Originally posted by Surtur
I wonder if any of the Mueller fans here genuinely think it's okay to not have any Republicans on the staff?Also at least there is some silver lining, it's not like Mueller went on family vacations with James Comey in the past.
I think it's fine if he doesn't have any Republicans on his staff. He should be hiring the best people for the job, the best investigators and lawyers he can find. If that happens to include no Republicans so be it. Research has shown that most "elite" lawyers, the type Mueller would want for this kind of thing, tend to be democrats.
"Of attorneys who graduated from the country’s most selective law schools — the “Top 14,” as they’re often called — 76% of those who make political contributions have given more money to Democrats than to Republicans."
Also worth noting that Mueller himself is a registered Republican. And at least one member of his team, while having given money to Democratic politicians, has also given money to Republican politicians.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/robert-mueller-donations-democrats-fec/index.html
"Of attorneys who graduated from the country’s most selective law schools — the “Top 14,” as they’re often called — 76% of those who make political contributions have given more money to Democrats than to Republicans."
You singlehandedly just figured out why no one likes lawyers, they are all fcking democrats.👆
Congrats!
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/6swxsi/why_some_us_exspies_dont_buy_the_russia_story/
"The Russia narrative is a classic Edward Bernays propaganda campaign. Like all Bernaysian propaganda campaigns, it doesn't depend on facts. Its purpose is to make people believe/desire/fear something, then doing something in response to that belief. The story is manufactured from scratch, although better campaigns may form on a foundation of truth or some culturally-popular meme.
It is a multi-avenue propaganda campaign with many apparent sources of information. It has no basis in fact. It is manufactured by (or for) the media first, then propagates to the "real world" via confirmation bias. What "real world" evidence actually does exist is planted by agents of the people who are creating the campaign. Of crucial importance, it does not require collusion with media or political figures in order to succeed.
All that is necessary is to manufacture a story sufficiently salacious that the media will report on it in a predictable way, and the viewers will take whatever action is desired.
It usually takes anywhere from a few months to a couple of years to take effect, although not every campaign has the desired outcome (but it does seem pretty reliable, all things considered).
At the end of the day, once the goal of action is achieved, the story will evaporate and nobody will remember it any more than anyone remembers the 1954 Guatemalan coup, which was where Edward Bernays showed the MIC how to do it."