>3203320
Yes, the most obvious interpretation of…
[LL] recorded calls with [RR]
…is that [LL] was recording [RR]. But take the time to read this line again and consider its potential ambiguity such that [LL] was the one being "recorded" with [RR].
If you insist that there is no ambiguity, i.e. no hidden meanings here, then how do you explain [RR]'s involvement with these recorded phone calls considering that all four of Q's "reveals" have NOTHING to do with [RR] and EVERYTHING to do with [LL].
Would it not make a lot more sense to read the reveals for "[LL] talking" as [LL]'s incriminating statements recorded by [RR]?
I suspect that these 4x calls [RR] made to [LL] in the past 11 days had nothing to do with Q's 4x indicated reveals. I suspect that [RR] has been on team POTUS since the day "TRUST SESSIONS" appointed [RR] as Deputy Attorney General.
Given the facts there are two logical conclusions here:
-
Less likely: The 4x phone calls [RR] made in the past 11 days to [LL] involved [RR] letting [LL] know about the recorded phone call evidence (reveals) in the hands of POTUS and that she'd better come clean and begin cooperating with POTUS before the music stops or face the consequences.
-
Most likely: The 4x [RR] phone calls to [LL] involved [RR] hammering out a limited immunity deal with [LL] such that [LL] will testify under oath in court as to the veracity of Q's 4x reveals indicated.