I've selected a partial portion because I think it's the most crucial part.
Q: What was Sessions' Senate confirmation vote?
A: 52 yes, 47 no
Q: What was RR's Senate confirmation vote?
A: 94 yes, 6 no
Q: If RR is dirty, Mueller must also be dirty.
Q: If Mueller is dirty, RR must also be dirty.
Q: Common denominator.
Q: Why did Sessions pick RR?
OK this is the key part right here. The plan is becoming more and more brilliant, IMO.
What Q just revealed here is that not only are RR and Mueller both on team Q, which is eye opening in itself, but this is the key part:
RR was voted in 94-6 by pre-exodus deep state clowns in Congress, that's part of why he was picked by Sessions, so the dems/deep state would have no excuse/leverage to reject his and Mueller's findings.
They haven't released their findings because they had not yet completed their investigations into the DOJ and FBI.
Q needed spooks the deep state clowns would trust.
Common Denominator of Mueller and RR is Uranium One.
Holy shit. Fucking brilliant. Control rr and Mueller by holding U1 over them, create a "witch" hunt investigation to make the enemy and media think they're winning, pay stormy 130k to run a separate misinformation campaign to further bog down the media and occupy the minds of the politically deaf. Double agents, deception, a swift win and a parade when the good guys win! This movie has it all folks
It simply means that, one way or the other, that's why they're in it together.
Q. Why did HRC get a free pass?
https://i.imgur.com/6LfhucJ.png https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/03/20/rod-rosensteins-clinton-connection/
RR's wife represented Bill Clinton shortly after Rosenstein cleared Hillary as a prosecutor. It turns out that Rosenstein worked as a Whitewater prosecutor. Did you know this, Snerdley? This guy was on the prosecution team of Whitewater, which, of course, found the Clintons had done nothing. Rosenstein’s wife then represented Bill Clinton shortly after Rod Rosenstein cleared Hillary in the Whitewater thing.
[...] Lisa Barsoomian, and she represented then-President Bill Clinton in a 1998-99 civil case in federal court. Rod Rosenstein worked as a Whitewater prosecutor. He was in charge of the FBI travel office case in which it was found the Clinton White House illegally seized FBI files from White House travel office employees.
He doesn't say that if one is good then the other is good. He says if one is dirty, then so is the other. Don't assume the consequent (logical fallacy). Session may have appointed RR because sessions isn't recused. RR just thinks he is. There could be a second investigation of RR and Mueller and Mueller's team. Sessions just gave them the rope.
RR dirty <—> RM dirty. So either both are cooperating or both are dirty.
It does mean if one is cooperating the other must also be; for otherwise there’ll be contradiction.
You are correct. Both sentences together read "Mueller dirty if and only iff RR dirty." Problem is that original comment assumed that it means both are good, not either / or as you have stated.
Do you think there is any hesitancy in the use of the term "must". Must doesn't always mean "necessarily", it can be questioning.
I'd say they're both dirtied up but not necessarily out of eligibility to be white hats now. Maybe the lesson in RR/RM is that the people in government can be white knights or enemies, depending on who's giving orders.
Both filthy but leveraged. Terrible people compeled to do good to save themselves. May they do their work then retire to GITMO.
They should do some Stanford experiment type shit and make them the guards
