"ROSENSTEIN'S MONSTER": 20 "Just For Fun" questions for Rod Rosenstein
Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will be in the hot seat Wednesday, grilled by Lindsay Graham’s Senate Judiciary Committee (finally). The Democrats’ main talking point, after wasting years on the “Russia” hoax, will be that Republicans are chasing a “conspiracy theory” when they should be chasing a virus. (Dems will also eagerly exploit the shameful violence purported to be a reaction to the killing of George Floyd to turn the conversation away from this.)
But when it comes to ACTUAL conspiracy, we have the goods on Rosenstein and friends, who cared so much about toppling the President of the United States that it didn’t matter what lies they told, what damage they caused to the country, and what harm they did to innocent individuals. In that respect, they are the “Antifa” within our own government.
Despite the posturing, evading, and possibly Fifth Amendment-taking we might see, this is one show you shouldn’t miss. You can watch it live, at home –- no need for “social distancing” –- and the ticket is free. Rosenstein has been questioned before, but that was long prior to the declassification of such documents as his “scope” memo –- memos, actually –- for Robert Mueller, revealing no evidentiary pretext whatsoever. Rosenstein is central to the whole disgusting mess.
So, as is my tradition with such proceedings, here’s our “just for fun” list of questions for Rod Rosenstein. Some of them might want to make him take the Fifth right then and there. Of course, Sen. Graham has been prepping for many months and knows exactly what he wants to ask. Anyway, here goes…
1. Mr. Rosenstein, you’ve let others take the blame for this fraud when you were right in the middle of it, particularly in your appointment of Robert Mueller to keep the investigation alive when you had to know the “dossier” was fake. My question, since you are a lawyer, is this: Could we be sued for copyright infringement if we wrote a horror story about it and titled it ROSENSTEIN’S MONSTER?
2. That’s okay, sir; you don’t have to answer. We know we have a First Amendment right to call it that, so we will. Moving on...Mr. Rosenstein, when Peter Strzok opened the “Russia” investigation on July 31, 2016, his memo included no evidence of a crime, though this was required. When you were put in charge of the case in April 2017, and surely read this, did you think, “What the…?!,” or did you congratulate Strzok on such a fine piece of fakery?
3. Mr. Rosenstein, when you learned the “Russia” probe was improperly based and therefore illegitimate, you not only failed to close the case but greatly expanded it by appointing Mueller as special counsel in May 2017. Did you not know Mr. Mueller had just been passed over by Trump for FBI director and that this would present a conflict of interest? Or was his personal antagonism towards President Trump a big plus?
4. Sir, you appointed Mueller to look at a counterintelligence case when this step is appropriate only for a criminal investigation with allegations of an “articulable criminal act.” James Comey himself has testified that it was a counterintelligence probe, yet HE leaked to the media in order to get Mueller appointed. My question to you: isn’t it an amazing coincidence that you and Mr. Comey obviously flunked the same law school class?
5. That’s okay, sir; we know you both knew exactly what you were doing. That said, if you want to blame the appointment of Mueller on Trump’s firing of Comey, do you recall that you personally wrote the memo outlining the reasons to fire him?
6. Do you expect us to believe that you don’t know the FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President, that Comey flagrantly violated FBI regulations and that just about everyone, Democrat or Republican, wanted Comey gone, including Hillary Clinton, who, had she won, would probably have fired him herself as her first official act?
7. Mr. Comey specifically wanted his friend and colleague Mueller appointed special counsel; that’s why he leaked contents of notes he made after a conversation with President Trump, concerning a comment Trump made about Michael Flynn. (Not obstruction; it was just “Flynn’s a good man, I hope you can see your way clear...”) Just wondering: out of everyone you could’ve appointed special counsel, how did you manage to recruit the very person Comey wanted? Telepathy?
8. Since you wrote the “firing memo” on Comey, and since the special counsel you appointed was going to investigate Trump’s firing of Comey as possible obstruction, do you not see the problem here? Do you think perhaps the President didn’t go far enough and should have fired you, too?
9. It seems you were interviewed by the special counsel, though it was your job to supervise the special counsel. Do you not see the problem here, either? Are you crazy like a fox, or are you just plain crazy? (My bet is on the former.)
10. Related question: Mr. Rosenstein, if you lied to Mueller in your special counsel interview, would you charge yourself with perjury?
11. According to Trump’s former attorney John Dowd, Mueller was trying to pin a charge of obstruction of justice on Trump when there was no evidence of any crime to be investigated. Mueller even wanted to charge him with obstruction for criticizing the special counsel. So if Trump criticizes, he’s charged with obstruction, and if he doesn’t, he’s charged anyway, for not testifying. My question to you is, how often did you compliment Mueller on what a great job he was doing?
12. We’ve all seen the footage of Comey bragging that he'd gone around Executive Branch protocol to “casually” interview Michael Flynn without his lawyer. I’m sure you saw it, too. Mr. Rosenstein, when you watched this, were you merely impressed at Mr. Comey’s initiative and guile or were you actively cheering him on?
