LogFAQs > #892019404

adjl posted...

I'm operating under the assumption that false allegations would be cleared up quickly enough to not be particularly disruptive, as they would with allegations of any other crimes. That is a fairly shaky assumption, but the underlying idea is "don't do the crime if you don't have time to go to court over it."

But how could it be? Do you really think even if there was an inquiry that people would be satisfied by that?

I don't think anyone could ever clear Trump sufficiently to prove that he never did anything (if he in fact did not). What else should he or the court be doing besides say, "Bring me some evidence."

adjl posted...

Mostly, though, I'm operating under the principle that being the president should not act as protection from the consequences for prior misdeeds. Expecting the president to resign whenever he's accused of a crime is hardly practical, but there needs to be some middle ground that's better than ignoring anything without conclusive evidence because "being the president is more important." Especially where it's so easy to draw out court proceedings and investigations such that they take longer than the election.

Of course not. Nobody is above the law. But nobody is below the law either. Until sufficient evidence is provided to determine an investigation needs to take place, then they can't do anything. If Gloria Allred wants to take on the case and find some evidence that Trump did some fucked up shit, then more power to them. Until then, we don't need a congressional hearing for every accusation made against someone in power.
---

"We're not even close" - Romans building Rome at the end of Day 1