Rod Rosenstein’s Interview Was Very Revealing on Chris Wallace’s Show on Sunday

Folks I wrote the following early in the Rod Rosenstein vs. Chris Wallace thread (see below). I am only sharing it because it is needed as a reference to one of our fantastic Treeper’s (MaineCoon) response to my post later this evening. Many of you would never see it since he or she (sorry MaineCoon for not knowing) wrote the response at 9:36pm. It is imperative that CTH sees it because it is based on facts and real life experience of MaineCoon (worked many years in the legal field).

Sunday Talks: Rod Rosenstein -vs- Chris Wallace…


This interview seems very encouraging! I have been going back and forth with my brother that the only way anyone other than Flynn is indicted is on perjury charges. There is nothing there otherwise. He tells me they can indict based on a perceived tax return from 2006. I told him that would be ludicrous. One has nothing to do with the investigation.

This interview gives me hope that I will be right and he will be ultimately wrong. If that is the case, I am once again confident that other than Flynn, there is no one else that will be prosecuted in this damn witch hunt!

Would love to hear from others that think like me as well as those that think like my brother. I promise not to hang up on you the way I do to him.😁

MaineCoon’s response:

I too was encouraged by the interview. Having retired from the legal professions, and had experience many, many moons ago working in a special matter, governmental investigations practice group, Rod is speaking a language understood by all lawyers and easily viewed as BS, cover-up vernacular by non-attorneys.

I agree that there could likely be issues with Flynn, but I also think Manafort has a lot of Russia/Ukraine garbage, and if they ascertain and RICO violations…scope enlarged.

To me there is a very big picture presentation today just by the fact that Rosenstein presented on a Sunday show was orchestrated by his superiors. Did you notice that at one point when the camera returned to him, it appeared that he’d just finished turning over a page in a notebook? Interesting.

Wallace had pre-approved finely tuned narrow scope of questions: 1. Leaks, 2. SP investigation

1. Leaks: all to be reviewed; some – not all – prosecuted. Some commenters are disturbed that some leaks aren’t to be prosecuted. Some leaks don’t cause harm. Aren’t a national security risk. Some leaks are just unethical, unprofessional, disloyal to PT, thwart his agenda, etc. Grounds for firing, but not jail. Not a crime.

Sessions, Coats & Rosenstein have strongly addressed leaks this week. Everyone is on notice. Expect jail time for some.

This is encouraging to me. More encouraging if it is a member of Congress or WH staffer. The public needs to see D.C. people held accountable.

2. SP Investigation:

R: “I’m not going to comment about whether Director Mueller has or hasn’t opened a grand jury. You know, we read a lot about criminal investigations in the media and some of those stories are false.”

R: “We just don’t comment on investigations. That’s important for several reasons. First, we don’t want to disparage anybody who may be a subject of an investigation.”

True statement. Many people are just WITNESSES in a GJ investigation and it is imperative that their name isn’t leaked for their own protection. Look at all the names flying around right now. Some of these people could just be witness, required to give testimony, and that’s all. They deserve not to have their names leaked and put under an unjustified scope. It’s damaging.

If an entity is under investigation, there is a high likelihood an SEC investigation will ensue. If the investigation is leaked, becomes public, stocks would crash and stockholders suffer. Leaking causes damage to innocent people.

Leakers leaking classified information or potentially damage to innocent people are going to jail.

Wally: “What does it say when a prosecutor takes a case, in general, to a grand jury about the likelihood of indictments?

ROSENSTEIN: In general, Chris, it doesn’t say anything about the likelihood of indictments because we conduct investigations and we decide that at some point in the course of the investigation about whether charges are appropriate.”

Folks: **Not all investigations lead to indictments** Try to remember that before commenting to the contrary.

Rosenstein: Many of our investigations, Chris, involve the use of a grand jury. It’s an appropriate way to gather documents, sometimes to bring witnesses in, to make sure that you get their full testimony. It’s just a tool…

WALLACE: There are reports that Mueller has expanded his investigation to go into the president’s finances.

Folks: R. won’t comment on this specific aspect other than to say, “special counsel is subject to the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice, and we don’t engage in fishing expeditions.”

Folks: In an interview this week, Jay Sekulow/one of PT’s lawyer, said 2x that they have not received a request for any documents. Connect the dots.

ROSENSTEIN: if he finds evidence of a crime that’s within the scope of what Director Mueller and I have agreed is the appropriate scope of the investigation, then he can. If it’s something that’s outside that scope, he needs to come to the acting attorney general…for a permission to expand his investigation. But we don’t talk about that publicly.

Folks: the scope if expanded will not be made public. Try to remember that. Try to remember it’s just gossip when someone prints that the investigation has expended. Everything is gossip. I personally believe leakers will IMMINENTLY be prosecuted IN ORDER that innocent people be protected and even, yes, the guilty. THIS ISN’T A PUBLIC OPINION POLL OR PUBLIC Te TRIAL. Everyone on the campaign trail will be dragged into this mess, including Sessions, imo. These innocent people need protection from these arse leakers.

R: “And so, the speculation you’ve seen in the news media, that’s not anything that I’ve said. It’s not anything Director Mueller said. We don’t know who’s saying it or how credible those sources are.”

Folks: This is important. Read between the lines. Much of what we are reading is BS. Gossip passed around gets distorted. There is NO WAY for us to know what is going on. Fact or fiction.

As far as Trump campaign people, imo, Flynn and potentially Manafort are in jeopardy.
Personally, I have a hope, and am hopeful, that the scope of all things Russian will lead to the “Russian hack of the DNC computers” which could potentially lead to the finding of many criminal activities by the HC campaign. That would make for the need for endless attorneys and an endless investigation.

Maybe that’s naïve to hope, but I base it on the fact that I worked for decades in the legal bubble world of high powered attorneys who quite aptly compartmentalize. Box 1 = family. Box 2 = friends Box 3 = work box 4 = all things political, etc. I hope that Mueller and his team strive for truth and justice and keep politics in a box. You will not get 16 lawyers to collude and conclude PT is guilty, because he’s not, and too many of them will prevent it. It only takes one juror to hang a jury.

I think the Clin*t team should be very, very scared. Election rigging. Hacking. Russia. Scope expanded.

Bubba remembers all too well what happened that last time that happened.


Flep, sorry this is long. You asked for our opinion. This was the only way I could do it. Step-by-step. Analysis of Rosenstein’s actual words. I thank you for reading it. I’m sure you are the only one that did!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s