CNN is reporting that the FBI has evidence of coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/polit...may-have-coordinated-with-russians/index.html What would it take, evidence wise, in polarized, SCOTUS up for grabs America for this to actually cause resignation and/or impeachment?
A blow job from an intern? Shooting a litter of puppies in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue? Nuking Jersey from orbit? .......oh, who am I kidding? Even liberals would be glad he nuked Jersey
It couldn't. First Because it isn't (wasn't) illegal. Second Because it happened BEFORE this administration took power. Do you really think either party really wants the precedent established where what the winner of a presidential election did during the campaign can then become an impeachable offense AFTER they take office?
I'm pretty sure he can. It's called impeachment. Not sure whether it can apply to crimes committed before taking office.
President Trump would have to be impeached and removed from office BEFORE he could face any criminal charges. Impeachment is a political process for forcing a president out of office. It isn't like you could "charge Donald Trump with criminal acts related to the 2016 campaign" and after that and on the basis of that remove him from office using the impeachment process.
Why would someone in trumps campaign coordinating with the Russians to release material about Hillary Clinton be an impeachable offence?
NUKED? You want our beloved FORBIN and MEWA to live in a post apocalyptic Mad Max world? Oh wait, too late for that I guess.
What I'm saying is that a president must be impeached and removed from office BEFORE facing any criminal charges. A prosecutor can't just indict a sitting president for a crime, any crime, though while they are in office.
Dayton is correct. Nixon left because he knew the House would impeach and the Senate would vote to convict and remove him from office. He did not want to be he first POTUS to be removed from office. After he left office he could have been charged with crimes committed while in office which is why Ford pardoned him.
Well obviously an investigation would have to uncover evidence of a crime. Probably involving hacking, data theft, illegal campaign money, etc.
IIANM, President Nixon made the decision to resign after Republican congressional leaders performed a straw poll of their members and told Nixon that he could count on only a handful of House members to vote in his favor and an even smaller percentage of Senators to vote on his behalf. So President Nixon knew that if the House voted on Articles of Impeachment it would certainly pass and when the Senate then voted to remove him from office he didn't have remotely near enough support (even among the GOP senators) to remain in office.
Well, I don't know about illegal campaign money, but from what I've seen the "hacking" and "data theft" would've been actions taken by the Russians and not the Trump campaign. Whether being the beneficiary of such actions is a crime I do not know.
And thanks to the Vault7 release, we now know the CIA can make it look like someone else did a hack, so
Netting someone bigger, like nuCheney or Trump's son in law, because I don't think that the questionable dealings/relationships of the Alex Jones crazy or the guy who almost ran Trump's campaign into the ground will do the trick.
actions taken to conceal previous actions from official investigation since Jan. 20 would make your point moot.
The transcript of Trump's Time interview reads more like an SNL script. http://time.com/4710456/donald-trump-time-interview-truth-falsehood/ "Well, he just got this information. This was new information. That was just got. Members, of, let’s see, were under surveillance during the Obama Administration following November’s election. Wow. This just came out. So, ah, just came out." The whole thing reads like that.
At this point, I don't know what it would take. Even if some hard evidence comes out (video of Trump meeting with Russian officials and discussing the election?), the question is political: does the GOP have more to gain with Trump out of office than in? I think it will take a groundswell of popular opinion from "real America" to make Republican congresscritters even consider tossing out their own president.
If they come up with something that constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor, give him the boot, lock him up. But I agree with @Paladin , I don't thionk you can impeach a President for something they did prior to being in office.
If the statute of limitations isn't up, why not? Say the president-elect hits someone with her car on the way to the inauguration, but is sworn in before this is discovered. Safe forever?