How much Trump-Russia collusion would it take before you support impeachment?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Richard_Parker

I’m curious to hear from the two people who think Trump aiding Russia’s efforts is not enough so long as he offered them nothing in exchange.

Why isn’t that enough for you? (HurricaneDitka?)

I’ve been pondering this since yesterday. I think there are circumstances that would fall under #4 that I’d support impeachment, and others, if one read #4 broadly, that I would probably not.

For example, if the FBI uncovers proof that Trump helped craft the phishing email to Podesta, or gave Russian hackers Podesta’s email address and asked them to hack it, I would support impeachment.

OTOH, if he answered some routine media inquiries from RT about his campaign, and the Russians found a way to utilize that information in their “efforts”, I don’t think that’s an impeachable offense.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I’m not sure people have thought through all these choices.

I’m surprised that anyone would say a foreign government having blackmail information would be grounds for impeachment. Really? There could be any number of people that foreign governments have compromising info on. For anyone whose done any wild and crazy things in his youth, there’s probably a good likelihood that foreign intelligence services would come across this info. If you make this a standard, then you would probably be impeaching presidents left and right.

Holding a president responsible for the actions of his subordinates also seems like a completely unworkable line. Scandals during presidential administrations are routine. The traditionally accepted approach is that the actual perpetrators get prosecuted, and the agency heads who allowed it to happen sometimes (but not always) resign. Again, if you start impeaching presidents based on the actions of his subordinates, then you’re going to routinely impeach presidents.

The idea that you can impeach Trump for firing Comey, based on the extremely speculative notion that he was doing this to interfere with the Russia investigation, also amounts to lowering the bar on impeachments to an unrealistic level.

Basically the general idea is that impeachment needs to be an extreme measure. If you start impeaching people over things that most presidents are guilty of - or even that most presidents are seen by the mainstream opposition as being guilty of - it would not be helpful for the government or for peaceful democratic discourse.

As for the poll, #4 & #6 would probably be grounds IMO. But I might differentiate between “knew” and “caused”. “Caused” is definitely grounds IMO. “Knew” is more iffy. If there’s some sort of law against it, then that would be grounds too. Even if there’s no law but the collusion was ongoing, then probably that too. If there’s no such law, and the knowledge was about something that had happened in the past but was not expected to continue, then I would think it’s not grounds. (In fact, I myself would probably not report such a thing myself either, if I was in that position. Because that would sink my campaign for no fault of my own, and for no real purpose. After the election would be another story.) If there is a law requiring reporting, then #2 would also be grounds.

All that said, I think it’s extremely unlikely that there was impeachment-level collusion between Trump and the Russians. Partially because I don’t see what the Russians would have needed from Trump or his people, and partially because an enormous amount of investigating to this point has apparently produced nothing consequential.

[John_Mace]

@kayaker

My choice is notably absent. I’d support impeachment if Trump had Russian dressing on his salad.

Only if it had arugula in it. Or kale. Kale is the new arugula.

[QuickSilver]

I don’t suppose there’s a minimum competency clause hidden in the constitution, is there?

I’d sure love to see him impeached on the, ‘Not fit to shovel shit from one place to another’, grounds.

[drad_dog]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I’m not sure people have thought through all these choices.

I’m surprised that anyone would say a foreign government having blackmail information would be grounds for impeachment. Really? There could be any number of people that foreign governments have compromising info on. For anyone whose done any wild and crazy things in his youth, there’s probably a good likelihood that foreign intelligence services would come across this info. If you make this a standard, then you would probably be impeaching presidents left and right.

Holding a president responsible for the actions of his subordinates also seems like a completely unworkable line. Scandals during presidential administrations are routine. The traditionally accepted approach is that the actual perpetrators get prosecuted, and the agency heads who allowed it to happen sometimes (but not always) resign. Again, if you start impeaching presidents based on the actions of his subordinates, then you’re going to routinely impeach presidents.

The idea that you can impeach Trump for firing Comey, based on the extremely speculative notion that he was doing this to interfere with the Russia investigation, also amounts to lowering the bar on impeachments to an unrealistic level.

Basically the general idea is that impeachment needs to be an extreme measure. If you start impeaching people over things that most presidents are guilty of - or even that most presidents are seen by the mainstream opposition as being guilty of - it would not be helpful for the government or for peaceful democratic discourse.

