Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-21-2018, 01:19 PM
KidCharlemagne KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892
Looks like Trump has his casus belli to fire Rosenstein. What happens to now?

Err, "What happens now"(mods feel free to correct).

This is just a disaster. Just when things were going bad for Trump. Rosenstein allegedly discussed secretly recording Trump and invoking the 25th. Deep State conpiracy confirmed. Everything Trump needs to wreak havoc on Russia investigation. What happens now?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/u...gtype=Homepage

Last edited by KidCharlemagne; 09-21-2018 at 01:22 PM.
  #2  
Old 09-21-2018, 01:23 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,943
How does this give him license to wreak (more) havoc on the Russia investigation?

If Trump fires Rosenstein, that puts Noel Francisco in charge. I'm not sure there's any reason to believe he is more of a Trump loyalist.
  #3  
Old 09-21-2018, 01:32 PM
KidCharlemagne KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
How does this give him license to wreak (more) havoc on the Russia investigation?

If Trump fires Rosenstein, that puts Noel Francisco in charge. I'm not sure there's any reason to believe he is more of a Trump loyalist.
Not wreak havoc on the investigation itself, but on the perceived objectivity and veracity of its conclusions. This is ultimately gonna be played out in court of public opinion and this will give Trump defense exhibit A.
  #4  
Old 09-21-2018, 01:35 PM
CoolHandCox CoolHandCox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,123
It's just the New York Times. FAKE NEWS!!

I agree with OP. This is another block to discredit the Russia Investigation. Not really sure how, but that's never mattered.
  #5  
Old 09-21-2018, 01:44 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
Not wreak havoc on the investigation itself, but on the perceived objectivity and veracity of its conclusions. This is ultimately gonna be played out in court of public opinion and this will give Trump defense exhibit A.
Why? How does it affect the perceived objectivity and veracity of its conclusions?
  #6  
Old 09-21-2018, 01:54 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,934
Isn't it interesting how 25th Amendment remedies have been discussed for nearly the entire duration of Trump's occupation of the Oval Office, but when it is learned that Rosenstein (a Trump appointee, remember) expressed concern, that's grounds to be fired?

I've no doubt the Devin Nunes/Jim Jordan/Mark Meadows/Matt Goetz crowd will try to plug this narrative into the Deep State conspiracists' playbook. But as Richard Parker points out, so what? Even if Trump fires Rosenstein, Noel Francisco is probably not willing to become Trump's consigliere after an illustrious legal career.

Trump is stuck with Francisco until at least past the mid-terms because the Senate is preoccupied with trying to push through the disgusting Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination -- and that's assuming Republicans can hang onto the Senate. There will be no time to confirm a new AG, unless, oh, Betsy DeVos steps into the role. That would go well, no? The entire DOJ/FBI would come unstuck.

In any case, it's too late. The work is pretty much done by Mueller and distributed strategically to ensure the investigation will go forward no matter what. Even if Trump succeeds in stopping a report from issuing from the Special Counsel, there are workarounds to bring the information to the public's attention.

As for your concerns regarding public opinion, most of the public isn't buying the Deep State bullshit and I see nothing in the Times story that will sway it in a substantial way. Frankly, I think it would be more concerning if those close to the Trump "presidency" weren't considering 25th Amendment remedies.
  #7  
Old 09-21-2018, 02:13 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,870
I don't think Mueller is going to have any problem convincing folks of his objectivity, unless those folks are already predisposed to think otherwise. Rosenstein isn't involved in the day-to-day operation of the investigation. And let's keep in mind that Trump's biggest concern isn't the whole "collusion" crap, but with the many opportunities there will be for criminal charges at the state and federal level once Cohen, Manafort et al start singing like canaries. Things like tax fraud which can result in lots of jail time for Trump (and other people with that last name, too).
  #8  
Old 09-21-2018, 02:21 PM
filmore filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,039
I wonder if this was part of the memos going to be released by Trump. But then when he didn't, someone must have leaked this.

Last edited by filmore; 09-21-2018 at 02:24 PM.
  #9  
Old 09-21-2018, 02:35 PM
Defensive Indifference Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,358
If Trump fires Rosenstein, tens of thousands of people will be in the streets within hours. I'll be one of them. I'm signed up with MoveOn to get literal marching orders if it goes down.

