Not sure that a defense of fighting fire with fire is “whataboutism?” And pointing out that the surveillance of Carter Page appears to have have been bereft of factual support (note: the predicate is probable cause that he committed an actual crime–anything in the FISA application that shows probable cause? I get it’s redacted, but do you think that it wouldn’t have been leaked if the redacted portions showed a crime?)

And seriously—the Logan Act maneuver on Flynn–is that remotely ok? Or does it show a politicized DOJ, then special counsel?

No sane observer can look at the kid gloves treatment of Clinton and crew and turn over every stone approach with Trump can look at this as having a non-politicization cause.

Whataboutism, insult, and unfounded factual aspersions. A trifecta. Congratulations!

Mueller’s prosecution of Flynn deserves the harshest possible criticism (and that, of course, taints everything he touches). In the context of the obvious thumb on the scale regarding the Obama Administration’s response to clear wrong-doing by Hillary Clinton and the non-wrongdoing of the Trump campaign, should the president be silent to satisfy pearl-clutchers?

And where is the outrage among the pearl-clutchers over the surveillance of Carter Page? Isn’t that a wrong far more egregious than Trump fighting fire with fire?

It’s hard enough being a mad scientist trying to launch your home-made- ICBMs again nations who won’t pay your reasonable fees, but then you get soaked by lawyers!

Bob