It's an impeachable offense, although whether or not it'd qualify as treason would be interesting law debate.

Treason is not even up for debate.

Treason is SPECIFICALLY defined in the Constitution requiring the nation to be at war with the 'enemy' who is given aid.

Unless we are at war with Russia -- and last time I checked we were not -- anything involving Russia cannot be treason.

Even though there is no formal declaration of war, it is possible that a short list of countries could be considered at war due to ongoing Congress-authorized military actions: Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Libya. If he were caught giving aid to any of these countries then there is at least the possibility of treason.

Since we're not currently at war with Russia, any aid or comfort given to the country or Russian citizens can't be treason under the Constitution.

This is the interesting part. Because we're not at war with China, but just recently someone was found passing information along to them. Then there was the scientist before that (Los Alamos, IIRC). Most civilians would call that treason. But if passing gov't info to a foreign or hostile power isn't treason, then what is it?

Would you have Trump impeached? The Constitution only allows for three reasons of impeachment; Treason (defined as giving material aid and comfort to enemies we are at war with), Bribery, and Maladministration (called "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" in that era, but understood to be the term of the era for maladministration). Since he wasn't in office at the time, neither Bribery nor Maladministration could apply.

Ok, technically his collusions prior to getting the High Office isn't impeachable. But lying about it once he's in office is. That would fall under High Crimes and Misdemeanors, I would think.

So it sounds like the Congress, in theory, could impeach him based on the High Crimes and Misdemeanors clause. Then hit him and a great many people with charges under the Espionage Act.

Sounds like a plan.

Thanks, frob.

Since he wasn't in office at the time, neither Bribery nor Maladministration could apply.

Several points to be made here.
#1: "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a fairly loose term. Johnson got impeached for firing Edwin M. Stanton without asking permission from the senate, and Clinton got impeached for misleading a jury. With mid-terms coming and Trump's historically low approval rating, it is likely that congress/the senate can find a way to make High Crimes and Misdemeanors apply.

#2: Depending on what they find, him being out of office at the time simply changes the charge to a violation of the Logan Act, which should see him in jail, but they will likely settle for just removing him from office. Tom Cotton and Michael Flynn also violated this act.

#3: Keep in mind that impeachment is not the only way to remove a president. He can be removed if he is deemed unable to fulfill his duties as president, and a strong case can be made in this direction, especially with his ties to Russia. If it is found that Russia could blackmail him or there is any other reason to believe that Russia will have an effect on him performing his duties, he can be removed.

In any case, he has already violated several laws as president, and it is very unlikely he will serve the full term.


L. Spiro

It's going to depend a lot also just how far/how bad the connections go. If it's something like "Trump is literally sleeping with Putin, that's how close they are' (a joke, but I think y'all might get what I'm saying), it's fairly likely that he'll get impeached on some grounds or the other. As it stands, most Republicans have fallen right in line behind Trump.

I take it that most of us are in agreement that there is some connection of some kind just that we don't know how far the rabbit hole goes, so to speak.

In any case, he has already violated several laws as president, and it is very unlikely he will serve the full term.

Meh. It was very unlikely he'd be President of the United States. Look how that turned out. Mind you, you can come up with 1000 legitimate reasons why. But still. Look how that turned out.

Let's not make any assumptions about if or when Trump leaves office. Because frankly, you're banking a lot on the American people. And truthfully, as an American, I'm not seeing anything worth betting on.

In any case, he has already violated several laws as president, and it is very unlikely he will serve the full term.

Meh. It was very unlikely he'd be President of the United States. Look how that turned out. Mind you, you can come up with 1000 legitimate reasons why. But still. Look how that turned out.

Let's not make any assumptions about if or when Trump leaves office. Because frankly, you're banking a lot on the American people. And truthfully, as an American, I'm not seeing anything worth betting on.

I could not agree more with your sentiment. There's still a sizable segment of the population (although, to be fair, this is getting smaller), that, for whatever reason, will never agree with Trump having violated any law.

I, personally, do not want to make any predictions. It's impossible to predict anything at all at this point. Theoretically, the grounds for impeachment are forming.

All bets are off though if and when Trump and Friends colluding with Russia evidence is found. We simply don't know wha the reaction would be because it's never happened before.

Because frankly, you're banking a lot on the American people. And truthfully, as an American, I'm not seeing anything worth betting on.

Yet republicans are taking the healthcare issue much more seriously now that the people have begun to fight at their town halls etc.

And it isn't actually a bet just on the people. It's a bet on all the members of congress who are up for re-election during the midterms to act in their own interests (which is a very good bet).
Trump's cabinet is already falling apart and many are already extremely tired of working with him, so it is a bet on the people around him to work in their own interests and get him out of office.

It's also a bet that plays on Trump's biggest insecurity: Fear of failure. The American people decide whether he fails or not, which is why they had to retract their healthcare plan. Because this pokes at Trump's deepest level of internal insecurities, he has already amped up his lashing out. This on top of his 2 failed Muslim bans, and as this trend continues he won't be able to help but to act so childish and irrational that he will lose the last of his support at the White House, especially considering that some in the senate and congress (McCain for example) are already outspoken against him and his plans and are absolutely going to take advantage of any collapses within his close network to galvanize people against him.


He isn't just making enemies with the American people, he is making enemies all over the White House etc. He just threw Paul Ryan under the bus, as one example. That comes with a cost.


L. Spiro

If you guys didn't see, Trump pretty much officially declared war on the conservative portion of the republican party.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/freedom-caucus-donald-trump.html?_r=0

As for the Russia investigations, I haven't really heard anything damning but I've been way too busy to follow them closely. Definitely not anything impeachable though, there's definitely precedent of leaders supporting political parties/people in other countries as a friendly gesture, which is what it would probably be defended as if proven.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/obamas-brexit-plea/479469/

It's a pretty interesting situation right now, because Trump's getting no support from Democrats, or the more conservative members of his own party. His solution? Attack his own party. If it works he'll pretty much completely transform the Republican party's political landscape, and if it doesn't he'll be out in 2020.