The Forum Site - Join the conversation
You don't always shop on Amazon, but when you do using this link you're helping to support TFS!
Forums:
Politics

Should allegations of politically motivated crimes be investigated?

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
chaski On about 3 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#1New Post! Nov 12, 2018 @ 16:35:04
I'm having a hard time understanding the people who oppose the special council investigation of Russia's involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

Maybe it is just something fundamental that I am missing.

My questions are simple (I think):

1. Should allegations of politically motivated crimes be investigated?
2. Should allegations against politicians be investigated?

Some examples to consider: Nixon & Watergate; the Iran–Contra; B. Clinton & the Whitewater controversy (including the Lewinsky thing); Hillary & the email scandal; Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election... etc...?

Should these situations, the original allegations, have been investigated?

Each one of these involved an acting presidential administration (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Trump).
Each one involved a major U.S. politician and/or a president.
Each one involved criminal allegations.
Each one involved criminal investigations, indictments & convictions (except the email one, though perhaps there should at least have been a grand jury convened...but that is not part of the question).
Each one involved some people being exonerated, some fount guilty and some that had not definitive answer regarding innocence or guilt.

Should these allegations have been investigated?
twilitezone911 On December 03, 2018




Saint Louis, Missouri
#2New Post! Nov 12, 2018 @ 16:42:18
@chaski Said

I'm having a hard time understanding the people who oppose the special council investigation of Russia's involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

Maybe it is just something fundamental that I am missing.

My questions are simple (I think):

1. Should allegations of politically motivated crimes be investigated?
2. Should allegations against politicians be investigated?

Some examples to consider: Nixon & Watergate; the Iran–Contra affair, B. Clinton & the Whitewater controversy (including the Lewinsky thing); Hillary & the email scandal; Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election... etc...?

Should these situations, the original allegations, have been investigated?

Each one of these involved an acting administration (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Trump). Each one involved a major U.S. politician and/or a president. Each one involved criminal allegations. Each one involved criminal investigations, indictments & convictions (except the email one, though perhaps there should at least have been a grand jury convened...but that is not part of the question).

Should these allegations have been investigated?



why the allegations were investigated more before Nixon ?
chaski On about 3 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#3New Post! Nov 12, 2018 @ 17:04:40
@twilitezone911 Said

why the allegations were investigated more before Nixon ?


Yes... plenty of them.... literally going all the way back to George Washington.

I thought I would just stick with relatively modern history for this question.
chaski On about 3 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#4New Post! Nov 12, 2018 @ 17:17:53
One more note:

This topic is not about whether or not "you" support any particular politician of president.

This is about "should we investigate allegations of criminal activity"?
twilitezone911 On December 03, 2018




Saint Louis, Missouri
#5New Post! Nov 12, 2018 @ 17:31:52
more a question: how criminal activity be investigate and how more catalog?


I think we really nonsense about Hillary's emails crap. I was suppose to blame Hillary, for her assistance to not be more carful with better safeguards on her laptop or computer. does the government update both Hillary and her technology on regular basic, whether they are home or at work? I would blame the government that Hillary lose the election, not bozo.
chaski On about 3 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#6New Post! Nov 12, 2018 @ 17:49:23
@twilitezone911 Said

more a question: how criminal activity be investigate and how more catalog?


I think we really nonsense about Hillary's emails....


There is an investigative process that all, or at least the vast majority of U.S. law enforcement use.

> When an allegation of criminal activity comes in, the allegation is given an initial assessment: "Is this allegation about criminal activity or potential criminal activity, or not ".

1. If the allegation is NOT about a criminal or potentially criminal act, there is NOT a criminal investigation.

2. If the allegation IS about a criminal or potentially criminal act, there is an investigations.

(Note: if the allegation relates to another law enforcement organization's jurisdiction, a referral is sent to the other agency.)

Sometimes it is obvious that a crime has occurred. A mass shooting is an obvious example as it is obvious right away that there was a shooting and injured or dead people.

(Edit) Other times it is not so obvious. It may take a full investigation to determine if a crime has actually occurred. An unattended death is a good example of this. A dead body is found, but was it a crime? Murder? Suicide? Accident? An investigation is started. Sometimes it takes a long time to determine if there was a crime. However, an investigation is needed to find out 1st was there a crime, 2nd if there was a crime, who did it.

All allegations that come into a law enforcement organization need to be assessed.

Many allegations need to be investigated.

> Some investigations determine a crime never occurred.
> Some investigations determine a crime occurred but do not identify the bad guy(s).
> Some investigations catch a suspect, and then go to court.
> Some investigations prove one or more people to be innocent.
> etc
twilitezone911 On December 03, 2018




Saint Louis, Missouri
#7New Post! Nov 12, 2018 @ 18:03:03
@chaski Said

There is an investigative process the all, or at least the vast majority of U.S. law enforcement use.

