Profile picture
Stealth Jeff @drawandstrike
, 44 tweets, 8 min read Read on Twitter
1) I've been meaning to address something for some time.

@davealvord164 Tweet here provides a perfect opportunity.

I"ve been slack in teaching people how to do what I do.

So class is now in session.

3) Rachel Brand, the #3 at the DOJ for the last nine months, just stepped down. From all the publicly available info, she resigned on her own. She was not fired.
3) People immediately begin speculating due to the other recent firings/reassignments/departures from the DOJ she must be dirty.

This is a mistake.
4) Horowitz investigated silently for 12 months, then surfaced in December & began handing his evidence over to the Congress.

How do you know she's not leaving because her work is done?
That's just one reason I can theorize about off the top of my head.

Here's another:

she was just a placeholder appointment until the person Trump really wanted to give that job to at the right time, was ready.
Remember Trump didn't actually WANT Rience Priebus as his Chief of Staff. Priebus was just a placeholder until Gen. John Kelly was ready to leave the Dept. of Homeland Security.

Then Scaramucci was brought in to be the hatchet man & 'convince' Priebus to resign.
Now did Trump ever admit he brought in Scaramucci for just 2 weeks to be his hatchet man & get Rience to leave & fire a few other people & then leave himself, clearing the way for Kelly & Sarah Sanders?

No, he has not. And he won't, either.
You can read about it all here. Because this Israeli reporter isn't tied at the hip to 1 favorite narrative, she clearly saw what happened.…

[BTW, how many of you new @Scaramucci saved himself $80 million taking that job for 2 weeks?] 🤔
Automatically assuming Rachel Brand must be dirty without any public on the record evidence is a mistake. Never tie yourself to just ONE narrative about something.

That's how you end up like a DNC Media hack.
Now, another possibility, one where she's not guilty of anything serious:

It was expected she would help the super secret Horowitz investigation but instead she was completely passive. She didn't do anything ILLEGAL but she clearly wasn't a reformer. She kept her head down.
So far I've given you 3 alternative reasons why she might have stepped down.

You see what I'm doing here?


Which one is true? I have no idea at this time.
Which 1 of these three alternative narratives have I *emotionally committed* myself to just an hour or two after the news broke because I *want* it to be true?


This is where so many go wrong.
I don't have enough information yet to know which scenario is the true one. And even when evidence starts to shift to 1 of the scenarios, I'm STILL not going to commit myself to it and go 'all in' on it.
I can do what I do and spin alternative scenarios and explore them all and sift the publicly available information because I don't immediately grab 1 of them that best fits my confirmation biases l&start waving it like the bloody shirt & DEMAND people believe it.
To try to get you to COMMIT yourself to their pet theory/narrative, a lot of people will boast about their awesome super connected secret anonymous sources that they can't reveal or they'd have to kill you and stuff.
Have I ever TOLD any of you what to believe?

Have I ever gone "Well here's what my highly connected anonymous source way up there in the FBI/DOJ/EPA/XYZ says, so anybody who disagrees is WRONG!!!!"

No, I have not.

People who are bullshitting you do that.
Once you COMMIT yourself to just one narrative or theory or scenario, the degree to which you make that commit will BLIND you into excusing/ignoring or discounting subsequent evidence that arises that doesn't fit your pet theory.
This is what's gotten Navy Jack and a bunch of others people on social media in trouble. They claimed special, highly placed sources and they went 'all in' on ONE narrative.

As newly emerging facts no longer fit the old narrative, the mental gymnastics ensue.
I look around right now, what do I see? People are *already* committing themselves to a narrative that Rachel Brand just stepped down from the DOJ because she's *dirty*. It's the only possible explanation! 🙄
Well people who do that are amateurs. I'm a *professional*. I'm gong to need to see actual publicly available evidence of illegal/unethical behavior before I start putting more of my eggs in THAT basket.
And no, tweeting/blogging/periscoping where you brag about your highly placed gov't contacts who won't go on the record or provide any verified documentation does not qualify for 'publicly available evidence'.
Being introspective enough to know what your own biases are & keeping them from blinding you & committing yourself to just one theory/narrative is necessary to do what I do here on Twitter.
Too many times people leap to immediately adopt a position on a current issue, and join themselves at the hip to a narrative that they just fervently want to be true.