As for the poll, #4 & #6 would probably be grounds IMO. But I might differentiate between “knew” and “caused”. “Caused” is definitely grounds IMO. “Knew” is more iffy. If there’s some sort of law against it, then that would be grounds too. Even if there’s no law but the collusion was ongoing, then probably that too. If there’s no such law, and the knowledge was about something that had happened in the past but was not expected to continue, then I would think it’s not grounds. (In fact, I myself would probably not report such a thing myself either, if I was in that position. Because that would sink my campaign for no fault of my own, and for no real purpose. After the election would be another story.) If there is a law requiring reporting, then #2 would also be grounds.

All that said, I think it’s extremely unlikely that there was impeachment-level collusion between Trump and the Russians. Partially because I don’t see what the Russians would have needed from Trump or his people, and partially because an enormous amount of investigating to this point has apparently produced nothing consequential.

And we as internet experts would be in the position to know exactly how far the investigation has gone and where it will end up. Got it.

The investigations have not even begun yet. You got to slow down a little on the pretexplications. But circumstantially, based on Comeys firing, there is a lot we don’t know.

Donald is incapable of keeping his mouth shut about his intentions, rages, and drives, anyway. For instance he already encouraged the russians to hack clintons emails. The problem is not whether he was sincere or not, but that he can’t tell the difference. This does not argue for a full term presidency.

[Richard_Parker]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

The idea that you can impeach Trump for firing Comey, based on the extremely speculative notion that he was doing this to interfere with the Russia investigation, also amounts to lowering the bar on impeachments to an unrealistic level.

Perhaps you’ve not been following the news closely in the last 24 hours, which is of course entirely forgivable.

But it’s not speculative at all. The Washington Post has 30 white house aides saying it was part of the motivation. The Deputy Press Secretary agreed. And then Trump himself said that he fired Comey because the Russia investigation is a sham.

I’m not sure what more you could want. I think the only question on that score is whether firing Comey to end the investigation is impeachable, though that’s somewhat outside the scope of this particular poll.

[Sage_Rat]

@QuickSilver

I don’t suppose there’s a minimum competency clause hidden in the constitution, is there?

Factually, yes. You have to be 35 years old. Beyond that, you need to be able to convince a majority of the electoral college that you are competent to run the nation. Unfortunately, this second part wasn’t quite fully enumerated in the Constitution, so the current legal interpretation is that you must be able to convince a majority of your average adult citizens, as adjusted by electoral apportionment. Apparently, this is insufficient to guard against Trump, but possibly sufficient to guard against a person in a coma.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@drad_dog

And we as internet experts would be in the position to know exactly how far the investigation has gone and where it will end up. Got it.

The investigations have not even begun yet. You got to slow down a little on the pretexplications.

The investigations have been going on since before the election. There have been comments from various congresspeople who have been briefed on it to the effect that to their knowledge there’s been no evidence of active collusion.

Beyond that, there’s been an enormous amount of leaking, about relatively minor aspects of the case. It’s extremely unlikely that an actual smoking gun has been uncovered and no one has leaked anything about it.

@Richard_Parker

Perhaps you’ve not been following the news closely in the last 24 hours, which is of course entirely forgivable.

But it’s not speculative at all. The Washington Post has 30 white house aides saying it was part of the motivation. The Deputy Press Secretary agreed. And then Trump himself said that he fired Comey because the Russia investigation is a sham.

I’m not sure what more you could want.

I’ve been following the news and no one connected to Trump has made any such statement, AFAICT.

What people have said is that Trump was frustrated that Comey did not, in his public comments, tamp down speculation about Trump’s ties to the Russians. I’ve not seen anyone of the sort you describe say that Trump wanted to impact the investigation itself.

If you have any info to the contrary, please cite it.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Sherrerd

This was my reasoning (and vote) as well. Trump differs from Nixon and even from Reagan during Reagan’s Presidency (as opposed to his later mythologized status)—Trump has several million rabid fans. Any measure taken toward removing him from office has to be very clearly seen to be brought on the basis of his own knowledge and actions.

That’s gonna be painful… read a pretty convincing explainer today that argues Trump probably doesn’t have any criminal intent… he’s just angry, forgetful, and ignorant of the rules and environment under which he’s operating. Linky: cite

In short, what if Trump is exactly as he appears: a hopeless narcissist with the attention span of a fruit fly, unable to maintain consistent beliefs or commitments from moment to moment, acting on base instinct, entirely situationally, to bolster his terrifyingly fragile ego.

