Righties - What is the correct way to investigate suspected corruption?

[Chief]

Take Trump out of the equation. This is purely academic.

If a whistleblower complaint implicates a president of either party as being involved in some sort of corrupt endeavor that may or may not be worth impeachment, how do you think we should proceed?

 

[johnflesh]

Oh that purely depends on who is being investigated. I mean, let's be real.

 

[Chief]

Oh that purely depends on who is being investigated. I mean, let's be real.

That's true, but I'm really more interested in theory than practice in this thread.

 

[birdzeyez]

That's true, but I'm really more interested in theory than practice in this thread.

My answer to your question in the OP is that, “in theory,” we should proceed. However, history has shown us that the calls to investigate, or not investigate, are based on politics, and that bogus allegations are brought up for political reasons.

 

[Chief]

My answer to your question in the OP is that, “in theory,” we should proceed. However, history has shown us that the calls to investigate, or not investigate, are based on politics, and that bogus allegations are brought up for political reasons.

Sure, but how do we proceed? What I am curious about is a process that makes sense. Righties have been attacking the process, so that makes me wonder what process do they think would work better?

Maybe soon the tribalism will piss off too many people and it will be decreased. If/when that happens, we need a process to deal with corruption, which happens everywhere, and the US is no exception. So I am wondering what folks think will be fair, providing the accused with due process, and at the same time allowing our country to clean out corruption that's uncovered.

There should be a way to do it.

 

[Eve1]

Their answers is we can investigate everything and anything if it involves anybody that doesn't support Trump. If it involves Trump then NOTHING can be investigated, before his Presidency, during his Presidency or after his Presidency. Even if there is video or audio tape of Trump confessing to a crime, its not a crime because Trump says it isn't.

 

[birdzeyez]

Sure, but how do we proceed? What I am curious about is a process that makes sense. Righties have been attacking the process, so that makes me wonder what process do they think would work better?

Maybe soon the tribalism will piss off too many people and it will be decreased. If/when that happens, we need a process to deal with corruption, which happens everywhere, and the US is no exception. So I am wondering what folks think will be fair, providing the accused with due process, and at the same time allowing our country to clean out corruption that's uncovered.

There should be a way to do it.

I’m not optimistic that that’s doable.

 

[ptif219]

Their answers is we can investigate everything and anything if it involves anybody that doesn't support Trump. If it involves Trump then NOTHING can be investigated, before his Presidency, during his Presidency or after his Presidency. Even if there is video or audio tape of Trump confessing to a crime, its not a crime because Trump says it isn't.

More democrat lies. The democrats have been on a witch hunt and the so called whistleblower is a democrat operative. Why is it now the democrats do not want his testamonie. It is a corrupt investigation

 

[pragmatic]

Oh that purely depends on who is being investigated. I mean, let's be real.

Within the spectrum of politics...

"Deny, Deflect, Delay" has been historically rather popular.


..

 

[Chief]

More democrat lies. The democrats have been on a witch hunt and the so called whistleblower is a democrat operative. Why is it now the democrats do not want his testamonie. It is a corrupt investigation

Hi ptif219.

If you could make the rules regarding dealing with corruption, how would you get us from a complaint to an investigation to a trial and finally to some sort of resolution? You can pretend like the accused is a democrat if it helps. What would be a fair process?