Not that it will make a damned bit of difference, of course, but it will be something anyway.
  #10  
Old 09-21-2018, 02:35 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
I wonder if this was part of the memos going to be released by Trump. But then when he didn't, someone must have leaked this.
Gosh. I wonder who.
  #11  
Old 09-21-2018, 02:47 PM
CoolHandCox CoolHandCox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Why? How does it affect the perceived objectivity and veracity of its conclusions?
If affects the perceived objectivity because Rosenstein started the special investigation, appointed Mueller, and Rosenstein is overseeing that investigation. Now, we learn that around that time, he was trying to push out Trump via the 25th Amendment. Clearly, he has an axe to grind against Trump and wants him removed one way or the other. That's the angle I'd be pushing based on this reporting if I'm on team Trump.

I have no idea how it affects the veracity of its conclusions (yet - nobody does) and I don't care. I'm going to conflate the two and most people can't separate them apart.

Last edited by CoolHandCox; 09-21-2018 at 02:48 PM. Reason: grammar
  #12  
Old 09-21-2018, 03:25 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,934
I'm not sure why anyone assumes that Rosenstein, a 27-year veteran of the FBI, could only consider the 25th Amendment for a devious purpose. In a contest of credibility between the Trump operation and Rosenstein, I give far more weight to Rosenstein.

"Unfit" doesn't have to mean off his rocker. It could mean that Rosenstein has credible reasons to believe Trump is compromised and subject to foreign blackmail/interference. Given what we've learned over the past nearly 2 years, I think he is right -- and I view him as far more hero than villain.

Ironically, Rosenstein may be lying more today than he was back then about his true thoughts on the matter.
  #13  
Old 09-21-2018, 03:37 PM
enipla enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 12,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
..."Unfit" doesn't have to mean off his rocker. It could mean that Rosenstein has credible reasons to believe Trump is compromised and subject to foreign blackmail/interference.
It's both. Which makes trump even more dangerous.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #14  
Old 09-21-2018, 04:08 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,993
So the theory is that Rosenstein is today telling lies and McCabe is telling the truth?
  #15  
Old 09-21-2018, 04:18 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,137
Alternatively, the theory might be that reading for context matters.
  #16  
Old 09-21-2018, 04:47 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
It's both. Which makes trump even more dangerous.
Yeah, you read my mind. But Rosenstein isn't exactly in a position to state the obvious...
  #17  
Old 09-21-2018, 05:09 PM
Ranger Jeff Ranger Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,761
1. There will be some violent act that Deep State will be held responsible for.
2. The Chief Executive will assume Emergency Powers. A GOP controlled congress will give him the power.
3. Purges will begin. LE will be given wider powers.

This was how it worked in 1933 in Germany.
  #18  
Old 09-21-2018, 06:29 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,756
Remember that op-ed from last week, about the "adults in the room" who were saving us all from Donald's instability? It had this little tidbit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/o...esistance.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by NYT link above


Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.
Apparently, lots of people have been talking about the 25th, including Donald's cabinet members. All this pearl-clutching about Rosenstein is just pretense.

Rosenstein and Session will probably both be fired. It won't save Donald, but he's too dumb to know it. The only question is if he will listen to McConnell and wait until after midterms.
  #19  
Old 09-21-2018, 06:48 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
Remember that op-ed from last week, about the "adults in the room" who were saving us all from Donald's instability? It had this little tidbit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/o...esistance.html




Apparently, lots of people have been talking about the 25th, including Donald's cabinet members. All this pearl-clutching about Rosenstein is just pretense.

Rosenstein and Session will probably both be fired. It won't save Donald, but he's too dumb to know it. The only question is if he will listen to McConnell and wait until after midterms.
Well said. And I would only add that it's amusing to learn that the "failing New York Times" is suddenly the most reliable source of information on the planet.
  #20  
Old 09-21-2018, 06:53 PM
jasg jasg is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 5,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
Rosenstein and Session will probably both be fired. It won't save Donald, but he's too dumb to know it. The only question is if he will listen to McConnell and wait until after midterms.
Firing both might br a bit too much.

