[+]p0ssum1 point-1 points0 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]p0ssum1 point
-1 points
0 points
(+0|-1)
ago
(edited ago)
Looking into Bill Clinton took over 4 years ... did you think that was a witch hunt? I want Mueller to be thorough. If there is no case, good, if there is a case, make is rock-solid. But leave no stone unturned, period. It'll be over when it's over .. I'd much rather is be done correctly than quickly, though I'd prefer both. Which I'm fairly certain it is, Mueller doesn't play games .. which is good.
I actually do think the Clinton special prosecutor was a witch hunt and I happen to respect Ken Starr and even supported Clinton's impeachment because I thought lying under oath was unacceptable for the nation's chief executive. It should have never come to that. Clinton never should have been made to testify. Although that was set up by what I consider a mistake by the Supreme Court (allowing civil cases to be brought against the President in his personal capacity rather than being tolled), it still would not have arisen without the special prosecutor.
Special prosecutors are an institutional abomination which should never be used, ever. Having been put in place, they have no easy end point without bringing cases against at least someone for something. Even if set up to investigate something, they should never have prosecutorial power or discretion.
[–] p0ssum 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
Looking into Bill Clinton took over 4 years ... did you think that was a witch hunt? I want Mueller to be thorough. If there is no case, good, if there is a case, make is rock-solid. But leave no stone unturned, period. It'll be over when it's over .. I'd much rather is be done correctly than quickly, though I'd prefer both. Which I'm fairly certain it is, Mueller doesn't play games .. which is good.
[–] Trumpocrat2020 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Mueller didn't handle the Clinton case or project timelines for it. Not so with Trump. Apples to oranges.
[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago
I actually do think the Clinton special prosecutor was a witch hunt and I happen to respect Ken Starr and even supported Clinton's impeachment because I thought lying under oath was unacceptable for the nation's chief executive. It should have never come to that. Clinton never should have been made to testify. Although that was set up by what I consider a mistake by the Supreme Court (allowing civil cases to be brought against the President in his personal capacity rather than being tolled), it still would not have arisen without the special prosecutor.
Special prosecutors are an institutional abomination which should never be used, ever. Having been put in place, they have no easy end point without bringing cases against at least someone for something. Even if set up to investigate something, they should never have prosecutorial power or discretion.