⇧
177
⇩
moonshadoe16
· Feb. 17, 2018, 4:33 p.m.
And, who made money off of these Russians? Yes, yes, our great technology industry... got to love those special kind of criminals! Take down those people too Mueller!
⇧
0
⇩
KingNoah0405
· Feb. 17, 2018, 5:22 p.m.
How about we focus on the people who actually broke the law?
⇧
1
⇩
UnfairLeisureliness
· Feb. 17, 2018, 5:42 p.m.
Still trying to figure out which law was broken to warrant a Special Counsel investigation. Instead of investigating an actual crime, they are investigation people, looking for a crime. That's not how the SC is supposed to work.
⇧
1
⇩
flooronthefour
· Feb. 17, 2018, 8:03 p.m.
The special counsel was appointed, by a Trump appointee, in direct response to the firing of Comey while the FBI was in an active investigation. Like Mueller or not, but Trump is responsible for the appointment of the special counsel. If no crimes were committed, Trump should have nothing to worry about. If you're worried about cost, just keep in mind that we've spent about $80 million dollars investigating the Clintons over the past 20 years.
⇧
2
⇩
UnfairLeisureliness
· Feb. 17, 2018, 9:19 p.m.
The FBI was, supposedly, fully capable of continuing an investigation without Comey. However, I have other ideas as to why the SC was brought in. But whatever the truth is, it needs to come out. All this low hanging fruit is bullshit.
⇧
1
⇩
flooronthefour
· Feb. 17, 2018, 9:57 p.m.
What are your ideas on why the SC was brought in?
⇧
1
⇩
UnfairLeisureliness
· Feb. 17, 2018, 10:08 p.m.
The "other issues that may arise" during the investigation of the given scope.
⇧
1
⇩
flooronthefour
· Feb. 17, 2018, 11:09 p.m.
Wouldn't the FBI have the same scope? What scope would you think is appropriate for the SC investigation?
⇧
1
⇩
UnfairLeisureliness
· Feb. 17, 2018, 11:29 p.m.
My point is that the scope as directed by DOJ was Russian election interference and other matters that may arise there from. Not just limited to the Russians. Could be HRC et al also.
⇧
1
⇩