Maybe the news today was leaked by Sessions so he can keep his job.
  #21  
Old 09-21-2018, 08:03 PM
Leaper Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,473
So, like, does Rosenstein’s denials make any difference here to anyone? Probably not in the White House, but in general? Because this entire thread seems to assume it’s true...

Last edited by Leaper; 09-21-2018 at 08:03 PM.
  #22  
Old 09-21-2018, 08:13 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
Maybe the news today was leaked by Sessions so he can keep his job.
I don't know. I can't believe that Sessions hasn't gnawed off his own foot by now.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
So, like, does Rosensteinís denials make any difference here to anyone? Probably not in the White House, but in general? Because this entire thread seems to assume itís true...
It matters to me. If we're asking ourselves, who is more credible - Rod Rosenstein or the Trump Whitehouse? - there's only one possible answer. In fact you can sub in pretty much any name for Rod Rosenstein and get the same answer.
  #23  
Old 09-21-2018, 08:53 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So the theory is that Rosenstein is today telling lies and McCabe is telling the truth?
Haha. No.

Where did this silly idea come from?
  #24  
Old 09-21-2018, 08:57 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,934
It matters to me, too.

The New York Times has proved itself again and again as promoters of facts, and they spent a lot of time confirming the story as they reported it. I have no reason to doubt their reporting on the facts as they understand them.

However, reasonable minds can differ on the meanings of certain occurrences, and I am open to Rosenstein's own interpretations and state of mind. He by far has more credibility than anyone on the Trump side of the equation. Moreover, it seems bad blood exists between Rosenstein and McCabe that may have tainted McCabe's take on events.

Lastly, the New York Times did not have a source who was actually in the room where the statements about wiretapping Trump were made by Rosenstein. Other news outlets have spoken to sources who were in the room. Those sources say that Rosenstein made his remarks in a sarcastic way.

Bottom line, this is old news about events that occurred in May of 2017, lacking the context of that chaotic time in the wake of the Comey firing. Rosenstein never appears to have acted on anything he is reported to have said, and the Trump bunch has more than enough impetus to twist meanings.

I'll speculate on what I think happened: The House Committee Trump posse headed up by Devin Nunes somehow saw the McCabe memo that noted something about the DAG and the 25th Amendment and questioned McCabe about its meaning. McCabe shared details of those discussions between Rosenstein and himself held directly in the wake of the Comey firing -- a time when Rosenstein was pretty rattled at how he had been used as a basis for Comey's firing. Now these ancient discussions are being gratuitously used by the same bunch who leaked the story as a basis to egg Trump on to firing Rosenstein.

At this point, one wonders how many charges for obstruction can be leveled by Mueller at Nunes and others for their dreadful actions throughout this ordeal, and are therefore motivated by self interest.

Draw your own conclusions.
  #25  
Old 09-21-2018, 10:48 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,352
Let's read the actual NY Time article for comprehension: "Mr. Rosenstein made the remarks about secretly recording Mr. Trump and about the 25th Amendment in meetings and conversations with other Justice Department and F.B.I. officials. Several people described the episodes in interviews over the past several months, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that documented Mr. Rosenstein’s actions and comments."

This is anonymous 2nd or 3rd hand information being passed to the NY Times. These are not facts, although these may be true. I'm leaning towards sensationalism and frankly disappointed in the NY Times for how they headlined the article and the above quote on sources comes in the 4th paragraph. FWIW, I'm a NY Times subscriber and think they generally do a decent job of investigative journalism.

Oh, and what Aspenglow wrote. Ninja'd

Last edited by China Guy; 09-21-2018 at 10:50 PM.
  #26  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:12 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Haha. No.