These are really, really bad traits to have in a president. But it’s hard to prove conspiracies or criminal intent in someone who is for the most part acting in an unplanned and unintentional fashion.

[Richard_Parker]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

If you have any info to the contrary, please cite it.

Deputy Press Secretary: “We want this to come to its conclusion, we want it to come to its conclusion with integrity,” she said, referring to the FBI’s probe into Moscow’s interference in last year’s election. “And we think that we’ve actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen.”

30 White House aides: “Trump was angry that Comey would not support his baseless claim that President Barack Obama had his campaign offices wiretapped. Trump was frustrated when Comey revealed in Senate testimony the breadth of the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s effort to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And he fumed that Comey was giving too much attention to the Russia probe and not enough to investigating leaks to journalists.”

Trump himself: “And in fact when I decided to just do it [fire Comey], I said to myself, I said ‘you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won’”

Trump doesn’t like the Russia investigation. He fired Comey, in part, because he thought the investigation needed to come to an end.

Are there other interpretations here? Sure there are. But calling it “extremely speculative” is off by a mile.

[drad_dog]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

The investigations have been going on since before the election. There have been comments from various congresspeople who have been briefed on it to the effect that to their knowledge there’s been no evidence of active collusion.

Beyond that, there’s been an enormous amount of leaking, about relatively minor aspects of the case. It’s extremely unlikely that an actual smoking gun has been uncovered and no one has leaked anything about it.I’ve been following the news and no one connected to Trump has made any such statement, AFAICT.

What people have said is that Trump was frustrated that Comey did not, in his public comments, tamp down speculation about Trump’s ties to the Russians. I’ve not seen anyone of the sort you describe say that Trump wanted to impact the investigation itself.

If you have any info to the contrary, please cite it.

All I can say is Ibid, Drad Dog. You are ignoring everything that happened in the last 24 hours. Leaks tend to become volumized over time. Check back in 48 hours.

[Sage_Rat]

@HMS_Irruncible

That’s gonna be painful… read a pretty convincing explainer today that argues Trump probably doesn’t have any criminal intent… he’s just angry, forgetful, and ignorant of the rules and environment under which he’s operating. Linky: cite

I would agree. That’s why I didn’t go for #2. It’s simply unrealistic to expect Trump to report any malfeasance that he was aware of, if he was aware of it. Even if he understood the ramifications, which is unlikely, he doesn’t have the moral compass to do anything about it and it’s difficult to prosecute someone who simply doesn’t understand what is happening. Usually, you would run a psychological panel to get a read on competence, but I think that Trump’s success makes such a thing sort of impossible to do. People don’t understand how someone of no mental capability could accomplish big things. And yet, if we look back at history, there’s a whole variety of kingdoms and empires run by children and morons. They had the occasional peasant murdered, ordered the construction of fancy palaces etc., but otherwise were mostly excluded from the act of governance by wiser hands, because ultimately someone does have to do the job.

Trump’s inherited fortune and in-person charm have allowed his entourage to make a (potentially) sustainable, family-style business keep chugging for a few decades. But the man himself is, really, little more than a prop. Unfortunately, there’s no one ruler behind the throne. Trump’s entourage is a committee of interesting personalities that he likes to watch argue, which limits the ability for any one person to reign supreme over him.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Richard_Parker

Deputy Press Secretary: “We want this to come to its conclusion, we want it to come to its conclusion with integrity,” she said, referring to the FBI’s probe into Moscow’s interference in last year’s election. “And we think that we’ve actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen.”

30 White House aides: “Trump was angry that Comey would not support his baseless claim that President Barack Obama had his campaign offices wiretapped. Trump was frustrated when Comey revealed in Senate testimony the breadth of the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s effort to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And he fumed that Comey was giving too much attention to the Russia probe and not enough to investigating leaks to journalists.”

Trump himself: “And in fact when I decided to just do it [fire Comey], I said to myself, I said ‘you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won’”

Trump doesn’t like the Russia investigation. He fired Comey, in part, because he thought the investigation needed to come to an end.

Are there other interpretations here? Sure there are. But calling it “extremely speculative” is off by a mile.

All these comments are consistent with what I’ve said, which was that “Trump was frustrated that Comey did not, in his public comments, tamp down speculation about Trump’s ties to the Russians”.

[Richard_Parker]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

All these comments are consistent with what I’ve said, which was that “Trump was frustrated that Comey did not, in his public comments, tamp down speculation about Trump’s ties to the Russians”.

