What happens if President Trump has been found to be colluding with Russia?

  • What happens if it is proven that President Trump has been colluding with Russia during his campaign? Does he go to trial or get impeached? Or does nothing happen?

    It should be noted that, in the USA, colluding is not a legal term and carries no weight. The term used by the hearing committee today was *co-ordination*. Something I learned myself for the first time watching the live stream of Comey.

    Black's Law Dictionary defines collusion as "A deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose". I'm surprised that it's not a formal legal term...

    I am only repeating what the hearing said.

    Impeachment or not much (possibly with some resignations of implicated officials). Whether he is impeached or not will depend on the nature of the evidence against him and his level of popularity.

    What does it mean to be colluding with Russia? And how would it be any different than what has been tolerated as business-as-usual for everyone else, e.g. the Clinton Foundation's many suspicious ties?

    @JDoe well, the difference would be the "if it's proven" part of the question. While plenty of suspicion was manufactured around the Clinton Foundation, nothing was ever shown to be handled inappropriately. That may happen with Trump. Then again, maybe not (and it seems like information is changing hourly on this particular topic...)

    @blip If *what* is proven? Is is collusion if Trump is proven to have had lunch with the Russians? It was proven! Again, what does it mean to be colluding with Russia, and does that differ from what was business as usual for everyone else?

    @JDoe I can't answer any of those questions. I was only answering your "what's the difference" part.

    @blip Also you changed the goalposts in your comment. First, an accusation had to be proven. Then, it had to be found to be inappropriate. Those are two different standards. We know Clinton traded favors for financing from foreign governments, but that was "handled appropriately". Is there an appropriate way for Trump to trade favors with the Russians?

    @JDoe actually, no, we don't know that favors were traded. What investigations that were done showed no conflict of interest. As for Trump and Russia, I have no idea what actually has happened. None of us do. At least, not yet.

    "What happens if it is proven that President Trump has been colluding with Russia during his campaign?" - first thing that would happen is he would deny it. and @JDoe I find it odd that Clinton is assumed guilty but Trump is business as usual. You really shouldn't have it both ways. And keep in mind there's much stronger evidence against Trump than there ever was against the Clinton foundation.

    @userLTK I find it odd that you think I’m arguing for a double standard or that anyone assumes Clinton is guilty of collusion. Those are both so very plainly the opposite of reality that I wonder whether you aren’t just a troll.

    @JDoe "What does it mean to be colluding with Russia? And how would it be any different than what has been tolerated as business-as-usual for everyone else, e.g. the Clinton Foundation's many suspicious ties?" That's funny. I wasn't sure if you were a troll. Tell me what the Clinton foundation did that was worth investigating for collusion. We know that Russia hacked the election by social media the day(s) prior and hacking and releasing democratic party e-mails. There were meetings with team Trump and Russians who may have arranged that. Where is the Clinton equivalent to that?

  • BobT

    BobT Correct answer

    5 years ago

    Only the House of Representatives (sometimes called the Lower House) can impeach a President. The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.

    The House is pretty much free to decide what constitutes an impeachable offense ("treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" is the formal list in our Constitution). They may choose to or not. A majority ( > 50%) vote of the House is required to Impeach.

    Impeachment is equivalent to bringing charges. Removal from office requires a trial in the Senate (sometimes called the Upper House), presided over by the Chief Justice. If 2/3 of the Senators vote for Impeachment, the President is removed from office and the Vice President takes his place.

    If the House declined to impeach Trump, nothing would happen...

    Can you expand this to make it clear how the Lower House move to impeach but the trial takes place in the Upper house.

    Because the US is so polarized politically, there is very little chance that a Republican controlled House of Representatives would choose to impeach a Republican President even if there were overwhelming evidence that he had accepted a direct bribe from the Russian government (such as, for hypothetical example, a 19% interest in the Russian gas company Rosneft) in return for promulgating policies favorable to the Russians, let alone confirmation of the allegations that his Presidential campaign had coordinated election strategy and tactics with the Russians.

    @arp - I'm not actually sure that's true. It would certainly make it less likely, but at some point there could be enough of an outcry that they may decide that it's better to cut their losses and give the population what it (presumably) wants, while promoting the *Republican* VP to President.

    @Venture2099 the Lower House (as a whole) doesn't "move to" impeach, any more than it "moves to" pass a bill. Individual House members "move to impeach", but the House as a whole only impeaches (or not).

    @arp oddly the President recently sanctioned Rosneft. Maybe playing the long con.

License under CC-BY-SA with attribution


Content dated before 7/24/2021 11:53 AM