(01-10-2019 02:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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.

Again, I will ask for *third* time. Would you be so 'riled up' if a 2nd office undertook the Lewinsky Investigation? Easy question to answer.

----------------------------

As for the above, neat answer. Too bad it is not an answer to the question posed.

My question to you above should highlight the problem with your last sentence.

Do you understand that the 'creep' of the Starr team jurisdiction was *not* a function of an investigator given unlimited jurisdiction and told to 'go find some ****', but rather that an *independent* person (Reno) *requested* the additional independent investigation(s) with *specified and listed crimes* be placed with an already existing team, and another *independent* body (a judicial panel) *authorizing* that joinder of investigations? I dont think you understand these differences from the Mueller tour de force.

And for the third time, I'm not riled up, nor are my panties in a twist.

My comment dealt with the comparison of the two investigations. I provided no commentary on the Whitewater investigation and its creep.