Is the appointment of a special prosecutor really a witch hunt?

SGT Edward Wilcox - From the article you posted:
"The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far."

So the people who contributed to this article said there was no wrongdoing.

"Those discussions focused on mending U.S.-Russian economic relations strained by sanctions imposed on Moscow, cooperating in fighting Islamic State in Syria and containing a more assertive China, the sources said."

My God, a president who wants to normalize relations and cooperate with other world leaders in order to improve the economy, fight ISIS, and contain a potential adventurous China! Yeah, string him up!

"In the conversations during the campaign, Russian officials emphasized a pragmatic, business-style approach and stressed to Trump associates that they could make deals by focusing on common economic and other interests and leaving contentious issues aside, the sources said."

Cooperation?!?!?! Whaaaaaaa?

"Trump fired Flynn in February after it became clear that he had falsely characterized the nature of phone conversations with Kislyak in late December - after the Nov. 8 election and just after the Obama administration announced new sanctions on Russia. Flynn offered to testify to Congress in return for immunity from prosecution but his offer was turned down by the House intelligence committee."

So Obama tried to stymie US-Russia relations right before leaving office, and Trump is the bad guy for wanting to normalize relations? Hey remember Hillary's failed "Reset Button" campaign? She wanted to normalize relations with Russia too.

PO2 Robert Aitchison - I've been politically aware since age 10 (that's 1980) and gave up on party affiliation after George H.W. Bush left office. I was a political science major in college, and realized then that We The People were being lied to in a big way. I am currently an Independent Constitutionalist. Anyone or any organization that does not work within the U.S. Constitution is a problem. Elected officials who do not work for their constituents needs to go. There is only ONE party right now. If you haven't figured it out, the Republicans are just playing a role to make people believe they have a voice in the government. It's all political theater. Most, if not all representatives have been bought & paid for long ago. Anyone who blindly defends based on party affiliation is part of the problem, and/or a Sheeple. I call 'em as I see 'em and if that hurts your feelings, then too bad. Call me an A-Hole; I'll wear it as a badge of honor.

SSG(P) (Join to see) - From the same article:
"Veterans of previous election campaigns said some contact with foreign officials during a campaign was not unusual, but the number of interactions between Trump aides and Russian officials and others with links to Putin was exceptional.

“It’s rare to have that many phone calls to foreign officials, especially to a country we consider an adversary or a hostile power,” Richard Armitage, a Republican and former deputy secretary of state, told Reuters."

If everything was so above board, why did they spend so much time hiding the contacts and lying about who met with whom? While the article did state a reasonable excuse for the contact, the fact that the Trump campaign tried to hide the contacts, and lied about them, raises more questions than it answers.

True it did seem fishy. However, remember that nothing about Trump or his style is "ordinary" or what career politicians (barf) have come to expect from a candidate or president.

But the investigations going on in Congress, 1 in the House and 1 in the Senate, are being run by the Republicans. Wouldn't they be the ones trying to get legislation passed? Why would they try to sabotage their own legislative agenda? Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

SGT Edward Wilcox - Anyone can introduce legislation; it doesn't have to be the majority party. And yes I was taking a shot at the majority with my comment above. They were elected to DO certain things that they ran on, and they are thus far not doing very much. This current gong show is clearly an effort to ensnarl Congress in a quagmire of investigations and special committees, while legislative priorities languish in limbo.
If they don't get their heads right soon, the GOP is in grave danger of losing the House. Not because the Dems have any better ideas to run on, but because the GOP did not do what they said they'd do.

I think the interesting thing is that everyone is generally on board with Mueller being fair and rational - which is what makes me wonder why the President seems concerned about it.

MAJ Bryan Zeski - I don't get the impression that he is "concerned about it." The impression I get is that he is pissed that it is happening at all, a subtle but significant difference. If one is erroneously accused, no matter how fair and balanced the investigator is, I doubt that there is anyone among us that would be happy about it ... and one's unhappiness would increase in direct proportion to one's innocence.

LTC (Join to see) - And I understand that. But, you'd think - or hope - that the President of the United States would have the common sense to not react to that in a way that could make him seem guilty. An appropriate Presidential response would be, "I look forward to being vindicated by the investigation and hope that when nothing is found, we can all more forward together."

And if he wants to vent a little, do so in the privacy of his house, room, car, or whatever.

What would we say if a Division Commander came under an investigation and he spoke out publically, or in front of his Division formation and called the investigation a "witch hunt"? That alone would get him relieved of Command. Can we not hold the President, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, to at least a similar standard as we hold our military leaders to? Especially when it comes to the rule of law, the justice system and ethical actions?

MAJ Bryan Zeski - You can challenge his common sense 'til the cows come home and I probably won't disagree with you. I've commented a number of times elsewhere that I wish his minders would cut him off from his Twitter account. Having said that, his perception of "common sense" made him a billionaire, got him the Republican nomination, and defeated the cuckquean against all the odds. It may just be that we equate "common sense" with playing it meek, mild, and safe ... while he equates it a bit differently and has a strategy and end game that we simply don't see. For sure he doesn't "act presidential" in the mold of most that have gone before him ... but then ... presidential, by definition, is his to define.