> When an allegation of criminal activity comes in, the allegation is given an initial assessment: "Is this allegation about criminal activity, or potential criminal activity".

1. If the allegation is NOT about a criminal or potentially criminal act, there is not criminal investigation.
2. If the allegation IS about a criminal or potentially criminal act, there is an investigations.

(Note: if the allegation relates to another law enforcement organization's jurisdiction, a referral is sent to the other agency.)

Sometimes it is obvious that a crime has occurred. A mass shooting is an obvious example as it is obvious right away that there was a shooting an injured or dead people.

Other times it takes a full investigation to determine if a crime has actually occurred. Contract fraud is an example of this sometimes an allegation goes to the government that there was a particular type of fraud. An investigation is started. Sometimes it takes years of contract document review and investigation to actually determine if a crime has occurred. Government contracts can be quite complicated. So, in the case of a government contract fraud an investigation is necessary even if it doesn't prove a crime.... as sometimes it proves the a crime did not occur. This is an important result... just as important as catching a bad guy.



that what I thought you mean like fraud or scandals. exxon would be criminal investigation, because of millions of dollars were mishandle. even, though the scheme was brilliant in many ways.
chaski On about 3 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#8New Post! Nov 12, 2018 @ 18:07:12
@twilitezone911 Said

exxon would be criminal investigation, because of millions of dollars were mishandle. even, though the scheme was brilliant in many ways.



And the investigation might find wrong doing that was a crime, or wrong doing that was a civil tort (not a crime, but still legally wrong), and some might determine that the actions were morally wrong but not a violation of criminal law nor a violation of civil law.
twilitezone911 On December 03, 2018




Saint Louis, Missouri
#9New Post! Nov 12, 2018 @ 18:20:17
what the difference in wategate, when so many people went to jail, Nixon resigned? it is both fraud and criminal investigation?
chaski On about 3 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#10New Post! Nov 12, 2018 @ 18:31:28
@twilitezone911 Said

what the difference in wategate, when so many people went to jail, Nixon resigned? it is both fraud and criminal investigation?



So with Watergate, among other things, there was a burglary of a Democrat office (I think it was their national headquarters).

Nixon did not do this . He may or may not have ordered it, that would be a conspiracy. What he did do was participate in a coverup of the crime.

So at least two crimes:
1. Burglary 18 U.S.C. § 3502
2. Aiding and abetting a crime (accessory after the fact) under 18 U.S.C. § 3
3. (Maybe) Conspiracy to commit a crime 18 USC Sec. 371

Nixon was most likely going to be impeached (that is Congress' version of an indictment) and probably would have been removed from office.

Separately, the FBI would not doubt have proven the Aiding and abetting & the Conspiracy charges. A federal Grand Jury would have most likely indicted him. He would have gone to trial, and probably would have found him guilty. That didn't happen because President Ford pardoned Nixon.

But, back to the question of this thread: Should Nixon have been investigated at all. He was the president. Why didn't we just give him a pass? Why weren't the other criminals in the case just given a pass. Was was this investigated at all?
twilitezone911 On December 03, 2018




Saint Louis, Missouri
#11New Post! Nov 12, 2018 @ 18:55:29
@chaski Said

So with Watergate, among other things, there was a burglary of a Democrat office (I think it was their national headquarters).

Nixon did not do this . He may or may not have ordered it, that would be a conspiracy. What he did do was participate in a coverup of the crime.

So at least two crimes:
1. Burglary 18 U.S.C. § 3502
2. Aiding and abetting a crime (accessory after the fact) under 18 U.S.C. § 3
3. (Maybe) Conspiracy to commit a crime 18 USC Sec. 371

Nixon was most likely going to be impeached (that is Congress' version of an indictment) and probably would have been removed from office.

Separately, the FBI would not doubt have proven the Aiding and abetting & the Conspiracy charges. A federal Grand Jury would have most likely indicted him. He would have gone to trial, and probably would have found him guilty. That didn't happen because President Ford pardoned Nixon.

But, back to the question of this thread: Should Nixon have been investigated at all. He was the president. Why didn't we just give him a pass? Why weren't the other criminals in the case just given a pass. Was was this investigated at all?


it is like " absolute power ", could gene hackman as president of the usa in the movie, get away with murder?
mrmhead On about 2 hours ago




NE, Ohio
#12New Post! Nov 14, 2018 @ 01:03:04
AHhh, but what if the investigations into politically motivated crimes are politically motivated themselsves!?!

The investigations should be investigated!

For f***s Sake
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Fri Oct 15, 2010 @ 15:42
1 241
New posts   News & Current Events
Wed Jul 14, 2010 @ 06:43
0 190
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Thu May 29, 2014 @ 16:19
67 1473
New posts   News & Current Events
Thu Jun 06, 2013 @ 20:57
51 2489
New posts   News & Current Events
Mon Jul 05, 2010 @ 15:13
60 2919