Uh, ok. But they’re also support for Trump disliking the investigation and wanting to, at a minimum, change how it is being conducted.

So your claim that this is “extreme speculation” is plainly incorrect.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

What people have said is that Trump was frustrated that Comey did not, in his public comments, tamp down speculation about Trump’s ties to the Russians. I’ve not seen anyone of the sort you describe say that Trump wanted to impact the investigation itself.

If you have any info to the contrary, please cite it.

Did you somehow miss this?

[QUOTE=Donald J. Trump]
And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said ‘you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won’."
[/quote]

So there it is. His justification to “do it” was because the “thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story”, and he believes that’s a passable excuse for firing an FBI director.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Richard_Parker

Uh, ok. But they’re also support for Trump disliking the investigation and wanting to, at a minimum, change how it is being conducted.

So your claim that this is “extreme speculation” is plainly incorrect.

I disagree.

I don’t think Trump cares much about the Russia investigation, as long as it’s not dominating news coverage of his presidency. All the reporting I’ve seen - including your cites - is about Trump’s unhappiness with the coverage of the investigation and focus on it.

The context of my earlier remarks was about what is or is not an impeachable offense, and the consequences of setting a particular standard for impeachment. In that context the mere fact that there are things that you can, if you’re so inclined, interpret as being “Trump disliking the investigation and wanting to, at a minimum, change how it is being conducted” is extreme speculation. Because it’s the type of motivation that political opponents routinely attribute to their opponents’ actions. If you set the standard for impeachment at that level of non-evidence, then virtually all presidents would face impeachment, which IMHO is a Bad Thing.

[Silver_lining]

@Richard_Parker

Taking the IC at its word that Russia did several things to tip the election in Trump’s favor, including hacking both the GOP and DNC but only leaking the DNC, as well as funding a tidal wave of fake news to misinform people in key states, the principal question under investigation is whether Trump was in any way involved in those activities. I’m curious to hear from people, but especially conservatives, about how much collusion would be enough to persuade you to impeach.

After all this time, is there any proof? No. Trump does not command Russia. Russia commands Russia.

If the Russians did help him hack into Clinton’s illegal private server, didn’t Clinton take millions from Iran, who actually sponsors terrorism, and use the media in the election to obtain the debate questions in advance?

Yes, she did.

China has hacked the USA before, I’m sure China was pro-Clinton as Trump used plenty of talk against them in his campaign. So who’s to say China didn’t help Clinton win the election too?

My point, none of this really has the ability to vote on election day. People make up their own minds and vote. So anything short of tampering with the voting machines is poppycock.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

I chose “none of the above”.

I think that Trump could go on TV, and admit that he personally worked with the Russian government to fix the election, in exchange for lifting sanctions, and that he and his advisors personally profited 10’s of millions of dollars in bribe money.

Truimp would still enjoy approval from his base, and the Republicans in congress would still make excuses for him. Fox news would roar their approval of Trump’s “smart business stragegy”.

I am completely serious. Openly colluding to throw the elction and accepting bribes from a foreign government are OK now … If you are a Republican president.

[Sage_Rat]

@Silver_lining

People make up their own minds and vote.

How many different brands of cola (excluding variants like Diet or Vanilla) would you say exist in the market?
How many can you name?
How many do you purchase?

[RickJay]

@Euphonious_Polemic

I chose “none of the above”.

I think that Trump could go on TV, and admit that he personally worked with the Russian government to fix the election, in exchange for lifting sanctions, and that he and his advisors personally profited 10’s of millions of dollars in bribe money.

I don’t think you read the OP very carefully. The question is what it would take YOU to support impeachment.

Of course the Republicans won’'t impeach him for any reason. But what’s your standard for starting the process?

To my mind, there has to be convincing evidence Trump did something illegal, which isn’t exactly one of the poll options. ptiions 4, for instance, is:

“Trump knew/caused his associates to give information to Russia to aid in Russia’s efforts.”

Is this illegal? I’m not sure, it’s very vague. Trump knowing something isn’t enough’ causing someone to give Russia information might be, but I’m not totally sure what the crime is there. But Option 6:

“Trump knew/caused his associates to offer something to Russia in exchange for their influence.”

Actually paying a foreign government to influence the election is clearly too much; to allow such a person to remain in office would be a threat to the democratic foundation of a country.