Special Counsel to Investigate Special Counsel

Mueller should've never been selected... considering what we now know were conflicts and bias.

At this point an investigation seems fair... as well as a special investigator for Hillary server gross negligence, uraniumone, fusiongps, the dossier, comey investigation, Loretta lynch interfering w Comey investigation after recusing herself, the supposed dnc hack... etc.

Mueller should've never been selected.

Did not hear a person complain based on his record as an unbiased prosecutor, and it was only after he started sniffing around Trump finances that his bias becomes an issue.....predictable.

PkrBum wrote:Mueller should've never been selected... considering what we now know were conflicts and bias.

....

All this nonsense about conflicts and bias ... where's that 'rolleyes' emoticon when I need it?   It's all just so much partisan deflection.

Mueller and his team are experienced investigators, they're not a judge or jury, they're investigators looking for evidence .... and evidence is evidence, regardless of who obtains it or what their personal biases might be.   What difference does it make if some FBI Agent on the team made some personal political text last summer?   He shouldn't have done that, of course, but how does it make any difference to the work of looking for evidence the team is doing.  As I said ... evidence is evidence.   And if there's no credible evidence found, Trump and his crew have nothing to worry about, right?

Unless, of course, one is alleging Mueller's team will actually fabricate evidence.  Is that what you think?    Do you seriously think Mueller's team will fabricate evidence?  And even if they did, that it would be so well fabricated that it couldn't be shown to be fabricated or contested?   Pray tell, what kind of evidence would that be they might fabricate anyway? I would really like to know.

C'mon .. get real!

Comey was drafting Hillary's exoneration before most of the interviews were done and was handing out immunities like Halloween candy. The replacement of "gross negligence" with "extremely careless" was even added by the guy that Mueller had to kick off his team... who by "coincidence" is married to a woman that worked for fussiongps... that produced that bogus dossier... which likely the basis for the fisa warrants (i want to know this too)and the special council. Then we had Comey leaking that crap to force the issues. The entire thing stinks of a political ploy to undermine the presidency and his agenda. I can't stand the govt sneaking around behind cover. I want daylight shone bright and directly on all govt unless there is a compelling case of the need for TEMPORARY secrecy. These cockroaches need to go... one way or the other.

PkrBum wrote:Comey was drafting Hillary's exoneration before most of the interviews were done and was handing out immunities like Halloween candy. The replacement of "gross negligence" with "extremely careless" was even added by the guy that Mueller had to kick off his team... who by "coincidence" is married to a woman that worked for fussiongps... that produced that bogus dossier... which likely the basis for the fisa warrants (i want to know this too)and the special council. Then we had Comey leaking that crap to force the issues. The entire thing stinks of a political ploy to undermine the presidency and his agenda. I can't stand the govt sneaking around behind cover. I want daylight shone bright and directly on all govt unless there is a compelling case of the need for TEMPORARY secrecy. These cockroaches need to go... one way or the other.

Even if true the way you spin it .. so what? As I said, evidence is evidence.  If they got the goods on Hillary they should present it to a grand jury for indictment.   Why haven't they?   There's nothing legally stopping Trump's DOJ from doing that.   Whatever happened to "lock her up, lock her up?"  It's been a year now.

I'll tell you why they haven't moved forward on it ... because Comey was right.  It's not a legally sustainable case, despite what the political spin doctors in the media have led you and many other conservatives to believe, and the actual real-world where-the-rubber-meets-the-road prosecutors in the DOJ know it.  They just don't have the goods on her.   They could probably get an indictment ... but they wouldn't win the case in the end.

What it is (the emails thing, the "dossier" thing, along with the whole Uranium One nonsense), is an empty political pinata the Trumpians keep batting around ... but they really don't want to bust it open because it will be found to be a big legal nothing if they did.   But it serves their political purposes to have the Trumpian base see them keep beating on that pinata.   Hopefully, a lot of 'em will be so busy watching that show to not notice when Congress votes to cut their Snap & EITC benefits and/or gut their health care benefits.

Yup he has to go ASAP.

Telstar wrote:

Yup he has to go ASAP.

Personally, I think we're stuck with him for three more years, though he'll become less and less relevant and a rubber stamp for the Republican (for as long as it lasts?) Congress and the military/industrial complex.

What I'm anxious to see is which Republicans will mount a primary challenge against Trump in 2020? I'm thinking "little Marco", for one, is thinking about it.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

Telstar wrote:

Yup he has to go ASAP.

Personally, I think we're stuck with him for three more years, though he'll become less and less relevant and a rubber stamp for the Republican (for as long as it lasts?) Congress and the military/industrial complex.

What I'm anxious to see is which Republicans will mount a primary challenge against Trump in 2020?   I'm thinking "little Marco", for one, is thinking about it.

Marco for sure but even he will have trouble washing the smell of toxic 45 off of him in 2020.