Where did this silly idea come from?
From Aspenglow:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
... Rosenstein may be lying more today than he was back then about his true thoughts on the matter.
  #27  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:17 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
... it's amusing to learn that the "failing New York Times" is suddenly the most reliable source of information on the planet.
Who said that? I still think they're in the shithouse for their "curtains" story.
  #28  
Old 09-22-2018, 08:45 AM
MikeF MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,457
If I were Rosenstein or anyone else that engaged in conversation with Trump, I know I'd record it. The guy is such a liar you'd be crazy not to. I don't know that I'd tell anyone else what I was doing but I'd do it. Suppose Trump was suspected of criminal activity as President and that conversations with him might contain evidence of such. Would there be anything legally wrong with recording him?
  #29  
Old 09-22-2018, 08:50 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
... Would there be anything legally wrong with recording him?
Depends on which jurisdiction it happens in. Some places (mostly blue states I think) are "two-party" states, meaning that both parties to a conversation need to be made aware that a recording is happening. This is why telemarketers often start out their calls with "i'll be recording this call". I'm not sure what DC's laws are on the subject of recording conversations.
  #30  
Old 09-22-2018, 08:50 AM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
Deep State conpiracy confirmed.
Like all Conspiracy Theories the "Deep State" Conspiracy Theory is bullshit, and one of the ways it's bullshit is the nebulousness of the phrase "Deep State". The "Deep State": That's supposedly a bunch of evil entrenched Washington bureaucrats, right? Shadowy people working for the CIA and the Pentagon and the FBI and God only knows what all alphabet soup of sinister federal agencies (the NSA! the NRO! the EPA and the CDC! the IRS!!!), who've been in Washington for years and years, maybe decades, accountable to no one--certainly not to the American people--who are trying to thwart the will of the duly elected President of the United States.

Trump's own Cabinet officials aren't the Deep State! They're the people Donald Trump personally picked to be his top advisors. ("The best people", remember?) Rod Rosenstein is a political appointee; he was nominated for the position of Deputy Attorney General by Donald fucking Trump. And why are we talking about the Deputy Attorney General, anyway? Oh, that's right, because the Evil Traitor Elf, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, the not-so-deputy Attorney General, had to recuse himself from the whole Russian collusion investigation, treacherously putting the integrity of the law over his personal oath of loyalty to the Leader. Man, who put that guy in charge of the Department of Justice, anyway?

Oh, yeah, that would have been Donald fucking Trump again. ("The best people!") Sessions was, in fact, not just a Trump supporter back when he was still a Senator, he was an early Trump supporter. He didn't just pick Trump over Hillary, he picked Trump over all those other guys who were running for the Republican nomination.

The bottom line is, never mind some alleged shadowy cabal of "Washington insiders"; even the people Donald Trump personally picked to be his top advisors privately worry that he's batshit crazy and totally unfit for the office of President of the United States.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #31  
Old 09-22-2018, 09:20 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I'm not sure why anyone assumes that Rosenstein, a 27-year veteran of the FBI, could only consider the 25th Amendment for a devious purpose. In a contest of credibility between the Trump operation and Rosenstein, I give far more weight to Rosenstein.

"Unfit" doesn't have to mean off his rocker. It could mean that Rosenstein has credible reasons to believe Trump is compromised and subject to foreign blackmail/interference. Given what we've learned over the past nearly 2 years, I think he is right -- and I view him as far more hero than villain.

Ironically, Rosenstein may be lying more today than he was back then about his true thoughts on the matter.
The real problem isn't that people doubt Rosenstein's credibility; rather, it's a question of whether civil servants are serving an elected president appropriately. Regardless of how half - or even more than half - of America feels about the president, President Trump came to power democratically, which is significant.

The impact on a story like this is that it creates noise, it creates confusion - are civil servants really the unbiased, nonpartisan actors that they claim to be? Can they be trusted to present "the truth"? Can "the truth" be known? These are the consequences, and they are real.
  #32  
Old 09-22-2018, 09:26 AM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The real problem isn't that people doubt Rosenstein's credibility; rather, it's a question of whether civil servants are serving an elected president appropriately. Regardless of how half - or even more than half - of America feels about the president, President Trump came to power democratically, which is significant.

