My take on NY times/Rosenstein

[dolomite]

The Times, they are a dirty, sneaky publication. I believe the story they printed regarding Rosenstein and the wire tap/ 25th amendment issue was just a ploy to antagonize Trump. (Even though Rosenstein is in denial of the truthiness of the story.) I believe him.
The Times would like nothing more than to see Trump fire Rosenstein and the crisis that might cause.

[Geezer]

Conspiracy theory that I like, planted by Trump loyalist to get rid of Rosie.

[DCHawk1]

Who is dolomite?

[jhawks99]

Who is dolomite?

Deepthroat

[Lonestarjayhawk]

Who is dolomite?

Deepthroat

Deepthroat died

[jhawks99]

It was funny.

[ousdahl]

Oh boy, Rosenstein meeting with the WH today!

[HouseDivided]

Oh boy, Rosenstein meeting with the WH today!

I predict he will hear two words: “You’re fired!”

[ousdahl]

man can you guys imagine how OuTrAgEd psych would be if it was Cankles firing a deputy AG to stymie an investigation?

[HouseDivided]

man can you guys imagine how OuTrAgEd psych would be if it was Cankles firing a deputy AG to stymie an investigation?

I would be indeed. Thankfully, Dowdy is a private citizen and shall remain such unless and until she is incarcerated, so I don't have to worry about it.

[ousdahl]

but it’s ok when Trump does it?

[HouseDivided]

but it’s ok when Trump does it?

Didn't say it was okay. I did say I was thankful to be on the winning side this time. The last eight years were painful, so I find my solace where I can.

[jhawks99]

but it’s ok when Trump does it?

Didn't say it was okay. I did say I was thankful to be on the winning side this time. The last eight years were painful, so I find my solace where I can.

Sounds as thought jfish was right
viewtopic.php?p=2160#p2160

[HouseDivided]

but it’s ok when Trump does it?

Didn't say it was okay. I did say I was thankful to be on the winning side this time. The last eight years were painful, so I find my solace where I can.

Sounds as thought jfish was right
viewtopic.php?p=2160#p2160

I believe it was your hero, the second worst POTUS in history, who famously said "Elections have consequences". Might be time to man up and deal with that reality.

[jhawks99]

I never said they don't. Just pointing out hypocrisy.

[HouseDivided]

I never said they don't. Just pointing out hypocrisy.

I would argue that politics and hypocrisy are nearly one and the same.

[DCHawk1]

Trump shouldn't fire Rosenstein. That much is pretty clear.

What's also clear, though, is that NYT gave him cause to do so.

Would you/could you trust him? Particularly if you were already a paranoid narcissist?

[jfish26]

Well, as I understand it, when it comes to replacing Rosenstein, there's a critical distinction between Rosenstein's exit being a firing or a resignation. So, in that light, I think there are quite pragmatic reasons Trump does not want to fire him.

[HouseDivided]

The real question becomes "Did the NYT set up Trump to feel like he needed to fire Rosenstein, or did Rosenstein actually say and do things that made him untrustworthy?"

It's not paranoia if everyone really is out to get you.

[DCHawk1]

Well, as I understand it, when it comes to replacing Rosenstein, there's a critical distinction between Rosenstein's exit being a firing or a resignation. So, in that light, I think there are quite pragmatic reasons Trump does not want to fire him.

You say that like the words "Trump" and "pragmatic" have any business being in the same sentence together.