That's fair. I can understand that position.

As to Benghazi vs. Beirut a.) Is there anyone who seriously thinks at any time in history it would have been politically advantageous for the Dems to try and portray Reagan as soft on Defense? b.) There was this little thing called 9-11 which sharpened our national focus on individual terror attacks instead of more generalized defense postures against nation states. c.) Schultz wasn't a presumptive nominee for president. d.) The Reagan administration didn't bold faced lie to the American people and blame an American citizen and a video no one saw.

As to CRIMES, in order to appoint a special counsel you have to have an underlying CRIME to investigate. In the case of Watergate, someone broke into the Watergate Hotel. There was an investigation into who what when and where but there was evidence to support the idea that a crime occurred. In the case of the current special counsel, no such underlying criminal activity exists. In point and fact, the entire Russia investigation was started as a counter intelligence investigation. That normally would be about a.) defending the potential target (The Trump Campaign) from foreign activity. Diane Feinstein was caught with a Chinese spy in her employ for nearly two decades. She was given a defensive briefing to eliminate the exposure, not entrap her or her staff. b.) Gather intelligence about a breach and mitigate the access of the foreign power. In neither instance do we have anything that actually rises to probable cause under our criminal court system.

Moreover, If it was demonstrated that the Russian Federation hacked into the DNC servers and fished John Podesta's e-mails and handed over or coordinated the release of said Documents that would NOT BE A CRIME. It might be a political sin, it might be untoward, but it would not be criminal. Don't believe me? Find a statute. What would make it criminal? If they paid, or promised something of value in exchange for a foreign individual to assist them in the campaign. Do we know that anyone paid a foreign actor during the Campaign? YES! Was it the Trump Campaign? NO! It was the CLINTON CAMPAIGN! They paid a foreign spy to do opposition research with RUSSIAN STATE ACTORS to compile a dossier on then Candidate Trump. When the FBI was presented with the knowledge that a candidate for president and the DNC paid foreign actors for information/propaganda in a presidential campaign did they pursue action against this CLEARLY ILLEGAL ACTIVITY? No! They took the product of an illegal transaction to the FISC court, concealed it origins and lied about its veracity to federal judges. When the Source of the material was fired and discredited for lying to the FBI (no midnight raids of his house.) they concealed this exculpatory evidence from the FISA court.

This entire investigation has been a joke from the start. It was started under the guise of the Comey firing, but the man who appointed Mueller RECOMMENDED the FIRING! Not to mention the fact that the public relations news hook for the appointment was the leaking of the Comey Memos to the press. Congress, and the DOJ have full access to the Memo's. a.) upon reading the full memos they were completely exculpatory to the president, and b.) the leaking of confidential conversations with the president is itself a crime. Andrew McCabe told Flynn he didn't need a lawyer for an interview predicated on a law that has never been used and no one would ever think extends to the NSA designee.

---