They then end up looking ridiculous weeks later, trying to save a narrative that is clearly dead.
I am not special. ANYBODY can train themselves to do what I do. It's not that hard.

Don't commit yourself to ANY one narrative or theory until the preponderance of the evidence over time takes you there. Until then explore all possible scenarios.
People constantly ask me why I'm not cheerleading for this or that hot new narrative du jour of the week.

Take "Rosenstein is dirty", a popular new narrative the last few weeks.

Ever notice Rosenstein's picture has never appeared here?

Why is that? 🤔
Well, some people think a PREPONDERANCE of evidence has surfaced that clearly demonstrates Rosenstein is dirty.

I don't agree. There's still COUNTERVAILING evidence he is not.
Evidence FOR Rosenstein being dirty:

1) At the DOJ under Obama
2) Signed off 1 time on the Carter Page FISA warrant

Wow, looks like a strong case, eh?

Watch this:
Evidence AGAINST Rosenstein being dirty:

1) BOTH Trump & Sessions recently publicly declared full confidence in him AFTER the FISA warrant news broke
2) People *inside* the DOJ have been exposing the plotters. How do you know Rosenstein isn't one of them?
I can go on:

3) Trump's known since at *least* November 2017 the plotters inside the DOJ were spying on him. He knows who they are by now. Why would he leave Rosenstein in place at this point if he's dirty?
4) Horowitz started his investigation in Jan. 2017. It was IMPORTANT *nobody* know what he was doing or where his investigation was going or WHO he was actually investigating UNTIL he was ready to roll out his evidence in December 2017.
4a) IF Rosenstein DOESN'T renew the FISA warrant in July 27 for that last 90 day period [expiring in October 2017] that would IMMEDIATELY alert the plotters he had looked more closely at the warrant & they now had a problem.
4b) Let's see a show of hands: who thinks Rosenstein didn't know about the FISA Court abuse issues by July of 2017 and that DOJ IG Michael Horowitz was looking into that?
So no, this isn't as open and shut as some people try to make it sound.

I'm not committed EITHER WAY at the moment to Rosenstein being dirty or a very clever honest cop stringing along the bad cops until Internal Affairs has it's case to prosecute ready to drop on them.
IF Rosenstein is dirty, then at this point:

Sessions knows it. Trump knows it. Horowitz knows it.

Would he escape? No.

So all the doom criers are doom crying over nothing.
People who spin theories "Rosenstein is dirty, but TRUMP CAN'T SEE IT, SESSIONS IS BLIND TO IT, etc. etc . yadda yadda argle bargle!!" are incoherent.
They end up selling you a narrative where about 12 dirty people inside the DOJ/FBI have been outed/demoted/fired except for that Rosenstein guy! He must have pictures of Trump or something!
BTW , read for a THIRD alternative?

How about this one? Rosenstein WAS dirty but Trump & Sessions made him an offer and he FLIPPED. Ever consider that?
You have no way of knowing what's really going on at this point. Don't tie yourself to just one narrative. @ThomasWictor is 100% correct: there is a lot of DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION being put out there, not just by Dem/DOJ/FBI black hat leakers.
Trump and his team are putting out deliberate misinformation too.

And they'll NEVER admit a lot of of what they are leaking/telling the press is garbage.

People who just skate the surface will be endlessly confused.

That's deliberate.
Trump will never cop to bringing Scaramucci to be his 2 week hatchet man to clear some people out of the White House so he could bring in who he wanted.

People who bought the SURFACE misinformation saw absolute chaos. That was DELIBERATE.
Trump knew about what John Warner did weeks ago. He only pretends - Wow! - to discover it and talk about it yesterday on Twitter.
You'll never FULLY know and understand what's actually going on because these people are NEVER going to tell you.

Get used to it.
In the meantime various different, sometimes competing narratives will get bandied about. Be SMART about how you handle them.

Like me! 😀

Somebody just bounced a FOURTH alternative theory off me about why Brand just left the DOJ:

She got a BETTER JOB OFFER from Wal Mart. 🤔
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Stealth Jeff
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!