The impact on a story like this is that it creates noise, it creates confusion - are civil servants really the unbiased, nonpartisan actors that they claim to be? Can they be trusted to present "the truth"? Can "the truth" be known? These are the consequences, and they are real.
But these aren't "civil servants"! These are his own damned people! Rod Rosenstein is a political appointee, and everyone who has any say-so in the process of invoking the 25th Amendment is also a political appointee (except for Mike Pence, but he's certainly not a "civil servant" either).
  #33  
Old 09-22-2018, 10:29 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,054
Well, OK, if Team Trump is working for Russia, who is the Deep State pulling for? Belgium?
  #34  
Old 09-22-2018, 01:51 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
... The bottom line is, never mind some alleged shadowy cabal of "Washington insiders"; even the people Donald Trump personally picked to be his top advisors privately worry that he's batshit crazy and totally unfit for the office of President of the United States.
It seems worth noting here that his top advisors publicly claim that the NYT is wrong and that they do not think he is "batshit crazy and totally unfit for the office".
  #35  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:16 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It seems worth noting here that his top advisors publicly claim that the NYT is wrong and that they do not think he is "batshit crazy and totally unfit for the office".
Publicly, they have little choice but do so. Trump is also one that is constantly reminding us that in the end, he does not select "the best people".

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-22-2018 at 02:20 PM.
  #36  
Old 09-22-2018, 03:34 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Well, OK, if Team Trump is working for Russia, who is the Deep State pulling for? Belgium?
SPECTRE. Maybe KAOS. Possibly the World Crime League.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #37  
Old 09-22-2018, 03:58 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It seems worth noting here that his top advisors publicly claim that the NYT is wrong and that they do not think he is "batshit crazy and totally unfit for the office".
"Fucking moron." - Rex Tillerson
"A fifth- or sixth-grader." - James Mattis
"Idiot." - John Kelly
"Goddamn dumbbell." - John Dowd
"Incapable of telling the truth." - Jay Sekulow
  #38  
Old 09-22-2018, 04:05 PM
Fiveyearlurker Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
"Fucking moron." - Rex Tillerson

"A fifth- or sixth-grader." - James Mattis

"Idiot." - John Kelly

"Goddamn dumbbell." - John Dowd

"Incapable of telling the truth." - Jay Sekulow


I think Omarosa had some choice words as well.
  #39  
Old 09-22-2018, 04:07 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,189
I should have noted that that was not intended to be a complete list.
  #40  
Old 09-22-2018, 05:09 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
"Fucking moron." - Rex Tillerson
"A fifth- or sixth-grader." - James Mattis
"Idiot." - John Kelly
"Goddamn dumbbell." - John Dowd
"Incapable of telling the truth." - Jay Sekulow
Do any of them agree that they said these things? Or is this coming from some "anonymous source" and refuted by the alleged speaker?
  #41  
Old 09-22-2018, 05:39 PM
KidCharlemagne KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
Like all Conspiracy Theories the "Deep State" Conspiracy Theory is bullshit, and one of the ways it's bullshit is the nebulousness of the phrase "Deep State". The "Deep State": That's supposedly a bunch of evil entrenched Washington bureaucrats, right? Shadowy people working for the CIA and the Pentagon and the FBI and God only knows what all alphabet soup of sinister federal agencies (the NSA! the NRO! the EPA and the CDC! the IRS!!!), who've been in Washington for years and years, maybe decades, accountable to no one--certainly not to the American people--who are trying to thwart the will of the duly elected President of the United States.

Trump's own Cabinet officials aren't the Deep State! They're the people Donald Trump personally picked to be his top advisors. ("The best people", remember?) Rod Rosenstein is a political appointee; he was nominated for the position of Deputy Attorney General by Donald fucking Trump. And why are we talking about the Deputy Attorney General, anyway? Oh, that's right, because the Evil Traitor Elf, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, the not-so-deputy Attorney General, had to recuse himself from the whole Russian collusion investigation, treacherously putting the integrity of the law over his personal oath of loyalty to the Leader. Man, who put that guy in charge of the Department of Justice, anyway?

Oh, yeah, that would have been Donald fucking Trump again. ("The best people!") Sessions was, in fact, not just a Trump supporter back when he was still a Senator, he was an early Trump supporter. He didn't just pick Trump over Hillary, he picked Trump over all those other guys who were running for the Republican nomination.

