“...add two parts salt while stirring the pot. “
Come on! Entertaining & far-fetched as it is I think Mick’s last week gaffe wasn’t such. He meant what he said. He’s the author of the latest book yet his “resistance” isn’t genuine. It is born out of the desire & insurance policy to save himself. Whoever wrote the book did so to protect their career.
one can imagine that (a) whistle-blower(s) has been questioned publicly/closed session so as to stifle any attempt’s at the republican’s unmasking. (i.e. the belief that the whistle-blower wouldn’t be coming out publicly (undisclosed as such) & privately) We also know there is more than one whistle-blower.
anybody else see the strategy in such a tactic (to prevent positive identification of W-B)?
Who get’s outted first? the author or the whistle-blower(s)?