Simple question... do you agree with the following statement?

[Timmy]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

That sounds racist

Well it is a common tactic of law enforcement.

Pull the guy over for some bogus traffic violation. Suddenly you smell pot, now you search the car and so on. A simple illegal turn becomes a bunch of criminals charges !

No.
If an officer smells pot, then he is possibly witnessing a crime...he would still be investigating the crime and not the person.
If a person gets pulled over, gets a ticket...then later that day cops show up at their residence saying they want to also search the house...at the same time subpoena their tax records, and get a warrant for not only their phone records, but phone records of their business acquaintances also....that is investigating the person and not the crime.
And that is absolutely not not a "common tactic"

Sure it is.

When you get visited in jail, they run the visitor through NCIC. If a known person of interest is visiting you, they will investigate your connection to them. The police are all up in your business long before you see them in most cases

No it isn't. But I appreciate the time you took to come up with something.
We are a country of laws.
And in America, the laws are supposed to be specifically designed to protect citizens, not persecute them.
We are supposed to be a society in which the government is watched by the citizens, not the other way around.
What is happening in Washington today is not America. No prosecutor, special or not, should be able to investigate people who have not committed a crime that they know of. You are not supposed to be able to simply "go rooting around and see what pops up". That is not investigating...that is persecution.

I

Wow you are naive. Law enforcement does that stuff on a daily basis . Since they usually target poor and minorities, y’all don’t care . Or don’t notice .

 

[Care4all]

You investigate the crime....and part of that is absolutely investigate the people surrounding that CRIME.
You do not, however, use that crime to being a lifelong investigation into that persons life an all aspects of it.
THAT is investigating the person and not the crime.
HUGE difference.

As you and the right wing have done to Hillary and Bill the past quarter century, investigate the people and not the crime.....?

but yes, you are right, it is the possible crimes that have been committed... that are being investigated....especially by Mueller's team....not the person. It may lead to a person or two or three or ten that have committed those crimes....but it is the alleged crimes that they come across in their investigation that leads to the person....

we, on the left, have heard this repeatedly by the ex FBI agents or ex prosecutors that have appeared on the news shows...these ex law officials even correct the newscasters or talk show hosts, when they imply a 'person' is being investigated... They always say, No, that is not how it works....they investigate whether a crime has been committed....that is their job....they do not pick a person, to see if the person is committing any crimes now or in the past.

Trump wants you to believe that is what is happening to him...

but that simply is not the case...

And I would bet 10 to 1, that judge in the Manafort case, when reviewing the prosecution's side, will rule differently than she mouthed off in the hearing on this past week... As the prosecution said, if it was not related to the Russia investigation, he passed it off to a State office...so somehow it is related?

And they can not turn a blind eye, related or not, to any crimes they come across in their what, when, where, how, and with whom... Russian election interference investigation.

The worst for Mueller's team to come out of this ruling, is Manafort's case, to be sent to one of the State courts...imo....but we will see, I suppose?

 

[Moonglow]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

Are you serious? Or just joking?

You investigate the crime....and part of that is absolutely investigate the people surrounding that CRIME.
You do not, however, use that crime to being a lifelong investigation into that persons life an all aspects of it.
THAT is investigating the person and not the crime.
HUGE difference.
Let's say - someone is accused of shoplifting.
The justice system does not therefore have the right to look into that persons business practices, start investigating the lives of everyone around them. Begin investigating their family to look for other crimes...hoping to find something, anything.
That is investigating the person, and not the crime.

Then why did the GOP do it to the Clinton's for over twenty years?

 

[Disir]

"You investigate the crime, not the person"

I do not agree with that statement as it stands. However, in the context of what was actually said I do. You don't find the person and then look for a crime. That would be asstardian.

 

[OKTexas]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

Ask the guy in CA that just got arrested after 42 years.



.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

Are you serious? Or just joking?

You investigate the crime....and part of that is absolutely investigate the people surrounding that CRIME.
You do not, however, use that crime to being a lifelong investigation into that persons life an all aspects of it.
THAT is investigating the person and not the crime.
HUGE difference.
Let's say - someone is accused of shoplifting.
The justice system does not therefore have the right to look into that persons business practices, start investigating the lives of everyone around them. Begin investigating their family to look for other crimes...hoping to find something, anything.
That is investigating the person, and not the crime.

Then why did the GOP do it to the Clinton's for over twenty years?

Bill?
So...two wrongs make a right? Is that how this is, or is wrong always wrong whether you like it or not?
The witch hunt after President Clinton was little better, in part the guy did it to himself. I mean....he accepted a blow job from an intern in the hallway just feet away from the oval office....pretty fucked up...and then tried, no did lie about it under oath. Having said that....what happened aftwards was a worse offense to this nation than the blowjob. I do not disagree.

