Thread by @shadowfax_82

MUELLER, COHEN, ROSENSTEIN, HOROWITZ
1. Let's take a little closer look at what I think is really going on. The entire objective is to damage Trump politically, not to "get him" legally. I'm not saying this will work, but this is what they're doing, IMO.

2. As far back as July 5th 2017, the lead investigator of the Trump-Russia affair, Peter Strzok, who had been working the case for a least a year by this point, if not longer, said with re: to joining Mueller, said "[I have] concern there's no big there, there."

3. Fast-forward to June 2018. As we have learned since, there does seem to be any there, there. Manafort seems to be the only shot Mueller has, and that case does not appear to be going well. Manafort and Trump have limited history. This is going nowhere.

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @almostjingo view original on Twitter

4. Mueller would *never* have passed off the Cohen case to SNDY if he thought there was anything he could use on Trump. However, I believe this was done to open a second line of attack to damage Trump politically should Mueller be shut down. How so?

5. The changing of the Cohen legal team signals that he is about to change strategy and possibly cooperate against someone (probably not Trump). This might sounds like good news but the dynamic is, the door is open to damage Trump even more severely than if Trump were named.

6. Since Trump is not named, he will have no representation to defend his position, meanwhile, both sides have motive to disparage. All of Cohen's dirty secrets can be spilled. What if he offered access to Trump to receive deals. Not criminal for Trump but certainly damaging.

7. See Chris Christie bridge-gate case as an example of the aforementioned strategy. Christie not charged but yet damaged politically by testimony. @AndrewCMcCarthy has commented on this recently and is what started me thinking about this line of attack from the Deep State.

8. Rosenstein, is clearly conflicted and has no business serving as the lead in the investigation. He wrote the letter that recommended Trump fire Comey and then assigned a Special Counsel to investigate why Trump fired Comey. Yet he is still there and still in charge.

9. Rosenstien shows his conflict by threatening HPSCI staffers with being subpoenaed when they state their intent to hold him in contempt of congress. Then DOJ issues statement denying Rosenstein threatened to "open a criminal investigation," which is not what he was accused of.

10. A non-sequitur, which means that Rosenstein probably did threaten HPSCI members with a subpoena, exactly as has been alleged. He's neck deep in this effort to damage Trump.

washingtonexaminer.com/news/fox-news-…

11. Michael Horowitz writes an exhaustive 500+ page report, of the HRC email investigation, showing bias at the top levels of the FBI on page after page. Yet he throws a bone to the Dems in his conclusion. Horowitz gives the benefit of the doubt on each decision not to prosecute.

12. All, except one. The one time Horowitz doesn't give the FBI the benefit of the doubt, is Comey's decision to send the letter to congress in Oct. reopening the email case; the one thing that allows Dems to say the FBI favored Trump over HRC and helped him win.

13. Ridiculous I know, but when has that ever stopped them before. Now, why did Horowitz do that? Every decision accepted on face value, but the very one that gives team Clinton political capital. Hmm, sounds fishy to me.

14. With that little nugget in mind, does Horowitz sound like he is going to be aggressive in referrals to the DOJ, which Rosentein will then have to approve for there to be action taken? Nope, not to me, not if we're being honest.

15. So, what does all that add up to? It seems every card in the deck is stacked to do as much political damage to Trump as is possible. I don't know if it will work, but still, it's pretty damned frustrating to have to sit & watch this #witchhunt and not be able to do anything.

16. We often hear the phrase, "Trump could just fire Rosenstein, but he hasn't, Why not"?

This is why not. The devil you know is better than the one you don't. The Trump admin has done a relatively poor job of appointing people for DOJ positions.

17. He has/had Sessions, Rosenstein, Brand, Francisco. If he starts firing them, he's going in the wrong direction. It is still effectively an Obama run justice department. How do we know this? During the 8 years of Obama, they were exceptionally good at filling the DOJ.

18. Not only that, but then, at the eleventh hour, they transformed their political appointees into career employees in order to embed them in like ticks on a hound. Extremely hard to fire. Don't believe me? 👇

19. "After President Barack Obama exits office, at least 88 of his political appointees will likely remain working in the federal government under a Donald Trump administration, according to numbers from the Office of Personnel Management." 👇

mrctv.org/blog/obama-pol…

20. So if your remove your own people, who will be running the show? The "career appointees" that Session's like to cite as having recommended his recusal were ALL placed by Obama. Do you think they might have a vested interest? That ship has sailed. washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/…

21. With such a narrow margin the in the Senate, who could Trump appoint that would be approved? Meanwhile, Obama officials are running the DOJ while the hearings drag on.

22. "Damn! We're in a tight spot!"

Addendum: I know my threads tend to run against the grain of telling people what they want to hear, but I think it's better to be realistic. If you don't believe me, perhaps you will believe former federal prosecutor, @AndrewCMcCarthy.
podcast below.

stitcher.com/podcast/nation…

Addendum: These guys are going to prosecute Obama officials?

"Sally Yates Hire At DOJ Responsible For Mueller Appointment, Sessions Recusal"

Come on people. It's time to forget the unicorn theory and come to reality. We need to be pressing congress.
bigleaguepolitics.com/sally-yates-hi…