to set him up and Trump refused both requests. For Trump, just watching these SOB’s sheer desperation as they turn on each other and twist and squirm is sweet revenge - great entertainment. Stew needs to slowly simmer to develop its optimum flavor. Patience everyone. Eventually, the point will be reached where the traitors will not want to show their faces in public. By the way, have you heard anything from Comey later? Do you know why?

Good points iontheball. I know why he's been quiet 😁. And the deep state is NOT 100% intact. There's a list of firings as long asy arm, and I hear the fatlady is singing also. The times is trying to throw out some legitimate news in order to save it's own hide. But they still can't help with their own little twist of things ever now and then..which is what illegitemizes them.

Logical arguments. Clearly, we cannot tell though.

However, what were the “words” that Rosenstein actually used in his denial of the story? Remember always: This is the group that defended Bill Clinton’s definition of “the meaning of “is” is” as a defense against perjury in a rape/assault case against the president!

So, a claim that it was “sarcasm” is useful, isn’t it? Because “sarcasm” means the “words themselves” (the proposal to tape the president during a conversation) were actually correctly quoted.