 

[bripat9643]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

You win the prize for the dumbest post in this thread.

 

[francoHFW]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

Are you serious? Or just joking?

You investigate the crime....and part of that is absolutely investigate the people surrounding that CRIME.
You do not, however, use that crime to being a lifelong investigation into that persons life an all aspects of it.
THAT is investigating the person and not the crime.
HUGE difference.
Let's say - someone is accused of shoplifting.
The justice system does not therefore have the right to look into that persons business practices, start investigating the lives of everyone around them. Begin investigating their family to look for other crimes...hoping to find something, anything.
That is investigating the person, and not the crime.

Just like the Whitewater investigation, right?

 

[bripat9643]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

Are you serious? Or just joking?

You investigate the crime....and part of that is absolutely investigate the people surrounding that CRIME.
You do not, however, use that crime to being a lifelong investigation into that persons life an all aspects of it.
THAT is investigating the person and not the crime.
HUGE difference.
Let's say - someone is accused of shoplifting.
The justice system does not therefore have the right to look into that persons business practices, start investigating the lives of everyone around them. Begin investigating their family to look for other crimes...hoping to find something, anything.
That is investigating the person, and not the crime.

Then why did the GOP do it to the Clinton's for over twenty years?

Whitewater was an investigation into a bank failure, not the Clinton's, per say.

Whitewater controversy - Wikipedia

A March 1992 New York Times article published during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign reported that the Clintons, then governor and first lady of Arkansas, had invested and lost money in the Whitewater Development Corporation.[1] The article stimulated the interest of L. Jean Lewis, a Resolution Trust Corporation investigator who was looking into the failure of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, also owned by Jim and Susan McDougal.​

Lewis looked for connections between the savings and loan company and the Clintons, and on September 2, 1992, she submitted a criminal referral to the FBI naming Bill and Hillary Clinton as witnesses in the Madison Guaranty case. Little Rock U.S. Attorney Charles A. Banks and the FBI determined that the referral lacked merit, but Lewis continued to pursue the case. From 1992 to 1994, Lewis issued several additional referrals against the Clintons and repeatedly called the U.S. Attorney's Office in Little Rock and the Justice Department regarding the case.[2] Her referrals eventually became public knowledge, and she testified before the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1995.​

 

[westwall]

"You investigate the crime, not the person"

That's how it's done in the USA. Well until mueller and Co. corrupted the process.

 

[francoHFW]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

Are you serious? Or just joking?

You investigate the crime....and part of that is absolutely investigate the people surrounding that CRIME.
You do not, however, use that crime to being a lifelong investigation into that persons life an all aspects of it.
THAT is investigating the person and not the crime.
HUGE difference.
Let's say - someone is accused of shoplifting.
The justice system does not therefore have the right to look into that persons business practices, start investigating the lives of everyone around them. Begin investigating their family to look for other crimes...hoping to find something, anything.
That is investigating the person, and not the crime.

Then why did the GOP do it to the Clinton's for over twenty years?

Whitewater was an investigation into a bank failure, not the Clinton's, per say.

Whitewater controversy - Wikipedia

A March 1992 New York Times article published during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign reported that the Clintons, then governor and first lady of Arkansas, had invested and lost money in the Whitewater Development Corporation.[1] The article stimulated the interest of L. Jean Lewis, a Resolution Trust Corporation investigator who was looking into the failure of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, also owned by Jim and Susan McDougal.​

Lewis looked for connections between the savings and loan company and the Clintons, and on September 2, 1992, she submitted a criminal referral to the FBI naming Bill and Hillary Clinton as witnesses in the Madison Guaranty case. Little Rock U.S. Attorney Charles A. Banks and the FBI determined that the referral lacked merit, but Lewis continued to pursue the case. From 1992 to 1994, Lewis issued several additional referrals against the Clintons and repeatedly called the U.S. Attorney's Office in Little Rock and the Justice Department regarding the case.[2] Her referrals eventually became public knowledge, and she testified before the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1995.​

Biggest Witch Hunt in the history of the USA is all. Then there is your ridiculous BS hate character assassination propaganda machine that has found Hillary and Obama guilty of being evil and corrupt with nothing but bulshit LOL

 

[francoHFW]

"You investigate the crime, not the person"

That's how it's done in the USA. Well until mueller and Co. corrupted the process.

Actually this is our garbage gabfest media at work. They just make up stuff to fill the 24/7 talk orama. Mainly Fox Rush and the propaganda machine....