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

Nov 2008
65,597
5,243
Washington state
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?
Bring the Whistle Blower into the loop so he or she can be questioned to make sure their claims are credible. This idea the Whistle Blower can’t be questioned puts a very Partisan feel to this whole idea of impeachment. I have been on jury’s twice and never heard of witnesses not being allowed to testify and be cross examined, then the jury proceeds without considering all evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

HayJenn

Former Staff
Jul 2014
72,679
64,045
CA
It is important but you have to understand the only reason people like us fight is because we don't actually have any control over the 'rule of law' in this country.

And if Trump is the reason, in your honest opinion, then you've been blind up until Nov 6th 2016.

Then you tell me, who has been the most corrupt POTUS in modern history.

Oh yeah...pay no attention to that right?

And believe in or not, no person should be above the law. NOBODY.
 
Feb 2010
35,217
25,399
between Moon and NYC
To me this is pretty clear that the righties have no leg to stand on to suggest that what the lefties are doing is unfair, because they can't even figure out what is fair.
When it comes to addressing political corruption, there isn't a whole lot of difference between righties and lefties. The standard procedure for both teams is typically to circle the wagons and dig in.

At the moment the Democrats have the role of throwing the stones because Donald Trump's arrogant misbehavior provides a relatively rich target. And the GOP dutifully run interference and defend the home tribe. But i can't think of any examples of a time when the Democrats didn't do the same thing when their party was on the defensive.

..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jets
Jan 2012
1,216
432
SoCal
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?
It's pretty to understand how we should proceed since almost every president has had something like this occur with regard to claims of impropriety.

Congress calls on the president to appoint a special prosecutor and that person independently investigates the matter. If they find something significant regarding the president they can report it to Congress.

Every president since Nixon, with the exception of Obama has had some sort of claim that demanded an investigation. Nixon and Clinton faced impeachment for their outcomes.

As an example the Clinton's asked AG Reno to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate. The beginnings of the concerns about Whitewater were prompted by an investigation by the NY Times.

So let's be academic about what you say above. First the Whistleblower needs to have first hand information and documentation. The person in question would take their claims and evidence to the appropriate authorities who would determine the veracity of the claims. So if the whistleblower claimed as an example that a Clinton or Trump or Carter were engaged in funneling campaign funds into their private accounts and using them for private purposes the appropriate federal organizations would investigate and recommend the appropriate charges if such actions did occur. They could also "leak" the claims and evidence to the media if they were worried the appropriate authorities wouldn't do their job and the media would send out reporters to sniff around, ask questions and make the people investigating to look over their shoulder a bit more.
 

HayJenn

Former Staff
Jul 2014
72,679
64,045
CA
It's pretty to understand how we should proceed since almost every president has had something like this occur with regard to claims of impropriety.

Congress calls on the president to appoint a special prosecutor and that person independently investigates the matter. If they find something significant regarding the president they can report it to Congress.

Every president since Nixon, with the exception of Obama has had some sort of claim that demanded an investigation. Nixon and Clinton faced impeachment for their outcomes.

As an example the Clinton's asked AG Reno to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate. The beginnings of the concerns about Whitewater were prompted by an investigation by the NY Times.

So let's be academic about what you say above. First the Whistleblower needs to have first hand information and documentation. The person in question would take their claims and evidence to the appropriate authorities who would determine the veracity of the claims. So if the whistleblower claimed as an example that a Clinton or Trump or Carter were engaged in funneling campaign funds into their private accounts and using them for private purposes the appropriate federal organizations would investigate and recommend the appropriate charges if such actions did occur. They could also "leak" the claims and evidence to the media if they were worried the appropriate authorities wouldn't do their job and the media would send out reporters to sniff around, ask questions and make the people investigating to look over their shoulder a bit more.

Don't even need the Whistleblower anymore. Because everything the wrote about, has been proven to be true.

Heck even Trump's own letter verifies it. Not to mention both Mulvaney and Sonderland. And all the witnesses that testified.

And he took it to the proper authorities. Which is why there is an impeachment inquiry

Something the Trumpster's will never address is why does Trump tries to hide everything and not cooperate with legal subpoenas if he has nothing to hide?

Kind of like his tax return. If there is nothing to see there, why does he not release them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panzareta

HayJenn

Former Staff
Jul 2014
72,679
64,045
CA
When it comes to addressing political corruption, there isn't a whole lot of difference between righties and lefties. The standard procedure for both teams is typically to circle the wagons and dig in.

At the moment the Democrats have the role of throwing the stones because Donald Trump's arrogant misbehavior provides a relatively rich target. And the GOP dutifully run interference and defend the home tribe. But i can't think of any examples of a time when the Democrats didn't do the same thing when their party was on the defensive.

..
Seems to me the Obama administration never just said "screw it" - we are not going to cooperate with the proper authorities over and over again.
 

CtC

Mar 2019
12,647
4,516
California
Seems to me the Obama administration never just said "screw it" - we are not going to cooperate with the proper authorities over and over again.
Like covering up Fast and Furious? Or covering up Benghazi?