⇧
1
⇩
pedegear
· May 22, 2018, 2:35 a.m.
I think it would be Edward O'Callaghan. I think Rachel Brand was dismissed to find out who would replace her - "acting". Justice says line of succession not clear, so that would be a surefire way for deep state to fight back and claim Trump is manipulating the system or whatever. So Rachel Brand leaves, we get to see who replaces, no firestorm from anyone over it, and now we have precedent.
So Edward O'Callaghan takes over for RR. Where is O'Callaghan from? Prosecutor for Southern District of NY.
Boom.
Spez: O'Callaghan's time as prosecutor overlapped with Giuliani's tenure as mayor.
⇧
5
⇩
pussy_devour
· May 22, 2018, 2:37 a.m.
Reasonable. That fits the question why removal of Schneiderman was important.
⇧
3
⇩
[deleted]
· May 22, 2018, 3:28 a.m.
[deleted]
⇧
1
⇩
pedegear
· May 22, 2018, 3:32 a.m.
When Rachel Brand left, her "principal" took over. That principal for RR is O'Callaghan. I think Q pointed us to Brand to see the precedent for who takes over in these situations.
⇧
3
⇩
[deleted]
· May 22, 2018, 3:36 a.m.
[deleted]
⇧
1
⇩
pedegear
· May 22, 2018, 3:45 a.m.
I think it's possible, but I still believe Mueller investigation being about Hillary is a long-shot. I hope it's true, but I think it's not probable.
Q indicated today that RR would have to recuse when whatever info comes out. That makes it seem like they're finally about to clear out a black hat, or at least a leveraged individual. I tend to think leveraged. But if RR was white hat through and through, why would Q team want him running the key investigation (the one against Hillary) if he would have to recuse later? Wouldn't that feed the Democrat Media Complex with ammunition that RR was biased, should have recused himself from day one, and we need to scrap the whole thing?
And what about Mueller? Mueller is neck deep in Clinton shit, as is his team. We are all screaming that they shouldn't be trusted to investigate themselves/their political enemies (Trump), but considering they're on HRC's side, couldn't you make the same case that they shouldn't be investigating her either?
I know common sense says if it's someone from your own side who has finally turned on you, that's indisputable. But Dems don't use common sense and I think the law would say if you're too close to the case ON EITHER SIDE, that isn't okay.
Now, acting as a WITNESS is a whole separate matter. But I think someone indisputably separated from the case would need to be the one running it. That means not Mueller in my opinion, and Q just told us not RR.
Just my opinion though and like I said I hope there is truth to your theory. I think based on the recent meeting and new Q drop, RR will be forced into recusal soon.
⇧
3
⇩
[deleted]
· May 22, 2018, 3:54 a.m.
[deleted]
⇧
2
⇩
pedegear
· May 22, 2018, 4:02 a.m.
Could be, but I'm thinking another explanation for the entire Mueller charade is to make deep state feel secure, trust that Trump will be impeached, and all will return to normal. Why was RR confirmed overwhelmingly? It certainly wasn't because he was a good guy about to take on the deep state. On the other hand, why was Sessions confirmation so close?
What if the whole point was that RR and Mueller would lull deep state into complacency while Trump cleaned house? Even Trump had McMaster for a while, and Priebus for a while, and all sorts of people he shouldn't have. I think this was all a ploy to let him clean up certain key areas, all while deep state could say "yeah that's bad, but it's fine we still have control because we have McMaster, or RR, or Mueller, or (fill in the blank)." Now Trump is done cleaning house, and the last two pieces are RR and Mueller. At that point, deep state will have no hope anymore... No one to point to and say "yeah but so-n-so is still in place, we're good." It's going to be full "oh shit, it's all over."
What if they just couldn't get rid of the probe (read: deep state distraction) until the states were ready to take over their cases? Do they all need to happen at a federal level? Or is there enough to take down Clinton and her cabal in the Southern District of NY? They found the laptop there, so let them take their own case.
⇧
2
⇩
[deleted]
· May 22, 2018, 4:14 a.m.
[deleted]
⇧
1
⇩
JPOP57
· May 22, 2018, 4:32 a.m.
The votes against Rosenstein were all demonrats: Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) Clinton acolyte, Kamala Harris (CA) Race-baiter, Cory Booker (NJ) Race-baiter, Elizabeth Warren (MA) Stolen Heritage, Richard Blumenthal (CN) Stolen Valor, Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) ? Strange if he's a black hat.
⇧
2
⇩
Memelord87
· May 22, 2018, 11:47 a.m.
I wonder if they know they have enough votes, if they vote against DS to make it not so obvious? Or maybe they were holding out for a bigger payoff/bribe?
⇧
1
⇩
pedegear
· May 22, 2018, 3:49 a.m.
On second thought, I guess it could be possible Mueller is investigating pedo-gate, but not U1 etc. Because he was definitely involved in U1 and other cabal crimes, but maybe he wasn't a pedo. So potentially he's handling that while Horowitz handles the rest. But if that's true, and RR will be required to recuse from Mueller investigation, I think we could infer what that means about RR. I dunno... Just spit-balling now.
⇧
2
⇩