13. There was discussion about using the 25th Amendment to depose Trump; you’ve reportedly said you were kidding about wearing a wire to secretly record him. Have you ever wondered what we would've learned about those meetings if we’d been secretly recording YOU? Just kidding. You can come out from under the desk now.
14. You’ve said getting a FISA warrant is a big deal and that there are serious consequences for abusing that process. That’s so funny –-were you kidding then, too?
15. We haven’t talked about Mike Flynn. You were supervising Mueller while his team railroaded Flynn and withheld evidence of his innocence. Question: when are you going to apologize to Mr. Flynn and make restitution?
16. Speaking of apologies, will we be seeing the apology you owe President Trump before or after the Twelfth of Never?
17. Mr. Rosenstein, if you had committed this fraud on behalf of the outgoing Bush administration to target the incoming Obama administration and Obama himself, how many life sentences do you think you, Comey and Strzok would currently be serving?
18. Related question: If you had done this to Obama, how many life sentences would the media have demanded you get?
19. Susan Rice recently suggested Russia is behind the rioting going on now. So, if Russia is pro-Trump, why would they be doing that? And do you think you and your friends will ever get out of the habit of blaming Russia for EVERYTHING?? It’s really lame.
20. You were recently described by Gregg Jarrett as “the Eddie Haskell of lawyers.” Do you think this is disrespectful, to Eddie Haskell? Also, to lawyers?
The niece of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Dr. Alveda King, spoke out eloquently against the violence that is harming black communities, the cause of justice and all Americans. I can’t tell you how proud I am to be able to call Dr. King my friend.
BLESSING OR CURSE?
I don’t know if it’s a blessing or a curse, but if you’ve been in politics long enough, you start to feel like a magician who knows how all the tricks are done. I got that feeling listening to Joe Biden attempting to perform a feat of misdirection when he emerged from his basement to try to blame Trump and the Republicans for the riots, arson and looting that started in the top-to-bottom-blue Democrat city of Minneapolis in solid blue, “only state that voted for Mondale” Minnesota. He promised to make battling “systemic racism” his top priority upon being President, vowed to be a healer and uniter of the races, and promised that he would never use racial wounds for political gain.
If the subject hadn’t been so sad and infuriating, I would have laughed out loud. Am I the only one who remembers that for eight years, Joe was part of an Administration that presided over a much-remarked-upon worsening of race relations? There were even race riots under Obama (remember Ferguson after the police shooting of Michael Brown? Baltimore after the death-in-police-custody of Freddie Gray?) Also, Antifa started destroying property and terrorizing people long before anyone even imagined Donald Trump running for President. These incidents were like dress rehearsals for what’s going on now, and they all happened under Obama/Biden. If Joe knew how to heal racial wounds, he obviously never shared his magic cure with his boss.
But here’s the most glaring logic lapse: in attacking Trump for his handling of the protests and riots, and citing them as a reason to make him President, Biden was using racial wounds for political gain even while he was promising never to use racial wounds for political gain!
Come to think of it, that could be the motto of today's Democratic Party: "The Democrats: Using racial wounds for political gain since 1965!"
I confess, I felt like Penn & Teller watching a sloppy card switch. I came away thinking, “Seriously, am I the only one who saw that?”
THE FASCIST ANTI-FASCISTS OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ANTIFA
I’ve been writing about Antifa for years, and pointing out the absurdly oxymoronic name (“anti-fascist”) for a group that uses threats and violence to silence any political speech they disagree with. I’ve long said that they aren’t fighting for “social justice,” they’re using terrorist tactics to advance a radical left agenda. Politicians, news media figures and celebrities who are defending them just because Trump is against them should be ashamed and go do some homework to learn what Nazi-like tactics they’re actually supporting.
Now, in case you think that’s just the biased ranting of a known conservative, check out who’s saying the exact same thing.
It’s a former member of Antifa who now says he realizes they were the most violent group he’s ever been part of. He compares them to ISIS, calls them “the very definition of domestic terrorism,” says they’re fighting for nothing but “their failed leftist socialist ideology," and he’s “incredibly happy” that President Trump finally declared them a domestic terrorist organization.
Then again, why listen to him? The latest narrative from the left is that Antifa doesn’t really even exist. It’s just a bunch of right-wing white supremacists pretending to be radical leftist terrorists. Funny, I can’t figure out why all those right-wing extremists have gone to so much trouble over the past few years, rioting and screaming and burning things on college campuses, just to keep conservatives from speaking. I guess when they go undercover, they go DEEP undercover.
On a side note, the official designation of Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization raises the question of whether wealthy people and corporations that support them will be treated as accessories to terrorism. For instance, Twitter has repeatedly silenced conservatives who criticize Antifa, accusing them of inciting violence (most recently blocking Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz for saying that they should be hunted down the way we do terrorists in the Middle East. That was branded as an incitement of violence, although it could easily be interpreted to mean “hunt down and arrest,” which is obviously what would happen within the US, unless Antifa members were foolish enough to fire on authorities.
Since one of their own former members compares them to ISIS, should the hyper-sensitive post police at Twitter allow them to continue to foment violence and revolution on their platform?