Do you libs really believe this

Investigate a person to discover if a crime is committed.

I’ve seen this comment few time now and I’m wondering if you libs really believe this?

And if so why? And how is this Constitutional.

Who was being investigated?

I personally believe that you’ll never run out of strawman arguments.


If there is cause to believe a crime may have been committed, then yes, investigate.

You are correct that typically a specific allegation of a specific crime is necessary to trigger a criminal investigation.

That said, fishing expeditions, investigating an entire agency or department, such as searching for corruption at NYPD, or forming an investigation to take down Al Capone are not illegal and have been going on for a long time.

E.G. Everyone “knew” southern politics are as dirty as Chicago politics (or the NY construction industry,) so the mere allegation that there was something smelly about Whitewater triggered that investigation, even though there was no specific allegation if specific wrongdoing.

You can argue fishing expeditions are wrong, but they are not new.

1 Like

Investigating someone for the fun of it?


I don’t believe in that.

The gaping raw innocence of trumpsters is charming.


You are the only person I’ve seen make that strawman argument.

1 Like

In fact fishing expeditions, (widespread spaghetti-to-the-wall investigations in the absence of specific allegations of specific wrongdoing), may be a bad thing . . . . but they are so common we have a word for them.

Interesting article from the Hill.

8 signs pointing to a counterintelligence operation deployed against Trump’s campaign

1 Like

Being black on a street corner?

LOL great example.

Do I believe that law enforcement should investigate if a crime has been committed? Is this a serious question?

That’s not what I ask. But I agree you should investigate the crime.

But that’s not what “some” forum libs are saying now are they?

They are saying we need to Investigate the person to discover if a crime is committed.

I’ve seen then write this out few times now. And I’m asking if they really believe that.

Investigating crimes includes investigating people. Seriously, this is a stupid question.

1 Like

So I’ll put you down for yes you agree with investigating the person to see if a crime was committed.

Thanks for your reply.

I believe it. I’m sure you do too if you weren’t so blind in your worship to your leader.


Typically a specific crime is alleged, (E.G. “He robbed my store at 3 pm on Tuesday.”),
THEN the investigation begins.

To simply investigste John because you don’t like his race or poltics or religion is at best a fishing expedition, at worst the kind of unequal justice dictators use to acquire power and suppress dissent.

How many black lipstick liberals were chomping at the bit hoping Karl Rove would he sent to jail for something, ANYTHING without even spit for an allegation that he had commited a crime?

Yes. That’s what law enforcement does. They investigate people to determine if a crime has been committed. It’s what they do.

“I don’t like his politucs, let’s try to indict him,” is not exactly a battle cry for lovers of freedom and democracy.