Question
更新於
2019年5月5日
- 日語
-
英語 (美國)
有關 英語 (美國) 的問題
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."
答覆
2019年5月5日
最佳解答
- 英語 (美國)
- 俄語 接近流利
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
高評價回答者
這個回答有幫到你嗎?
查看更多留言
- 英語 (美國)
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?
高評價回答者
這個回答有幫到你嗎?
- 英語 (美國)
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.
高評價回答者
這個回答有幫到你嗎?
- 英語 (美國)
- 俄語 接近流利
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
高評價回答者
這個回答有幫到你嗎?
- 日語
- 日語
[通知]Hi! 正在學習外文的你
你知道如何提升自己的外語能力嗎❓你要做的就是讓母語者來訂正你的寫作!
使用HiNative,免費讓母語者來幫你訂正文章✍️✨
使用HiNative,免費讓母語者來幫你訂正文章✍️✨
註冊
相關提問
相同關鍵字的提問
- According to the current Constitution, in order to hold a national referendum for its revision, a...
- Constitution makes powers separate. 聽起來自然嗎?
- Constitution exists to bind and restrict the authority, preventing them from abusing their rights...
矚目的提問
- {題名} *提供いただきたい資料一覧 {Excelの項目} *提供いただきたい資料 *資料有無 *(資料有の場合)資料名 Excelの項目で、短くビジネス用語で書きたい場合...
- "We walked to the station in 10 minutes." This sentence was on a textbook, and it said it mean...
- Does this sentence sound natural? (Is the relative pronoun "that" okay?) If there's someone that...
- 1. Thanks to you, I had a much better understanding. 2. Thanks to you, I gained a much better un...
- why the AI is available to premium now? it's honestly disrespectful for the long time Hinative su...
最新問題(HOT)
- 感覺動物的意思是什麼?感覺現在基本沒有什麼人用這個詞語了
- 四月十六日 星期二 多雲 最近來,我的無線藍牙耳機常常出了毛病。最常見的是只有一邊有聲音。還有時聲音會中斷,只好從頭開起再設定好。我買這已經三年了,是不是差不多該換新的了?
- ”相處“ 「付き合う」という意味がありますが、恋愛としてですか、それとも人と人の付き合いという意味ですか、それともどちらの意味もあるのですか?
- 特別是在我們國內進行的改革以及會談上引起對方對我們的信心信賴,不僅為現在艱難的環境做出貢獻,也有助於展現我們所做的努力為回應對方部分政黨及國民對自己的懷疑:『為什麼我們要以犧牲自己為代價來保護秩...
最新問題
- 我再稍後更新詳細行程 這句很自然嗎?
- 隨後 vs 緊接著 下面兩句意思差不多嗎? a)今天下午一陣雷聲,隨後下雨啦。 b)今天下午一陣雷聲,緊接著下雨啦。 希望能理解中文邏輯,請用中文回答,謝謝。
- 四月十七日 星期三 晴 今天是休息日,我早上九點才起床,吃完飯後,看了一上午日本小說。中午又吃飯後,到健身房運動。然後在回家路上,順便去圖書館借了一本書。晚上吃飯洗完澡後,開始看今天借過來的書,...
- 四月十七日 星期三 晴 今天是休息日,我早上九點才起床,吃完飯後,看了一上午日本小說。中午又吃飯後,到健身房運動。然後在回家路上,順便去圖書館借了一本書。晚上吃飯洗完澡後,開始看今天借過來的書,...
- 很多厲害的人,我都不如他們 這句很自然嗎
上一個問題/下一個問題
謝謝!請放心,你的意見並不會顯示給其他用戶
謝謝您的回應!您的反饋將會作為改善服務體驗的參考!