Should there be a special consel to investigate Loretta Lynch?

Originally posted by BackFire
Being supportive of Democrats doesn't really matter, the evidence will be the evidence. I mean, it's now their job to try and find dirt on Trump and his campaign; makes sense to get people who aren't terribly friendly towards him. Investigators should be somewhat hostile towards those they're investigating - makes it more likely they'll actually attempt to find damaging information if it exists.

I just feel like if Hilary Clinton was being investigated by a special counsel and they brought on a bunch of Republicans onto the staff who had donated money to Trumps campaign that the Dems would be calling foul.

Hostility is one thing, failing to be non-partisan is another. Almost makes it seem like the staff really wants to take Trump down as opposed to merely wanting to get to the bottom of this. I think some of them *want* to find something.

I'm all for "draining the swamp" of corruption, republican or democrat. Then job their heads in front of the capitol building French revolution style.

Originally posted by Surtur
That is my theory too, either it was Mueller or someone close to him.

Though serious question: do you think this special counsel is going to be fair? Here are some of the people on his staff:

[b]Michael Dreeben - donated to Obama and Clinton

Jeannie Rhee - deputy assist AG, Wilmer Hale, Donated to DNC, Obama, Clinton

James Quarles - asst. special prosecutor, Wilmer Hale, long history of Dem donations, Clinton

Andrew Weissman - oversees fraud at Justice. Donated six times to Obama PACs as well as DNC in 2006.

Also isn't Mueller himself a friend of Comey's? [/B]

Originally posted by Surtur
I just feel like if Hilary Clinton was being investigated by a special counsel and they brought on a bunch of Republicans onto the staff who had donated money to Trumps campaign that the Dems would be calling foul.

Hostility is one thing, failing to be non-partisan is another. Almost makes it seem like the staff really wants to take Trump down as opposed to merely wanting to get to the bottom of this. I think some of them *want* to find something.

Its funny how you say "If Hillary was under investigation..." when Trump is the one who essentially nullified investigation into her. And your hilarious dream of "He'll prosecute her after the Russia fiasco is over" is precisely that. A hilarious pipe dream.

Also it's hilarious how you care about donations to Democratic Congressmen but don't care that our entire executive cabinet under Trump have long histories of taking donations from corporate interests that are clearly influencing their policies. There goes that Trump supporter hypocrisy again.

Originally posted by Surtur
I just feel like if Hilary Clinton was being investigated by a special counsel and they brought on a bunch of Republicans onto the staff who had donated money to Trumps campaign that the Dems would be calling foul.

Hostility is one thing, failing to be non-partisan is another. Almost makes it seem like the staff really wants to take Trump down as opposed to merely wanting to get to the bottom of this. I think some of them *want* to find something.

They do want to find something, they're prosecutors, it's their job to try and find something to prosecute over. As long as they aren't manufacturing evidence then it doesn't really matter.

Originally posted by BackFire
They do want to find something, they're prosecutors, it's their job to try and find something to prosecute over. As long as they aren't manufacturing evidence then it doesn't really matter.

Yep, that's their job.

And that's why you get ridiculous cases that anyone with a heart would just as soon ignore, regardless of the law.. Which prosecutors or DA's could totally do, btw.

Not talkimg Trump or politics at all here, I just have a pet peeve with the idea of prosecuting someone being a full time job, and therefore creating an incentive to throw the book at anyone and everyone in range. No matter how stupid or heartless the case is.

No justice tempered with compassion/common sense or any of that. No mercy built into the system.. unless you're a crony to a president or a friend of a crony, and win the pardon lottery..

Originally posted by cdtm
Yep, that's their job.

And that's why you get ridiculous cases that anyone with a heart would just as soon ignore, regardless of the law.. Which prosecutors or DA's could totally do, btw.

Not talkimg Trump or politics at all here, I just have a pet peeve with the idea of prosecuting someone being a full time job, and therefore creating an incentive to throw the book at anyone and everyone in range. No matter how stupid or heartless the case is.

No justice tempered with compassion/common sense or any of that. No mercy built into the system.. unless you're a crony to a president or a friend of a crony, and win the pardon lottery..

"You don't want the truth, you can't handle the truth."

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
"You don't want the truth, you can't handle the truth."

In this case, I'll support throwing the book at him. 😉

It's really the whole "Prison industrial complex" I was on about before.. Everything from legally advancing a career based on how many "gotcha's" you can rack up (And is there any argument there are many stupid laws on the books, such that we need an entire professional class of individuals just to navigate it?), to more slimey "kickback schemes" (Like throwing the book at youth's for minor offenses, to fill up a youth detention center..)

That and an apathetic/reactionary general public that doesn'r serve as a check on authority (I'm not talking "fight the power" hippie bs here. All I ask is genuine empathy, common sense, and a sense of justice tempered with mercy.. You know, a combination that doesn't really exist in self interested narcissists, which seems to be our entire population..)

Off topic rant over.. 🙂

Originally posted by BackFire
They do want to find something, they're prosecutors, it's their job to try and find something to prosecute over. As long as they aren't manufacturing evidence then it doesn't really matter.

