Rosenstein Suggested He Secretly Recorded Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I expect Rosenstein to be gone by Monday. By next friday, the Pubes will have found a new nominee. The question is if they can get the votes to nominate a true believer who will pass Trump's loyalty tests, or if they will be forced to put in another "normal" nominee.

I expect Trump to wait for the cover of a new deputy AG in order to get him to cancel the mueller investigation, because that way he won't look like he's ending it himself (or at least he can argue that it was decided on fairly).

Then let's hope Mueller has amassed enough evidence before all that happens. He has flipped "all the president's men" here, or at least, the most important ones, already. It's a question of how much corroborating evidence he's already obtained or will obtain before he gets fired by the new Trump appointee.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
It is a concern, without Rosenstein there to protect Mueller from political interference by Trump it may be possible for him to fire Mueller or, worse in some ways, keep him on but prevent him from doing his job.

Preventing the president from unlawfully interfering with a criminal investigation into him and his associates is the most important public policy matter that exists today in my opinion.

Yes it is. All we've asked for this entire fucking time is to allow this to be investigated without interference! If the GOP is too partisan to protect this process from Trump's felonious obstruction of it, then we're screwed as a nation. If the dems take over in 2020 after the GOP allow Trump to do this, then I'll support anything within the law to counter them, including ditching the filibuster, packing the SCOTUS, ramming through single payer health care without even so much as acknowledging that anyone exists across the aisle, and prosecuting Trump himself to the fullest extent of the law, even if it means violence from the right. If the GOP wants to make this war, then it's war and our aim should be the destruction of them and everything they believe in.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,227
16,687
136
Then let's hope Mueller has amassed enough evidence before all that happens. He has flipped "all the president's men" here, or at least, the most important ones, already. It's a question of how much corroborating evidence he's already obtained or will obtain before he gets fired by the new Trump appointee.

I’d assume there would be an enormous data leak if Mueller were to be fired
 

Cozarkian

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,352
95
91
I never said that. Criticize to your hearts content. Butterymails was a big factor in the chant, and the promise was to lock her up. I find your alleged misunderstanding insincere.

I'll admit, I exaggerated to make a point. From a more narrow standpoint, you did not imply Hillary can't be criticized at all. However, the natural implication of your post is that because there was a chant to lock Hillary up over emails she can't be criticized for lesser offenses concerning her emails (e.g. a legal but bad decision) without joining that chant. And that position is ridiculous.

I can criticize Bush for the war in Iraq without calling for him to be in jail as a war criminal (there was a chant), I can criticize Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky scandal without claiming he should have been removed from office (there was a chant), and I can criticize Trump for being incompetent without crying for a 25th Amendment removal (there is a chant).
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136
But see, you're playing whataboutisms with the topic of Comey. Instead of examining it and how it impacted things, you jump to everything else Clinton did wrong.

You can say Comey's actions didn't have as powerful of an impact as some say, but then you have to address THAT topic, not everything else.

No, no no. You're completely misusing that term. "Whataboutism" is a colloquial/more specific term for what we call a tu quoque fallacy -- charging your opponent of hypocrisy.

Whataboutism / tu quoque:

"Malcolm died early as a result of his keto diet."

"What about your vegetarian diet? It lacks protein. What about the average American diet? Too many carbs are making people obese, etc."

NOT Whataboutism / tu quoque:

"Malcolm died early as a result of his keto diet."

"What about his smoking habit? What about his family history of heart disease? What about the fact he died in a car crash, etc."

 
Last edited:

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,156
18,647
146
I'll admit, I exaggerated to make a point. From a more narrow standpoint, you did not imply Hillary can't be criticized at all. However, the natural implication of your post is that because there was a chant to lock Hillary up over emails she can't be criticized for lesser offenses concerning her emails (e.g. a legal but bad decision) without joining that chant. And that position is ridiculous.

I can criticize Bush for the war in Iraq without calling for him to be in jail as a war criminal (there was a chant), I can criticize Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky scandal without claiming he should have been removed from office (there was a chant), and I can criticize Trump for being incompetent without crying for a 25th Amendment removal (there is a chant).

Incorrect, let me explain. Opponents of Hilary, and Democrats, used a variety of false and misleading claims in their efforts to gain votes. With that came a widespread assertion that she would be in jail assuming Trump was elected. Like I said, get this show on the road, unless....of course, they weren't sincere and just pandering to useful idiots.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fanatical Meat
Feb 4, 2009
35,227
16,687
136
Incorrect, let me explain. Opponents of Hilary, and Democrats, used a variety of false and misleading claims in their efforts to gain votes. With that came a widespread assertion that should would be in jail assuming Trump was elected. Like I said, get this show on the road, unless....of course, they weren't sincere and just pandering to useful idiots.