The bottom line is, never mind some alleged shadowy cabal of "Washington insiders"; even the people Donald Trump personally picked to be his top advisors privately worry that he's batshit crazy and totally unfit for the office of President of the United States.
You do realize that I don't believe in the Deep State, yes? I was just stating what Trump supporters will say.
  #42  
Old 09-22-2018, 05:42 PM
KidCharlemagne KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Do any of them agree that they said these things? Or is this coming from some "anonymous source" and refuted by the alleged speaker?
If I'm weighing the reporting of someone of Woodward's caliber against someone whose continued employment depends on them lying, ill side with the former.
  #43  
Old 09-22-2018, 05:53 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
...Lastly, the New York Times did not have a source who was actually in the room where the statements about wiretapping Trump were made by Rosenstein. Other news outlets have spoken to sources who were in the room. Those sources say that Rosenstein made his remarks in a sarcastic way.
This deserves more attention. The NYT reporters, Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt, and their editors, appear to me to have been markedly irresponsible in their search for a scoop.

Quote:
The Times story does not quote directly from anyone who attended either meeting, but it does note that the reporters spoke with people who were briefed on the conversations or on memos that arose out of them...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ersations.html

As you noted, the witnesses in the room say Rosenstein's remark about wearing a wire was made sarcastically. I'm suggesting that it makes NO sense to suggest, and Goldman and Schmidt did, that the remark was made seriously and as part of a concerted plan.

To suggest Rosenstein was seriously thinking of wearing a wire, means that we must accept:

First, that Rosenstein would be willing to wear a wire to record the utterances of an American citizen (who happened to be the president). On this topic, those who've worked closely with Rosenstein would be the best authorities on whether he's likely to do such a thing.

Second--and most incredibly--we are asked to accept that Rosenstein believed that any tape of the president's voice he'd acquire WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON REPUBLICANS---presumably the Cabinet and/or VP, who constitutionally would be tasked with transmitting to Speaker Ryan and President pro tempore Hatch, the claim that Trump must be removed from office. And moreover, Rosenstein would have to have believed that this tape of Trump speaking would convince TWO-THIRDS of Republican Senators and TWO-THIRDS of Republican Representatives that Trump should be removed.

It strains credulity past the breaking point to think that Rosenstein could have imagined that any tape of Trump speaking would achieve this result.

At the time of the remarks, we had all heard Trump speaking for months. What would he supposedly have said that would be a deal breaker for Republicans, after members of both Congress and the Cabinet had been listening to him since mid-2015 (at least)?



The NYT story is ridiculous. It is based on an implicit assumption that Rosenstein is a brain-dead idiot---because only such a person could genuinely believe that a new tape of Trump speaking would make any difference whatsoever to his GOP enablers.
  #44  
Old 09-22-2018, 06:03 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,934
There's one other fact being regularly overlooked that adds to my skepticism about Rosenstein's intentions: If Rosenstein wore a wire, he would instantly become an important witness in the investigation he had only just been tasked with overseeing. Given that Rosenstein had already undergone an ethics department evaluation -- made at his own request to ensure he had no conflicts of interest such that he himself had an obligation to recuse himself -- I can think of no reasonable explanation why he would immediately create a huge one.
  #45  
Old 09-22-2018, 06:27 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not sure what DC's laws are on the subject of recording conversations.
It's legal in DC. Omarosa & Bob Woodward both claim to have tapes, recall.

At this point, I'd assume everyone and their grannies and their grannies' cats are all wearing wires.
  #46  
Old 09-22-2018, 06:34 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,620
By the way, I should have said 'about one third' of Republican Senators and Reps, of course, given that the Dems wouldn't be much of a hard sell.
  #47  
Old 09-22-2018, 06:39 PM
enipla enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 12,900
Would it be illegal for Rosenstein to record trump? If not, he's got nothing. It's perfectly fine to talk about removing him with any means necessary. The 25th, impeachment whatever. He's a moronic imbalanced criminal after all. Nothing wrong about talking about removing him. In fact most of the nation is.

