Yes -- I think RR is not a "player" in the action. I think he was "Barney Fife", and the players just needed to keep him on the sidelines and out of their way. So they told him what they thought he needed to know in order to keep him from feeling like he needed to engage more.
12:35 PM · May 27, 2020
So, lemme see if I understand this. The Deputy Attorney General of the United States of America--confirmed as such with the advice and consent of the United States Senate--can approve a Special Counsel investigation without any actual basis or predication, and it's OK as long as he didn't feel engaged? He's not held to any higher standard to determine the basis of the investigation than anyone moron picked at random? He's not in any way responsible for the ensuing grotesque false prosecutions and violations of civil rights? In other words, he walks? Really?
I think I'm with John Dowd on this one. In fact I know I'm with John Dowd.
Barr spokesperson on Hannity confirmed AG Barr has appointed an US Attorney out of Texas (Bash?) to investigate "unmasking" practices that came to light under the auspices of Durham's investigation.
The unmasking investigation will be under the umbrella of Durham's ongoing investigations related to the Russia Collusion Delusion.
Durham is spawing franchise investigations faster than a a fast food restaurant and clone new franchises.
I assume this implies what has uncovered so far has risen to the level that Barr felt it deserved to be elevated to the level of an investigation in its own right; I assume that implies they are looking into the motives/uses of the unmasked intel as being potentially criminal.
Here's my best guess at what this means.Delete
The unmaskings in themselves are meaningless, although wrong. Therefore I presume that at least some of those unmaskings may be connected to subsequent leaks. Those leaks could be criminal in themselves--depending on the nature of the info leaked--or they could have been (whether criminal in themselves or not) intended to be steps in furtherance of the big picture conspiracy to deprive Trump or someone else of civil rights.
Barr's spokesperson added that the unmasking requests provide "added insight" into what was going on, both before and AFTER the election.Delete
Which is to say, your assessment appears to be spot on.
Though it should be somewhat obvious, people often don't seem to realize that actions that are technically legal but knowingly taken in furtherance of a crime can constitute criminal acts themselves.Delete
Wouldn't it be cool, if Rosey were asked by SJC members (e.g. Grassley, Kennedy, Hawley, or Cruz) questions which Rosey would have to answer via resort to his *5th Amend.* rights?ReplyDelete
Are those I list here the most likely Senators to go there, or do you expect this of others?
But, how could Durham let Rosenstein testify to the SJC, if he’s going to be a prosecution witness against the coup plotters, unless indictments are imminent?Delete
IMHO, the fact that RR is appearing voluntarily tells you he isn't there to invoke his 5th Amendment rights.Delete
That's why I think he has a deal, and he's going to (and already has to a GJ) rat out his co-conspirators.
In addition, I believe the scope in this initial round with RR is limited to the Flynn investigation and not as to the predicate and its considerations in launching a SC.Delete
Question: Do co-conspirators who are trying to avoid getting caught make up their own individual lies and hope they stay straight with their fellow conspirators or do they have clandestine little meetings where they concoct their various stories so that there is a greater chance of keeping them straight?ReplyDelete
Seems very complicated and risky either way...
Asking for a friend.
LOL! I have to believe that RR and Barr came to a meeting of the minds before RR left the DoJ. Which would certainly pose a major problem for former co-conspirators.Delete
according to CTH, though, the last thing repub senators are trying for is to shed light on the situation.Delete
If that were so, then the hearings would basically have to be choreographed to avoid public airings of *stuff* wouldn't you think?
On the flip side, I'm sure - assuming you're right about Rosey and Barr - that there are parameters set on what Rosey can talk about so as not to hinder Durham.
What do you think of CTH's theory about repub motives?
How much easier to be a Democrat! You never have any doubt about what your people will do or say!
The tool for this is called the "MDA" - mutual defense agreement. It allows sharing of information among witnesses who are party to the agreement.Delete
Hillary and her minions used this in the MYE/Email scandal to good effect.
The downside of it is the moment on witness/target's legal interests diverge from the rest of those in the MDA, that witness/target cannot be part of the MDA any longer.
IOW, if one co-conspirator is offered and accepts a "Deal" from prosecutors, that co-conspirator's legal interests no longer align with the rest of the people party to the MDA.
@Cassander I like the way you think. I've had similar thoughts. How do these criminals keep their stories straight?Delete
mistcr, on parameters set on what Rosey can talk about, whether from a deal w/ Durham, or as per the CTH theory:Delete
should we expect anything different from Grassley, Kennedy, Hawley, or Cruz, than we'd expect from the clear D.S. shills?
I've expressed this opinion before that RR was a time serving toady that they allowed to hang around as their notary or front to rubberstamp the memos, findings, etc. Whatever use he was to them their main concern was that, like a juvenile cocker spaniel, he would get so excited being invited to an actual planning meeting he would start humping Comey's leg or pee on the carpet.ReplyDelete
That being said, that can in no way mitigate his responsibility. He needs to go to general population in a medium security penitentiary for at least a couple of decades before being eligible for parole; though in my heart I know any of these miscreants that are sentenced to actual time will end up in Club Fed where the most harsh condition they'll have to complain about will be too much starch in their sheets.
"too much starch in their sheets"Delete
To them, it's a human rights issue.
>> Catherine HerridgeReplyDelete
Tonight DOJ Spokeswoman Kerri Kupec announced that AG Barr has tapped US Attorney John Bash to review the unmasking issue as a support to U.S Attorney John Durham’s investigation. Bash is tasked with looking at episodes that occurred both before and after the 2016 election... the frequency, and who was unmasking whom. “These circumstances...can shed light on and give us a better understanding of what happened with respect to President Trump, his campaign, then...what happened after he was elected as well.” @KerriKupecDOJ said. <<
>> https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1265830901650513923 <<
It seems that Samantha Power submitted many unmasking requests on behalf of some else.Delete
Nice clear article to help explain to family members why this whole thing matters. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/27/what_the_obamagate_scandals_mean_and_why_they_matter.htmlReplyDelete
Yes, very good.Delete
I agree with Mr. Wauck about RR, but for different reasons. If RR were truly playing Barney Fife to the SC operation, he would have told them "Nip it in the bud."ReplyDelete
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
To channel Lloyd Benson: I remember Barney Fife. Rod Rosenstein is no Barney Fife.ReplyDelete
He hasn't the strength of character.
"Gomer, get down there with them spiders!"