Why do you hate America
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Regardless of who is behind the leak the fact that this was even brought up should be deeply concerning to everyone. These guys are in most cases lifelong Republicans and they are taking a look at Trump and saying basically 'America needs to know what this guy is really like'.
We already have one leak to the NYT that someone is handling Trump and now this. Someone is playing a very dangerous game or trying to give Trump air cover.

Why would the NYT risk it just to get the scoop?
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
No, no no. You're completely misusing that term. "Whataboutism" is a colloquial/more specific term for what we call a tu quoque fallacy -- charging your opponent of hypocrisy.

Whataboutism / tu quoque:

"Malcolm died early as a result of his keto diet."

"What about your vegetarian diet? It lacks protein. What about the average American diet? Too many carbs are making people obese, etc."

NOT Whataboutism / tu quoque:

"Malcolm died early as a result of his keto diet."

"What about his smoking habit? What about his family history of heart disease? What about the fact he died in a car crash, etc."
Thanks?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Yes it is. All we've asked for this entire fucking time is to allow this to be investigated without interference! If the GOP is too partisan to protect this process from Trump's felonious obstruction of it, then we're screwed as a nation. If the dems take over in 2020 after the GOP allow Trump to do this, then I'll support anything within the law to counter them, including ditching the filibuster, packing the SCOTUS, ramming through single payer health care without even so much as acknowledging that anyone exists across the aisle, and prosecuting Trump himself to the fullest extent of the law, even if it means violence from the right. If the GOP wants to make this war, then it's war and our aim should be the destruction of them and everything they believe in.

While I don’t disagree with anything here if it comes to that we have already lost. That’s a low grade civil war in progress.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
NYT piece was sourced from McCabe's memo and others who claim to have been in the room. The CNN piece I linked earlier says this:



If you know something I don't, link it.

The NYT reads as if none of the anonymous sources have direct knowledge of it. As I said, people who were actually there are discounting it. That's why WaPo story is different, while the NYT is likely just feeding into and enabling the GOP agenda again. NYT has been shit for awhile. From the NYT article:

"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."
 

FIVR

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2016
3,753
911
106
New York Slimes is full of neocon hacks and concern trolls. They don't give a crap about the accuracy of their reporting as long as it drives traffic to their articles. The author of this article even admitted that he knew this would be used to try to get Rosenstein fired, but "his job is to report the news".

Never mind that the people he interviewed weren't even present when this conversation happened. Never mind that the people who were there say it's being taken totally out of context and was a joke. Never mind that it will all be used to get Mueller fired and end the Russia investigation.

The sad thing is New York Slimes are too stupid to realize that once the Russia investigation is over and Trump controls the whole gov there won't be any need for New York Slimes articles anymore and they will be back to where they started with no ideas, stale hack authors, and waning traffic. They'll be back to writing DoD sponsored puff pieces on Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I am dismayed that the NYT published that. Stylistically, it's a classic hit piece & a beautiful conspiracy theory. The authors introduce falsehood & highly suspect sourcing here, for example-

On a brisk May day, Mr. Rosenstein and his boss, Mr. Sessions, who had recused himself from the Russia investigation because of his role as a prominent Trump campaign supporter, joined Mr. Trump in the Oval Office. The president informed them of his plan to oust Mr. Comey. To the surprise of White House aides who were trying to talk the president out of it, Mr. Rosenstein embraced the idea, even offering to write the memo about the Clinton email inquiry. He turned it in shortly after.


That's not why Sessions was recused. It was because he volunteered a false statement about a meeting with Kislyak during his confirmation hearing. It's revisionist history.

The account of anonymous White House aides is handled quite cleverly, but, uhh, White House aides? Really? That nest of vipers?

It's plenty weird around the edges. Trump demands release of sensitive materials. Trump retracts demands. Stories about said material pop up all over. How does that happen all at the same time?
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136

I hoped that your reasoning was primarily based on misunderstanding a specific logical fallacy, because it is irrationality heaped on top of irrationality. Typically in these cases I can say something like "you're wrong on point 1 because of X, but then if we grant you point 1 anyway you're wrong because of Y, etc." Unwinding intellectual pretzel logic of this sort is tiring not only because of how deep things can branch, but because of the tendency of intellectually subpar/dishonest individuals to only argue the points at the tips of the branches, implicitly taking the entire "you're wrong because of X but we can grant it to you..." as some kind of endorsement of the principle and run with it.

So with that out of the way, here we go:

You're wrong because looking at alternative explanations isn't a fallacy.

But if we grant that there is a fallacy (or substitute/interpret something like burden of proof in its place), you're wrong because the initial conditions aren't there that could in any way be interpreted as giving Cozarkian such a burden of proof. Your reasoning here is in fact in fact a non-sequitur. The initial implication isn't that the investigation had little impact, it's that Clinton herself is more to blame for the investigation existing in the first place. And Cozarkian even maintains this point in the post your specifically reply to (my own opinion here lies somewhere between the two of yours). In addition to this, he says there are other contributing factors that led to her loss that were ultimately the fault of herself or her campaign. But there's nothing fallacious about that.

