(01-10-2019 01:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My panties aren't in a wad about what happened with the Clinton probe, but I'm glad that you're so concerned about my undergarments! I do prefer a different kind though, the panties can be a bit restrictive...

Albeit you still didnt answer the question about whether you would be okay with a second Special Counsel being named for Lewinsky where you find the existing Counsel being named as 'raucously hilarious'.

If you have a problem with a second counsel, what gives you that problem?

If you dont, then what is your very serious issue about a jurisdictional grant being granted to the existing counsel there?

Look, had that grant not been given, nor given with the proper predicate crime, I would join your hilarity.

But the singular fact is that those steps were taken. So what (if any) is the difference between one counsel having dual investigations per the law or two?

What exactly do you find 'raucously hilarious' given those historical facts? The fact that Starr might be 'tainted' and 'after a hide' so he shouldnt be given such a broad grant? Or do you think the object and subject of the Lewinsky investigation to be stupid?

I can understand the 'raucously hilarious' statement if one were ignorant of the process. Truly. And I would join you on that viewpoint had it been a single magic-presto 'step to the left'.

The facts paint another picture (at least somewhat) yet you still cling (bitterly? sorry couldnt resist a political topical 'joke') to the 'raucously hilarious' characterization. I am seriously curious as to why.

What I found hilarious is that you tried to suggest Whitewater was different than this Mueller investigation. Whitewater's scope creep was significant and you admit that. The legality of that creep doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You suggest that the Mueller probe has crept too much, but fail to mention that, from the start, there has been a directive to follow that creep. So that creep too is legal and shouldn't be of issue to you.

And further, the connection to a crime for both Clinton and Trump are similarly disconnected. For Whitewater, the whole issue that started the investigation was a fraud committed by Madison Guaranty, a company bought by Jim McDougal. The Clintons were involved with the land purchase of Whitewater, but were not owners/employees of Madison Guaranty, which is the entity through which the initial crime was committed. So the Whitewater investigation was investigating if the Clintons had anything to do with the fraud. Kind of like how Mueller is investigating if the Trump campaign had anything to do with the hacking/election interference...

But to each their own.