Read on Twitter
A lot of attention has been attracted to this reddit post: reddit.com/r/greatawakeni… because Q linked to it today. The post attempts to implicate certain FBI officials in corruption due to their positions during certain time periods.
But, it’s a rather sloppy post that plays fast and loose with the facts. This is an ongoing problem with some on the right. They’re so convinced that everyone is dirty that the look for “evidence” to prove it. This is known as confirmation bias.
It’s a constant problem when researching. One’s beliefs help to steer one’s interpretation of facts, and then you don’t look for offsetting facts that may weaken your case. I try to avoid it, but it’s difficult to do.
Just a few minutes ago, I tweeted that I may have to change my opinion of Rod Rosenstein based on this article. It exposed some facts that I either overlooked or discounted when I wrote this post on Rosenstein: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1012488…
In my judgment, at that time, Rosenstein was a good guy. Now, with this new information, I felt it would be good to reassess my position on Rosenstein. So, I took a look at those specific sections of the article.
Sure enough, Rosenstein was the Deputy Assistant of the Tax Division during that time. The interesting question here is, what does the Tax Division have to do with an investigation into the Clinton Foundation? The answer is nothing.
From 2001 to 2005 the FBI investigated the Clinton Foundation, but they were investigating Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, not Foundation finances. And the investigation was conducted by SDNY, not by the Tax Division. So, Rosenstein had nothing to do with the investigation.
This is nothing more than guilt by association. Rosenstein worked in the FBI. The FBI was dirty. Therefore, Rosenstein was dirty. Let’s move on to the next claim.
So, Rosenstein was USAG of MD when the Uranium One case began. And the charge that he covered it up is not recent news. americanthinker.com/articles/2017/… But what does “supervised” the U1 case mean? And was Rosenstein involved in silencing the whistleblower in the case?
The answer to the second question is no. Apparently it was Obama, via Loretta Lynch who did that. yournewswire.com/fbi-obama-jail…
The answer to the first is more complicated. The U1 case is still ongoing, so the FBI won’t talk about the case. I haven’t had a chance yet to look at the documents, so it’s hard to say if Rosenstein even signed any of the court documents.
Since he was the USAG for MD it’s likely that he was aware of details of the case, but he may not have been personally involved in the day to day business of the case. After I’ve taken a look, I’ll post more. For now, I’ll set that aside for further research.
The third charge against Rosenstein is that he’s married to Linda Barsoomian, who is supposedly dirty. Let’s look at the charges.
So, apparently, working as a lawyer representing Democrats and the FBI is now proof that you’re dirty? And apparently it’s not even necessary to look at the details of what she did in those cases before condemning her? You’ll pardon me if I’d like to have a little more detail.
Correction: It’s Lisa Barsoomian, not Linda. My apologies.
One of the claims this article makes is that the Hamberg V. Clinton case has been wiped from the internet - proof that Lisa is a CIA agent. Not so much: fbcoverup.com/docs/library/2…
Barsoomian has represented the government in a number of cases. So, when the case involves the President, she represents the President (Clinton, Obama, etc.). When it involves HHS, she represents Sebelius. As a former assistant USAG, she often represented federal clients.
But she was not the personal attorney for any of these people. truthorfiction.com/attorney-lisa-… dailyentertainmentnews.com/breaking-news/… heavy.com/news/2018/05/l… snopes.com/fact-check/lis…
Look, I GET that people want Rosenstein to be dirty. And they’ll do anything to “prove” that he is, even going so far as to make false accusations based on innuendo and guilt by association. But seriously, it took me about 15 minutes to disprove all of the claims except for one.
And that one is Rosenstein’s depth of involvement in the U1 case. As soon as I find the case number, I’ll look it up on Pacer and see what’s going on. But I would caution everyone to be careful about believing things simply because they comport with your existing beliefs.
I have looked at Rosenstein quite a bit, and I have yet to find anything that convinces me that he’s anything but a dedicated public servant trying to do his job with honor and integrity.
In January, 2018, Mark Lambert was indicted in a case that was trumpeted by conservative media as being related to U1. It was not. justice.gov/opa/pr/former-…
I have been unable to find a case number for U1, and I’m not convinced there is one. It appears that the FBI never referred the case to DoJ for prosecution, and no one has been indicted. Judicial Watch has sued under FOIA for the FBI’s records. judicialwatch.org/press-room/pre…
I didn’t find anything on vault.fbi.gov, so I assume the FBI has not released the case files. That makes sense, since DoJ is taking a second look at the case because of a Congressional request. townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv…
This Hill article goes into great detail about William Campbell, the U1 informant, and what he knew or didn’t know as well as whether he was reliable or not. thehill.com/homenews/admin…
The issue with the U1 case appears to me to be one of proving the quid pro quo. The payments to the Clinton Foundation are highly suspicious, but in court you have to prove they were done for that purpose. That’s a high hurdle to cross.
So far, I haven’t seen anything indicating that Rosenstein was directly or actively involved in the case, although he almost certainly would have been briefed regularly on it, since he was the supervising USAG.
So, my opinion of Rosenstein has not changed based on this “new” information. BTW, this claim has been circulating for some time now. The reddit post I referred to in my first tweet is merely the latest version of an internet rumor that’s been circulating for months now.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