Their job should be to get to the truth, but okay so...like I said if the situation was reversed and with Hilary, would democrats be okay with it? Okay with republicans on the staff who donated thousands to Trump?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Its funny how you say "If Hillary was under investigation..." when Trump is the one who essentially nullified investigation into her. And your hilarious dream of "He'll prosecute her after the Russia fiasco is over" is precisely that. A hilarious pipe dream.

I was using Hilary as an example as to how Democrats would act if the same thing was going down. But yeah sure hilarious, okay.

Also it's hilarious how you care about donations to Democratic Congressmen but don't care that our entire executive cabinet under Trump have long histories of taking donations from corporate interests that are clearly influencing their policies. There goes that Trump supporter hypocrisy again.

We are talking about the investigation though. So yes I care if we have people who are likely not to be non-partisan.

But you wanna come and whine about donations that have nothing to do with possibly non-partisan staffers on this special counsel? Sounds like a deflection, which I'm sure the usual suspects will be calling out any second now.

I'm jk, nothing will be said or they'll just make up excuses for it, so you're safe 👆

there's a difference with being frustrated with an investigation and supporting their every attempt to ratf*ck it. mueller: american hero to cuck, because reasons.

so 'nah', mueller would not have been smeared under president hillary. probably because she knows he's unimpeachable, and any attempt to smear him would be/has been laughably stupid

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
there's a difference with being frustrated with an investigation and supporting their every attempt to ratf*ck it. mueller: american hero to cuck, because reasons. nah, mueller would not have been smeared under president hillary. probably because he's pretty much unimpeachable and any attempt to smear him has proven to be laughably stupid

The reasons are the fact he picked several people on his staff who donated thousands of dollars to Hilary's presidential campaign.

I will ask you the same question I asked Backfire and let us see if you can gather your thoughts enough to respond. Since it's a hypothetical and I know those trouble you, but try:

Hilary is being investigated for something by a special counsel. The person in charge appoints several republicans who have donated thousands of dollars to Donald Trumps presidential campaign. What would happen, in terms of the democrats reaction to that?

Please tell me you truly believe nobody would have a problem with the staffers lol. Cuz if so I have 3 beans to sell you, they are magic.

several=3 (according to this link, anyway). they donated to the democratic candidate as they always do, and this disqualifies them? special rules again?

Three members of special counsel Robert Mueller's team on the Russia probe have donated to Democratic presidential campaigns and organizations, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337428-four-top-legal-experts-on-muellers-team-donated-to-democratic-causes

not seeing evidence of thousands donated to clinton's campain for any but one:

Jeannie Rhee, a member of Mueller’s team, donated $5,400 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign PAC Hillary for America.

the rest seem unrelated to clinton. so i'm suspecting that you're just peddling lies as usual.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
several = 3 (according to this link, anyway). they donated to the democratic candidate as they always do, and this disqualifies them?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337428-four-top-legal-experts-on-muellers-team-donated-to-democratic-causes

These are people on the staff who donated thousands of dollars to the Hilary Clinton campaign. Yes, 3.

So again I ask: do you feel Democrats would not make a stink over the same thing? I can't imagine them finding out some of the people donated thousands to Trump and not saying a thing about it. Nancy Pelosi would be running her mouth.

Also just to be clear, even ONE person who couldn't be non-partisan would be one person too many.

again, seems only one donated to clinton. but have fun trying to pretend-away the evidence i posted. 👆

TO THE NEXT PAGE!!!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
again, seems only one donated to clinton. but have fun trying to pretend-away the evidence i posted. 👆

TO THE NEXT PAGE!!!

ONWARD, TO THE NEXT PAGE!!! Because the page turning means Surt has erased his public humiliation.

he'll either return to avoid evidence, do flips, and claim some personal victory again; or he'll just avoid the thread like a coward (as it seems he's doing). nothing we haven't seen before.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
he'll either return to avoid evidence, do flips, and claim some personal victory again; or he'll just avoid the thread like a coward (as it seems he's doing). nothing we haven't seen before.

It's what the Alt-right do.

Originally posted by Surtur
Not salty, merely pointing out reality. If Trump tried this now that is what folk would say.

On top of that, why is this reply salty, but your jab at Trump for breaking a promise wasn't?

More speculation.

Why would I be in tears over another Trump lie? I didn't support Trump; I didn't vote for Trump. So when he broke his promise of prosecuting Hillary, he didn't break it to me, he broke it to you and the rest of the Trumpers who desperately wanted Clinton's head on a pike.

Honestly, what did it taste like when he did a 180* and went from calling Clinton the 'most corrupt politician ever' to 'the country owes her a debt of gratitude, she is a good person' shortly after the election? "Salty" I assume.

Originally posted by Robtard
More speculation.

Why would I be in tears? I didn't support Trump; I didn't vote for Trump. So when he broke his promise of prosecuting Hillary, he didn't break it to me, he broke it to you and the rest of the Trumpers who desperately wanted Clinton's head on a pike.

Honestly, what did it taste like when he did a 180* and went from calling Clinton the 'most corrupt politician ever' to 'the country owes her a debt of gratitude, she is a good person'? "Salty" I assume.

no. surt should address and correct his lies regarding the investigation and mueller, first.