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

Jun 2013
18,948
17,040
Here
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?
Consider the procedures of the last impeachment and the current impeachment inquiry and what led to them, since they are politically, opposite when it comes to the party of the POTUS. Find the "procedures" that have been common to both of them.

Considering impeachment is not something this nation has had a lot of experience with, but moreso, within the last two decades, I would say a combo of the two politically mirrored "proceedings" might present some common ground and practices that might be used as precedent.

It is interesting to see republicans now whining about the the procedures that were all behind, when it was a Democrat in the Oval Office and in many cases, the opposite when it comes to how Democrats are proceeding.

I think initially, what it comes down to is "probable cause", first to investigate based on something that presents a "probable cause" for believeing some offense or offenses have occurred that could possibly be considered impeachable, as commonly defined. That means pretty much any behavior that could be found in addition to statutory crimes or not statutory crimes and by themselves action that would make the person holding the office, not fit to hold the office of POTUS. As discussed in other threads, there are numerous behaviors that could be considered "impeachable"

The investigation is only the beginning. Based on what an initial investigation finds, Congress and specifically the House, can then, as is their power and duty to do, hear more testimony to make a final determination about wrting up articles of impeachment, if their further inquiries find there is reason to. If they do and they develop articles of impeachment then it is only the Senate's power to hold an impeachment trial based on the articles of impeachment and hear further witnesses for the defense or those who would bring evidence to back the veracity of the articles of impeachment. As with any trial and where the "jury", in this case the Senate, is supposed to act as impartially as they can and would have a duty to their oath of office and the Constitution of the U.S.A. a verdict to convict or not, would be handed down.

Take out the politics and it is still difficult to find impartial juries. Add the politicals and a voting majority that sides with the POTUS and unless they are unusually honorable and there is compelling evidence to convict, it is unlikely they are going to be anything, but partisan. Although, they all have to consider the same evidence the greater public has and will see and ask themselves what the public will feel, the next time they are up for re-election, if the evidence is unavoidably blatantly pointing to conviction of the charges and they turn a blind eye to it and their oaths of office, much more, a blind eye to truth and justice.

The precedent that sets is what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chief
Jan 2012
1,216
432
SoCal
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?

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


That was in the OP. Might want to try to address it.


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.
Actually I'd recommend looking into and reading about gunwalking and Fast and Furious. I'm not going to claim that President Obama should have been impeached for that matter but he did invoke executive privilege on 1300 pages of documents, and the justice department had to reverse and amend several statements about guns being allowed to get into the hand of Mexican cartels. AG Erik Holder was found in contempt of Congress. My view is that while the Executive Office and Department of Justice did do their own investigations and report out favorably, that this would have been prime ground for appointing a special prosecutor.
 

HayJenn

Former Staff
Jul 2014
72,679
64,045
CA
Take Trump out of the equation. This is purely academic.

That was in the OP. Might want to try to address it.




Actually I'd recommend looking into and reading about gunwalking and Fast and Furious. I'm not going to claim that President Obama should have been impeached for that matter but he did invoke executive privilege on 1300 pages of documents, and the justice department had to reverse and amend several statements about guns being allowed to get into the hand of Mexican cartels. AG Erik Holder was found in contempt of Congress. My view is that while the Executive Office and Department of Justice did do their own investigations and report out favorably, that this would have been prime ground for appointing a special prosecutor.
ONE time the Obama administration threw up a few roadblocks, only to relent later

Give me a fricking break.

And no way can you take Trump out the equation because everything he does is NOT NORMAL for a POTUS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KnotaFrayed
Feb 2010
35,217
25,399
between Moon and NYC
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.
No argument here.

As far as presidential administrations go, Barack Obama was about as squeaky clean as it gets. Couple of dustups but those were more on his Attorney General.

..
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
78,451
70,617
So. Md.
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
The IG, a Trump appointee, already determined that the WB's complaint is credible. That has always been the system. Why should it be different this time? And you don't see the danger in outing a WB?

Trump is not on trial yet. He would go to trial in the Senate. Before you sat on a jury in a trial there was a grand jury that looked at the evidence the prosecutor had and determined the validity of it going to trial. We are at that stage not the trial stage.
 
Nov 2008
65,597
5,243
Washington state
The IG, a Trump appointee, already determined that the WB's complaint is credible. That has always been the system. Why should it be different this time? And you don't see the danger in outing a WB?

Trump is not on trial yet. He would go to trial in the Senate. Before you sat on a jury in a trial there was a grand jury that looked at the evidence the prosecutor had and determined the validity of it going to trial. We are at that stage not the trial stage.
Despite the supposed danger, the Whistle Blower needs to be cross examined in a trial. If he or she is telling the truth it won’t be dangerous, if the complaint is based on lies this whole case falls apart


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Feb 2010
35,217
25,399
between Moon and NYC
Hire an objective investigator with no axe to grind and a track record of fairness and let her go at it.
Absolutely. Good plan. Great theory.

But as soon as things start looking bad for one side or the other that "objective investigator" will evolve into an obvious partisan hack with an axe to grind.


..
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
78,451
70,617
So. Md.
Despite the supposed danger, the Whistle Blower needs to be cross examined in a trial. If he or she is telling the truth it won’t be dangerous, if the complaint is based on lies this whole case falls apart


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, the system for WBs that's already in place isn't good enough? It wasn't good enough for the the DOJ Inspector General to determine that the complaint was credible as prescribed by law? The complaint has already been corroborated by several witnesses.

You do realize that outing this WB will discourage other WBs from coming forward when they have knowledge of corruption, right? Is that what you want?