[quote=@Heat] First off. These two agents did not start the investigation. They did not run it. They were both removed from it as soon as Mueller discovered their opinions on Trump.[/quote] And then when there were inquiries about their removal, there was a significant amount of stonewalling. [quote]They didn't push forward because of their bias. These messages were from before the investigation began. Questioning the credibility of the [b]entire[/b] investigation over two dismissed agents is idiotic. Neither one has been involved in the investigation for months now.[/quote] 1) We don't know that. 2) Time of message does not really matter, they were apart of the investigation at the beginning. 3) Questioning the removal of the two agents wasn't exactly handled with transparency. The lack of transparency surrounding removing agents with extreme anti-Trump bias is more than a good enough reason to question the credibility of the entire investigation. Call it idiotic all you want; whatever. [quote]He was a Trump apointee. He was the man that pushed for Trump to dismiss Comey. [/quote] And if he did, he may have had political motivations to do so. Trump's appointing of him may have been a mistake on Trump's part. There's still nothing of serious relevance here. [quote]True. But Mueller was considered by Trump to replace Comey. His track record of bipartisanship speaks for itself.[/quote] You call it a track record of bipartisanship, I say there is no real record of bipartisanship. Your word. My word. Fox's word, or CNN's word. This one comes down to perspective. [quote]What is the 'correct opinion' then? Your own? It shows that this is a commonly held opinion that Trump is an idiot.[/quote] Who knows? You think you're correct. I think I'm correct. You might be right. I might be right. We might both be half right, or a quarter right. All I'm saying with that particular statement was that popular consensus does not equate to accuracy. The question still remains: so what? I can think anyone's an idiot on any given day just like any other person. Who took the poll? Where did they take the poll? What was the political ideology of the person answering the poll? I don't care if you or anyone thinks Trump (or someone else) is an idiot because it has no substantive meaning with regards to legitimate discussion revolving around meaningful data. I'm not sure what you intend to prove by saying the commonly held view of the public is that Trump is an idiot. Are you saying that he's an idiot because someone else thinks so? [quote]That website reeks of bias. “Special prosecutors, investigators, and counsels are usually a bad idea. They are admissions that constitutionally mandated institutions don’t work.” I wonder how they'd feel about a Clinton investigation.[/quote] Probably all websites reek of bias. Philosophically speaking, people are biased. CNN or the Huff Post can get something right just as much as Fox News or Breitbart can. And to answer your wondering: who can know? That's speculation of the author's thoughts with little to no evidence to prove your harbored beliefs as to what their feelings might be. I'm inclined to agree with their sentiment as to one thing: we shouldn't need special prosecutors, the system shouldn't be so corrupted and untrusted that we can't investigate and imprison criminal wrongdoing amongst our politicians who have done wrong. [quote]How many coincidences have we seen with members of the Trump administration and their ties to Russia?[/quote] It's not a bad (or criminal, even) thing to have "ties" with Russia, so long as they're not ties that are of a criminal nature. Many of these ties have different meanings depending on which side you ask. Manafort and company may indeed be guilty of something, but we've got no idea what. Manafort was removed long ago. Flynn was removed after he'd misled the VP. In any case, these are ongoing stories with an ending we're only grasping at through the dark. [quote]Well that's your (biased) opinion. The investigation has given way to indictments of several people. No one knows whats going to happen next in it. Investigations take time.[/quote] That's the reason for the line separation. Indeed, it is my biased opinion. There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. I can only take what there is available at hand and then make my own judgment call on the matter. And I already stated that I have no idea how long the investigation will go on or what will be the end result. I'm taking a guess, that's all. Your guess would, as I'd suspect, probably be different than my own. Here's an opinion piece from a [url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/11/russia-collusion-investigation-suspend-robert-muellers-bias-democratic-investigation-robbins-column/938619001/]website[/url] I hardly ever agree with. There's what, I would call, a lot of relevant information in there regarding the credibility of the investigation.