You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Trump Lawyers Start Negotiating Russia Investigation FBI Interview (dTube)
Mueller should have to show concrete proof that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians ( and which Russians?) before Trump answers any questions. And those questions should be directly related to that proof - to prove or disprove it.
Otherwise it will likely be a very biased effort to try and trick Trump into an unrelated process crime.
that's absurd. that's not how the legal system works.
Not following the logic here. Mueller needs to prove his case while the investigation is still ongoing? That is not how any other criminal investigation works. Not sure why an exception should be made for POTUS.
Also, a "process crime" is still a crime.
criminal investigation means first there has to be a crime to be investigated.
No such crime was identified when Mueller's investigation was initiated.
Primary objectives of a criminal investigstion include both the determination of (1) if a crime was committed and, if so, (2) identification of the perpetrator(s). Regardless, there is no dispute as to whether crimes were committed — DNC and Podesta communications were both stolen, along with two guilty pleas and two indictments.
Even Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley who leans left has an interesting things view on if a crime has been committed:
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/366824-for-president-trump-2017-ends-largely-where-it-began-free-of-charges
Just this week, constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz (who says he proudly voted for Hillary) said now the left "couldn't criminalize political differences" in regard to President Trump. . .
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/01/08/dershowitz_the_left_couldnt_criminalize_trump_now_trying_to_psychiatrize_political_differences.html
Agree, there are plenty of plausible legal arguments as to why Trump cannot be prosecuted. And I still haven’t seen any direct evidence of Trump himself being part of a criminal conspiracy (obstruction/Comey firing may be another matter, however). None of this precludes him from having to be interviewed as part of the broader investigation and current prosecutions. Hell, if President Clinton had to give a deposition in a civil matter over sexual misconduct, then I don’t see any realistic precedent for Trump avoiding this one.
Trump can’t be tricked, he’s a genius.
Maybe you are right - I read somewhere he was a "stable genius" :-)
I'm not following the logic here either, what motive does the Republican Mueller have to scapegoat his parties president, He's been a closet democrat his whole life? Also, if we had to have solid proof before an investigation could go underway with an interview, How exactly would you build enough evidence for something like, oh let's say, murder, to start an invesitgation? Also, If you have the evidence at that point why have an interview, just to throw an extra charge on if you lie about it?
Let's think also for a moment, if this was all happening in North Korea, and a high ranking party member were to have dealings with, oh, Bill Gates. Would the charges against them be lowered because it was just Bill, and not a more powerful person or someone in the government? I don't think the sentiment of treason or at least an affront to the nation would change in that situation.
What if we look into which Russians and find that trump was dealing with the mafia or a huge mover in their economy, and not the government, does it really make the situation better at all?
If there is a "murder", then there is a crime. So you have something to investigate.
Compared to some one in the police state saying something like:
"I do not like tronthetechie, lets spend $10 million dollars on a high powered team of investigators to see if we can find if tronthetechie has ever done anything wrong. We could even kick in the front doors of some of his associates and threaten them if they do not say what we want them to say about tronthetechie"
A just system requires the identification of the crime before an investigation is lauched.
Actually, I feel like you misunderstand the nature of policing in the United States. The officer wouldn't have to go through those many steps to legally kick their way into my house, and then use anything as evidence against me, they just have to cite probable cause.
Probable cause can be ridiculously easy to establish "it smelt like marijuana" "I heard someone call for help" "it sounded like there was an altercation" "The evidence we need for our investigation is reasonably in this location"
I'm sorry to break it to you, but even if there were something wrong the state did while policing, it would be very difficult to prove to the state that the state did anything wrong in the first place.
Shitty, I know, but it is how it is right now.
Americans can't define murder.