In fact, I think we should start trolling him with the number 25. He is, after all, unfit in about a dozen ways.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #48  
Old 09-22-2018, 06:46 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
There's one other fact being regularly overlooked that adds to my skepticism about Rosenstein's intentions: If Rosenstein wore a wire, he would instantly become an important witness in the investigation he had only just been tasked with overseeing. Given that Rosenstein had already undergone an ethics department evaluation -- made at his own request to ensure he had no conflicts of interest such that he himself had an obligation to recuse himself -- I can think of no reasonable explanation why he would immediately create a huge one.
Excellent point.

We are left wondering how Goldman, Schmidt, and their editor(s) could have thought that their story would pass without any scrutiny. Apparently they didn't even try to speak to anyone who was actually in the room--and thought no one would notice!

Did someone in NYT subscriptions say "we've got way too many subscribers, so think of a way to get rid of some of them"....???

It's bizarre.
  #49  
Old 09-22-2018, 06:55 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
If I'm weighing the reporting of someone of Woodward's caliber against someone whose continued employment depends on them lying, ill side with the former.
That's fine, but please understand that you're assuming that the people you now believe are lying were telling the truth to reporters previously. That's ... weird. But of course, you can choose to believe it, and probably will because it conforms to your preferred worldview.
  #50  
Old 09-22-2018, 07:16 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,145
I feel like everyone in this thread, while nominally fighting the news, are all fighting it within the context of the Republican, partisan theory that it plays into rather than fighting it on the basis of reality.

Let me explain.

The partisan theory would be that there's a deep state trying to commit a coup against the President using legalistic means. In that context, it matters whether Rosenstein said this, whether he meant it for real or was joking, etc.

But that context isn't the real context.

When the police get a wiretap to go in and place in Tony Soprano's home, it's not an evil conspiracy, it's them doing their job. When a psychiatrist gives a kid in school a test for ADHD, it's not a scheme to deprive the parents of thousands of dollars in fake medication prescriptions, again it's just that person doing their job.

What's missing from the report, notably, is any statement that McCabe or Rosenstein were saying, "Hey, we should wiretap the President, so that we can edit the tape down, rearrange the words, and create a modified statement from him that would incriminate him or cause him to seem crazy when in fact he is not."

The report does not mention McCabe nor Rosenstein saying, "We should find all of the people loyal to Vice President Pence and start a campaign within the White House, inserting false documents into reports, telling lies about the President's behavior, etc. to convince those who are still loyal to President Trump that Trump is crazy, so that we can use the 25th Amendment to put Pence into power."

The partisan theory is that there's a conspiracy to do something illicit. But that illicit portion is missing. There's an implication that wiretapping can only be used for nefarious purposes and with some unwholesome end in mind.

But what about the possibility that the members of the FBI and DOJ are charged with the duty of investigating and prosecuting criminals? What about the possibility that it's one of the tasks for a member of the cabinet to ensure that the President is mentally fit to perform the duties of his office?

I realize it may be a surprise at this point, but actually if you follow the news, you would be aware that the President has been under criminal investigation for all of his time in office and probably from even before that point. Discovering that the law enforcement agents were having a discussion about options for performing an investigation of him, a year and a half ago is...not surprising? I'm not feeling like this is evidence of anything we didn't already know?

And while, yes, it is only a new revelation that there have been substantive discussions of the 25th Amendment in the White House, I'm just personally not very surprised by that. Trump has lived his whole life being coddled by an entourage and simply isn't aware of reality and the ramifications of his choices. If we define insanity as someone who could not function as a useful member of society without significant aid to oversee and guide that person, then Trump is insane. But, at the moment, we generally don't consider famous people who have been messed up by their fame and fortune as crazy, just damaged. It's the same as people getting screwed up by winning the lottery. They don't suddenly become diagnosable as crazy, but they are suddenly unsuited by their previous life for the new life that they have been given, and unable to adapt to it in a healthy way.

Having a discussion about Trump, once you've spent enough time with him to realize the problem, it would be reasonable to start having these discussions. That's not a sinister coup. Rosenstein doesn't become President by ousting Trump; he probably doesn't have any loyalty to Pence nor unethical motive to see that Pence become President. If they're talking about it, and there's no motive that anyone can suggest beyond, "it needed to be asked", then the defense is not that Rosenstein was joking, it's that he was executing the duties of his office.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 09-22-2018 at 07:17 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017