More Clinton ties on Mueller team: One deputy attended Clinton party, another rep'd top aide

MSgt Steve Sweeney -

1. Yes, it does happen, and when it happens, it sparks an outrage. Why is that? Because people understand that it's a bad thing. Well, most of us, anyways. And while rules of evidence are good in a criminal trial, nobody cares about it when you're trying the guy in the court of public opinion. That's what Muller's hit squad is doing with all the leaks. Nor would I suggest finding people without political leanings, however when you have three (so far) that are so far out of bounds as to be politically compromised and one that needed to be fired, that's not just "political leanings." That's 20% of the investigators who have been named so far. Any investigation that has 20% of its staff that's full-square against a POTENTIAL target is a hit squad, not an investigation team. Any suggestion otherwise is a ridiculous argument (see, I can do that too!)
2. You have finally gotten something right by saying that being pro-X doesn't mean anti-Y. However, the three investigators who have been compromised (so far) are Anti-Trump. Just because someone can be pro-Hillary without being anti-Trump doesn't mean they're not anti-Trump.
3. As for this, you've got one hell of a strawman argument set up. It's nice that a lot of Obama's cabinet signed off on Hillary's payday. But how do you account for the fact that, yes, a fifth of our uranium was put under the control of Russian affiliates (I guess that's ok because it's before Russia was the bad guys for y'all)? How do you account for the quid-pro-quo contribution to the Clintons? You say that Trump is compromised by a foreign government without any proof... yet you ignore this. And you wonder why people laugh at you.

And there you are with the jingles again. Your obsession with that is near pathological. Get over it, man.

You whine and fuss about strawman arguments, but your entire repertoire, until now, consisted entirely of them. Kind of funny being accused by the King of the Strawmen. Nor did I twist your words - I just showed them to you in a light that you didn't like. Sorry your arguments are facile. Not my fault, though.

Question my integrity all you want. I know where I stand, and others can see it. Throw your temper tantrum and cry it out, if you must. We'll be here when you want to be an adult.

LCDR (Join to see) - All their leaks? What leaks? The Mueller team has been doing good containing leaks. We are only finding out about this one guy now, after he had already been removed, mostly due to the perception issue. As far as having three "so far out of bounds"... That is your opinion, and the opinion of the pundits that want to discredit the investigation. What evidence to you have they are "anti-Trump"? Because they are investigating him?
No, a fifth of our uranium was NOT put under "the control" of Russian affiliates (define "affiliate"). They are subject to the same NRC regulations as any other company that mines uranium in the United States. I challenge you to give one solid piece of evidence that ANY of the uranium mined since they took over the operation went back to Russia. And still ask if what your saying is the case, why doesn't the current admin shut it down? I notice you go out of your way to avoid that very obvious question.
Another person on RP turned up some info on how a very small amount made its way to research reactors in Europe, but that is very different that going to Russia. You have absolutely no evidence of a quid-pro-quo - none. If you have actual evidence, I encourage you to turn it over to the authorities so they can seek an indictment. Thus far, none of the speculation of quid-pro-quo has been able to do that. Were the other 8 department heads bought off too? Base and unfounded speculation entirely unsupported by evidence.
You apparently don't know what a strawman argument is.
There is plenty of proof of compromise, but as far as what is available to the public, I admit it is circumstantial at this point. Evidence that consists of first denying any contacts with Russia and the Trump campaign. We now know that is absolutely false. Plenty of substantiated evidence showing contact. So the story has changed to "no collusion", just attempted collusion, and is shifting fast to take the stance that collusion isn't a crime. I am sure at some point they will try to make the excuse that Trump and his VP had absolutely no idea what people running their campaign were doing. The will deny the river of dirty money, money laundering, all of Trump's business interests in Russia, or his complete inability to say anything in opposition to Putin.
The Russians have a name for people that unwittingly support their agenda. That may apply here. You go on being an adult, watching your little jingles, making empty accusations, and repeating everything Sean Hannity tells you. Best of luck.

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Get with you tomorrow on that. Right now, there's a Long Island that is calling for me. Hopefully we can at least find common ground on that.

Oddly enough, if I do decide to post while I'm drunk, you'll probably find me less confrontational.

LCDR (Join to see) - Not a problem. I am here in the Norfolk, Virginia Beach area if you ever want to throw a couple back.