|
|
 Originally Posted by boost
Mueller's life is fairly well documented, and with little controversy. If you want to open up Mueller's credentials to speculation, but insist Trump's are air tight, well, I'm not interested in a discussion that isn't being had in good faith.
It is you who are violating good faith my friend.
If Mueller's skills as an investigator are air-tight, then how are Trump's skills as an executive open to speculation? What's different about the evidence supporting the two?
That said, I do think there is an asymmetry here: Firing a law enforcement chief that was investigating your potential wrongdoing should trigger a special counsel.
Firing Comey does more to suggest Trump's innocence than it does his guilt.
If Trump were guilty, why would he fire Comey? Does he think it will stop the investigation? Does he not realize that the optics would be horrendous? What's the upside here? I simply won't believe that Trump is that stupid and reckless. Honestly the idea is insulting to intelligence.
However, if Trump is innocent, then he KNOWS better than anyone, that any investigation would be fruitless. So he sees Comey investigating a fantasy for which there is no evidence. If you are Trump, and you are innocent, then you can say definitively that no evidence exists. So if Comey is investigating....he's either grossly incompetent, or politically biased. Either way, he has to go. Optics be damned.
Sadly, because of partisanship, any special counsel that doesn't immediately announce Trump's vindication is going to be smeared by Trump supporters.
Stop using words like "smeared". I've cited objective facts about Mueller's team. No one planted 50,000 texts between Page and Strozk showing powerful bias against Trump. No one is smearing Mueller because of that. I'm just asking why that doesn't compel you to be at least agnostic about the 'even-handedness' of the investigation?
This would likely have been the same thing for Hilary, had she won and fired an FBI chief that was investigating her, or Obama had this scenario played out-- the left would have smeared their investigators.
Comey was investigating Hillary. He was the devil then. The fact that he's now the left's favorite martyr should demonstrate to you how hypocritical and fraudulent they are.
What this means is that Trump supporters(in the scenario that is actually playing out) are left attacking the functionary of a safety switch in our government, whereby people who are not keen on Trump being president are given the position of defending the robust checks and balances that make our government so great.
More pollyanna junk. I'm starting to suspect that you're Monkey's alt.
If you're just gonna trust every government and law enforcement function to not be biased or corrupted, then it's hard to have a serious debate with you. No one is attacking Mueller's integrity and certainly no one is trying to attack a fair application of due process. So just cool it with the strawmen, ok?
Objective facts cited above appear to show a strong political bias withing the ranks of Mueller's team. It is absolutely fair and correct to ask questions about that. It's not smearing. It's not an attack. It's the JOB of a free press to ask those questions. It's a good thing irony isn't lethal. Because it's insane to me that you have a problem with a press that questions the government while simultaneously playing a violin for our "robust checks and balances".
|
Reply With Quote
