Question
Aggiornato il
5 mag 2019
- Giapponese
-
Inglese (Stati Uniti)
Domande Inglese (Stati Uniti)
Regarding
"If the Constitution "prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government could not preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documentary materials are available."(4th paragraph)
I am confused.
Does it mean if the Constitution prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government was obligated to throw away updated evidence???
Context>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Justice Department attorneys prosecuting Roger Stone -- who no longer work under special counsel Robert Mueller -- defended the special counsel's investigation of President Donald Trump Friday, saying it inherently did not hamper his ability to lead the country.
The argument came amid a series of filings Friday night in Stone's case, in which prosecutors pushed back on the longtime Trump ally's legal attacks on Mueller and the criminal charges he faces. Stone has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and asked the court to dismiss them.
"While the Department of Justice's position is that 'the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,' it also takes the position that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible," the prosecutors wrote.
If the Constitution "prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government could not preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documentary materials are available. Nor, it would seem, could the government conduct an investigation that may clear the President of alleged wrongdoing."
Regarding
"If the Constitution "prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government could not preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documentary materials are available."(4th paragraph)
I am confused.
Does it mean if the Constitution prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government was obligated to throw away updated evidence???
Context>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Justice Department attorneys prosecuting Roger Stone -- who no longer work under special counsel Robert Mueller -- defended the special counsel's investigation of President Donald Trump Friday, saying it inherently did not hamper his ability to lead the country.
The argument came amid a series of filings Friday night in Stone's case, in which prosecutors pushed back on the longtime Trump ally's legal attacks on Mueller and the criminal charges he faces. Stone has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and asked the court to dismiss them.
"While the Department of Justice's position is that 'the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,' it also takes the position that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible," the prosecutors wrote.
If the Constitution "prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government could not preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documentary materials are available. Nor, it would seem, could the government conduct an investigation that may clear the President of alleged wrongdoing."
"If the Constitution "prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government could not preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documentary materials are available."(4th paragraph)
I am confused.
Does it mean if the Constitution prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government was obligated to throw away updated evidence???
Context>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Justice Department attorneys prosecuting Roger Stone -- who no longer work under special counsel Robert Mueller -- defended the special counsel's investigation of President Donald Trump Friday, saying it inherently did not hamper his ability to lead the country.
The argument came amid a series of filings Friday night in Stone's case, in which prosecutors pushed back on the longtime Trump ally's legal attacks on Mueller and the criminal charges he faces. Stone has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and asked the court to dismiss them.
"While the Department of Justice's position is that 'the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,' it also takes the position that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible," the prosecutors wrote.
If the Constitution "prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government could not preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documentary materials are available. Nor, it would seem, could the government conduct an investigation that may clear the President of alleged wrongdoing."
Risposte
5 mag 2019
Domanda in primo piano
- Inglese (Stati Uniti)
- Russo Quasi esperto
I think this is just very poorly worded, and that's why it's confusing. A more proper wording, instead of "the government could not preserve", would have been "the government might not preserve" or "the government could choose not to preserve".
EDIT: fixed typo
Utente esperto
Questa risposta ti è stata d'aiuto?
Leggi ulteriori commenti
- Inglese (Stati Uniti)
Documents that are generated by the President and those in his administration cannot be legally destroyed. If they were destroyed to prevent an investigator from discovering details of a crime, that destruction is a crime called "obstruction of justice".
However, before being elected, a presidential campaign has to preserve campaign finance documents, but not other documents. For instance, if someone in the campaign was discussing strategy with someone else in the campaign via email, this is private communication because these are civilians who after not performing a government job. The only reason for the government to get this kind of information is if the government is conducting a criminal investigation.
As to the Trump campaign investigation, the big question is why the investigation was launched in the first place. The government began spying on people in the campaign because of the Steele document, which was paid for by the Clinton campaign. THIS DOCUMENT may have been Russian disinformation itself. And the COURT who permitted the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign was never told that the STEELE DOCUMENT was campaign research by the opposing party, and that the contents of the Steele report HAD never been verified by any other source.
Another issue is when did the special prosecutor decide that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. It looks like THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR may have decided there was no collusion over a year before he concluded his investigation. Since his appointment was to specifically investigate collusion, why didn't he FINISH the investigation over a year earlier?
Utente esperto
Questa risposta ti è stata d'aiuto?
- Inglese (Stati Uniti)
I originally was trying to type my answer on my phone, but it was long and I made mistakes. So I went back and corrected some of my errors using upper case characters.
Utente esperto
Questa risposta ti è stata d'aiuto?
- Inglese (Stati Uniti)
- Russo Quasi esperto
I think this is just very poorly worded, and that's why it's confusing. A more proper wording, instead of "the government could not preserve", would have been "the government might not preserve" or "the government could choose not to preserve".
EDIT: fixed typo
Utente esperto
Questa risposta ti è stata d'aiuto?
- Giapponese
- Giapponese
[Novità] Ehi tu! Dico a te che stai imparando una lingua!
Sai come migliorare le tue abilità linguistiche❓ Basta far correggere ciò che scrivi da un madrelingua!
Con HiNative, puoi ricevere correzioni su ciò che scrivi da utenti madrelingua gratis ✍️✨.
Con HiNative, puoi ricevere correzioni su ciò che scrivi da utenti madrelingua gratis ✍️✨.
Registrazione
domande simili
domande simili
- According to the current Constitution, in order to hold a national referendum for its revision, a...
- Constitution makes powers separate. sembra naturale?
- Constitution exists to bind and restrict the authority, preventing them from abusing their rights...
Domande suggerite
- how can I discribe black people hair, can I say curly, the books don't teach us..
- Which sounds more natural, "Go two blocks" or "Go for two blocks," when giving directions?
- I loooooooooooove aussie accent.... I loooooooooooove Australia so much. I'd like to go back th...
- Do these have the same meaning? When do you usually say these? That's just how things work here. ...
- What does UP mean here ? Is this an abbreviation of something? "Greyhound are seeking experie...
Newest Questions (HOT)
- SPICCARE IL VOLO si usa SOLO per i figli quando vogliono avere una vita indipendente?
- Buongiorno, potreste leggere e correggere il mio testo, per favore? Adesso in Giappone tanta sab...
- Which one is correct? 1- il posto dove in contro gli ospiti. 2- il posto dove incontrò gli ospiti.
- È corretto? Mi sveglio presto, ma la mia sorella si sveglia molto tardi. È troppo pigra! Adesso...
- Ora imparo il voce passiva di italiano. Ma non capisco perché questo frase è corretto. Anche la ...
Domande Recenti
- Che significa “È complicata come cosa.”? Non riesco a capire il significato di “come cosa” in qu...
- Correggi le mie frasi, per favore: Questo era solo una grande bugia. Lui non dice sempre la veri...
- Ciao!🖐 When I saw the Neapolitan lyrics of "Funiculi Funicula" in class and the Italian translat...
- Il termine "mezzosangue" si associa con gli animali? Non posso dire che una persona della etnia m...
- Do they always use articles before a noun in Italian? I ragazzi mangiano "la" zuppa o I ragazzi ...
Domanda precedente/successiva
Grazie! Puoi essere certo che il tuo feedback non verrà mostrato agli altri utenti.
Grazie mille! Il tuo feedback è molto apprezzato.