ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2 of 11
< 12 3456 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Rod Rosenstein testifies on Crossfire Hurricane Investigation
BleedingRed 08:47 AM 06-03-2020


So basically Rat Rod said he let Mueller's gang of criminals write their own scope memo, and then he signed off on it despite there being zero evidence.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 10:12 AM 06-03-2020
Rod is full of shit, when he says he believes the Stone verdict BASED on the JURY's verdict. He should have said "stacked" jury. He's slimey Deep State pond scum.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 10:21 AM 06-03-2020
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco:
Understand...let there be no doubt...Rod is the smartest person in that room and they have not been able to come close to tripping him up...either side...one way or another.
"I didn't read what I signed" isn't a defense that's going to hold water. He's already dead meat if they want him to be.
[Reply]
Donger 10:22 AM 06-03-2020
Originally Posted by MagicHef:
I don't think that's accurate. Popadopoulos told the Aussies that he had been told Russia had the emails. I haven't seen anything that indicates "trying" or "bragging" to be involved.
Why would Papajohnpapllous tell Downer that unless he was bragging?

Anyway, if you prefer, we can go with the exact text of the Nunes memo:

The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.
[Reply]
Chief Northman 10:23 AM 06-03-2020
Yawn.

R’s chasing tails and grandstanding.
[Reply]
MagicHef 10:25 AM 06-03-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
Why would Papajohnpapllous tell Downer that unless he was bragging?

Anyway, if you prefer, we can go with the exact text of the Nunes memo:

The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.
There are many possibilities for why one person would tell something to another. Yes, I would prefer that we go with what we know rather than making unfounded assumptions, wouldn't you?
[Reply]
Shields68 10:25 AM 06-03-2020
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
"I didn't read what I signed" isn't a defense that's going to hold water. He's already dead meat if they want him to be.
The big problem is that it did not matter if he read it or not. He pretty much is also saying that the AG or acting AG does not really review any of the underlying evidence of the case. That if those writing the application determine what to omit or what to include and he assumes that they made the correct determination.
[Reply]
Donger 10:31 AM 06-03-2020
Originally Posted by MagicHef:
There are many possibilities for why one person would tell something to another. Yes, I would prefer that we go with what we know rather than making unfounded assumptions, wouldn't you?
Sure, it could have just been drunkenness, but I think bragging is most likely.

And yes, it is known that the Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok, and not the Steele Dossier, as Trumpers claim.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 10:40 AM 06-03-2020
Originally Posted by Shields68:
The big problem is that it did not matter if he read it or not. He pretty much is also saying that the AG or acting AG does not really review any of the underlying evidence of the case. That if those writing the application determine what to omit or what to include and he assumes that they made the correct determination.
He's responsible for what he signs.
[Reply]
Donger 10:54 AM 06-03-2020
:-)

Kennedy's talk is awesome!
[Reply]
Taco John 10:55 AM 06-03-2020

Cruz tells Rosenstein: "You came into a profoundly politicized world, yet all of this was allowed to go forward under your leadership. Either you were complicit in the wrongdoing ... or you were grossly negligent." pic.twitter.com/04Br1lPQjo

— August Takala (@AugustTakala) June 3, 2020

[Reply]
Shields68 10:55 AM 06-03-2020
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
He's responsible for what he signs.
You would think so. But ignorance probably avoids criminal responsibility.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 10:56 AM 06-03-2020
Originally Posted by Shields68:
You would think so. But ignorance probably avoids criminal responsibility.
There's a famous saying about ignorance of the law...
[Reply]
Shields68 11:00 AM 06-03-2020
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
There's a famous saying about ignorance of the law...
But it is not the law he is claiming ignorance of... He is saying that agents did not inform him of the facts ... So when he signed he believed it was accurate. Turns out it is was not.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 11:04 AM 06-03-2020
Originally Posted by Shields68:
But it is not the law he is claiming ignorance of... He is saying that agents did not inform him of the facts ... So when he signed he believed it was accurate. Turns out it is was not.
That doesn't change the equation at all, unless the investigators want it to. He's trying to throw McCabe under the bus, in order to keep himself clean. That'll work if finding a scapegoat is the goal of the investigators. It won't work if punishing all the wrongdoers is the goal. He perpetrated a fraud upon the court. His ass is grass if the appropriate people want to be the lawnmower.


Rosenstein's angle seems to be that he prefers to be known as incompetent rather than to be known as a criminal. It's not a bad angle at this point in his life, but it's only as believable as the listener wants it to be.
[Reply]
Pogue 11:12 AM 06-03-2020
Rosenstein trying the Hillary defense.
[Reply]
Page 2 of 11
< 12 3456 > Last »
Up