For the sake of argument if we grant you that Cozarkian has a burden to establish negative proof of the impact of the investigation rather than positive proofs of other significant factors, well, this one is where things get really messy. Clinton's ultimate electoral result is a zero sum game. The more impact that, say, "deplorables" has, the less space that the investigation has to be impactful. An inverse correlation exists between the investigation and everything else, so Cozarkian absolutely can argue positive proofs of other factors without being fallacious. Your claim here is similar to saying that Bob needs to explicitly disprove that Malcolm died because of his keto diet rather than proving that he died due to a car crash. The only difference being that in such a scenario there is only one factor that gains total influence rather than several that have varying degrees -- but fundamentally the inverse relationship / zero sum nature exists all the same.
 
Last edited:

Cozarkian

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,352
95
91
I don’t think I have ever heard a single person claim she was flawless. Like, ever in history.

See post #4 - FIVR claims Comey is the one person responsible for Trump's election. In order for that to be true, Comey must be 100% blameworthy and Hillary 0% blameworthy, which in turn means Hillary herself must have run a flawless political campaign but for Comey.

Incorrect, let me explain. Opponents of Hilary, and Democrats, used a variety of false and misleading claims in their efforts to gain votes. With that came a widespread assertion that should would be in jail assuming Trump was elected. Like I said, get this show on the road, unless....of course, they weren't sincere and just pandering to useful idiots.

FIVR claimed Comey is the one person responsible for the election of Trump. I contend at least one person other than Comey is responsible for contributing to Hillary's loss.

Question #1: Which of us is right, FIVR or me?

Yes, in support of my position I gave as an example that Hillary violated a policy by using a private server and that she made at least one political blunder in how she handled the situation when her opponents attempted to use that to argue she is a criminal. Using that example does not in any way require me to argue or prove that Hillary deserves to be in jail to be correct. Heck, I don't even have to argue or prove that Hillary herself made a mistake to be correct.

Here's a different example: Hilary's opponents other than Comey used a variety of false and misleading claims in their efforts to gain votes. If they had not done so, there would have been no letter for Comey to write. Therefore, Hillary's opponents other than Comey are > 0% to blame for her loss and Comey is < 100% to blame.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Wasn't expecting that. Perhaps I'm too jaded. Thanks, and sorry if I came across as abrasive.
Nah. You're fine. You want the discourse here to matter and that's an admirable thing. If only more people cared about anything to this degree.

I try to play at a worthwhile level, but I've definitely got days where I want to express my incredulity or frustration with whatever is happening, but my brain isn't up to the task of delivering something more thoughtful.

And then there are folks that I will just play to their level, since they have no desire to engage honestly.

I think Cozarkian didn't care to engage honestly, but rather just hammer a point and score a win for himself, but at some point, it's Friday and who cares.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136
See post #4 - FIVR claims Comey is the one person responsible for Trump's election. In order for that to be true, Comey must be 100% blameworthy and Hillary 0% blameworthy, which in turn means Hillary herself must have run a flawless political campaign but for Comey.

Right after I defend you... ;)

That may be taking things a bit too literally.

There are also two different interpretations you can make regarding "blame" here. For instance, is the straw that broke the camel's back 100% to blame for said injury? You could say that without that last straw the back would remain unbroken, or that it's just one of a million other straws.
 
Last edited:

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
An article such as this in the NYT is not worthy of one iota of credence. These articles IMO are part of the resist movement and are tailored to undermine the executive branch by attempting to sow division and suspicion in the upper echelons of our federal government.

I've got to hand it to the progressives, they absolutely know how to fight bare-knuckled in a back alley. They have mastered these techniques very well. Eventually Republicans are going to decide to fight back and the shit is really going to hit the fan and it's very possible our system of government will be a casualty. This is a high stakes game of the highest order and escalation is the name of this game.

Right now, the Democrats are experiencing the downside of Harry Reid instituting the "nuclear option". Mitch McConnell warned that it would come back to bite Democrats on the ass and it most certainly has. But Democrats, who never stop to think of the eventual results of their actions instituted it anyway, Now, they are again not considering the eventual results of their actions. Someday, to paraphrase 0bama, Republicans are going to bring a gun to the knife fight that Democrats started.

0bama told the world that elections have consequences. A very true statement. But the Democrat party which is being hijacked before our eyes by the progressive movement, and with the support of generations of ill-educated supporters have been proven to be incapable of coming to terms with a loss. The everybody's a winner trophies, they were a huge mistake.

But, feel free to believe the Times. Hang your hopes on whatever outcome you envision coming from the most recent of a seemingly endless number of daily stories fabricated to keep you fired up, and convinced you're on the cusp of winning.

But be careful what you wish for. You're not going to be welcome in my bunker if you make it close enough to give me your best pleading look. You'll reap the seeds you've sown. If you think it's not going to come to that, it's probably because the NYT told you you're winning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal