# Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians, according to US officials **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 23, 2017, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799 "2017-03-23T00:28:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 159
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3164 "2017-12-04T21:52:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > …but if you’d rather flounce off than clear it up, that’s your right. Pretty sure that was frosty dignity, like the Duke of Hamster towards an impertinent tradesman. Hard to imagine **John** “flouncing away”, any more than I can imagine a solemn elegy from “Weird Al” Yankovic. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3165 "2017-12-04T22:13:40Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > But Starr didn’t decide to impeach Bill Clinton. Congress did. Starr filed the report he was commissioned to file, and it was the House that chose to pass articles of impeachment. Just a reminder of the issue that was being discussed. Contrary to the claim made by another poster, Starr did not decide to impeach Clinton. Of course, that decision is reserved for the House. However, it was indeed his job to inform Congress of what he thought were impeccable offenses. There was no precedent set by that action-- he was complying with the law. Mueller is in a slightly different capacity, although much of what he is doing is the same. I have not seen the instructions he was given, and I’m not up on what the current law is, so he may or may not be required to address the issue of impeachable offenses. If someone has seen his instructions or knows what the current law is, that would be of interest in so much as the matter of impeachment will be considered. If the House flips next year, that is a distinct possibility. To put a more technical slant on it: Some folks are in deep doo-doo, and it might even be Trump himself. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3166 "2017-12-04T22:40:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Bayard** : > > I fear that disappointingly few people will in fact draw the line there. With the benefit of a larger sample size, I think we’ve learned that the Crazification Factor is, depressingly, closer to 40% than to 27%. The original Crazification Factor was actually 54%. You only get 27% if you assume that all of the crazies voted for Keyes, but it’s much more reasonable to assume that they split evenly between the two. Yes, there were plenty of good reasons to vote for Obama over Keyes, but not everyone who did so did it for a good reason. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3167 "2017-12-04T23:39:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Mueller is in a slightly different capacity, although much of what he is doing is the same. I have not seen the instructions he was given, and I’m not up on what the current law is, so he may or may not be required to address the issue of impeachable offenses. If someone has seen his instructions or knows what the current law is, that would be of interest in so much as the matter of impeachment will be considered. [http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html](http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html) > **[28 CFR § 600.4 - Jurisdiction.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4)** 600.4 C could be read to allow him to make recommendations of impeachment. I don’t know if it does, reasonably. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3168 "2017-12-05T00:12:42Z")
There is no document that makes it his sole or even primary duty. A prosecutor’s job is to investigate and prosecute where appropriate. I don’t think even John would argue that it’s appropriate to recommend (which is what Starr did, come on) that the House impeach for something that he couldn’t even charge - why, that would make it look like the whole point was to find something to get the target for, wouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3169 "2017-12-05T00:19:48Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > [DocumentCloud](http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html) > [28 CFR § 600.4 - Jurisdiction. | Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4) > > 600.4 C could be read to allow him to make recommendations of impeachment. I don’t know if it does, reasonably. The way I read that is that such recommendation would have to made to and only to the AG, not Congress. And then the AG would decide whether to include impeachment recommendations within the scope or not. I doubt Sessions would be open to that except in very extraordinary circumstances. And if Congress is receptive to impeachment, they don’t need no stinkin’ recommendation from Mueller anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3170 "2017-12-05T02:29:52Z")
Paul Manafort is literally [colluding with Russians](http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/manafort-bail-russian-intelligence/index.html) while out on bail. > [@](#): > > Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was ghostwriting an op-ed while out on bail last month with a Russian who has ties to the Russian intelligence service, Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Muller’s team said Monday. ---
**Author:** ![galen\_ubal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galen_ubal/32/4440_2.png) [@galen\_ubal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen_ubal)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3171 "2017-12-05T02:39:35Z")
H’m. If I’m reading matters correctly, it’s not completely settled whether or not a sitting President can be indicted. [Reading this article,](https://www.voanews.com/a/can-a-us-president-be-charged-with-a-crime/3961703.html) here’s a summary of the arguments: > [@](#): > > What are the arguments? > For those who say the president is immune from indictment, the argument basically comes down to the practicalities of governance. A criminal indictment, they say, would prevent the president from carrying out his or her constitutionally assigned functions as head of the executive branch, effectively hobbling the government. They say this principle is implicit in the Constitution. > > This is the position twice taken by federal lawyers in the U.S. Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel, which has considered the issue in 1973 and again in 2000. It would not be proper, they argue, for a jury’s guilty verdict to effectively overturn the will of the people, as expressed through a presidential election. > > But those on the other side of the debate argue if the framers of the Constitution wanted to make presidents immune from indictment, they would have explicitly written that immunity into the text. They argue another constitutional principle - that no person, including the president, is above the law - supersedes other considerations. > > Kenneth Starr, who headed the independent counsel investigation into former president Bill Clinton, espoused this view. > “It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties," according to a Starr office memo recently uncovered by The New York Times. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law,” the memo read. I recall reading elsewhere that the Watergate-era prosecutors considered indicting Nixon, but chose to go with the political solution. Sorry, no cite handy. An interesting question. Anyone care to comment? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3172 "2017-12-05T03:48:18Z")
AFAIK, it’s never been done or even tried, so it’s uncharted waters. I’m sure some prosecutor somewhere would LOVE to be the first person to do it, but there are just so many impediments in the way that I think it’s practically impossible. If there was anything serious enough to indict the president over, Congress would probably impeach first and the Senate would remove from office. Then, he’s just a citizen. ---
**Author:** ![galen\_ubal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galen_ubal/32/4440_2.png) [@galen\_ubal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen_ubal)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3173 "2017-12-05T04:20:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > AFAIK, it’s never been done or even tried, so it’s uncharted waters. I’m sure some prosecutor somewhere would LOVE to be the first person to do it, but there are just so many impediments in the way that I think it’s practically impossible. **If there was anything serious enough to indict the president over, Congress would probably impeach first and the Senate would remove from office.** Then, he’s just a citizen. {emphasis mine} It’d end up in the Supreme Court, to be sure. A partial argument may be made, however. It has been adjudicated in Clinton v. Jones that a sitting President may be sued for actions before or completely unrelated to his/her office. It seems to me that it would be a short step to arguing that a sitting President may be indicted, under the same theory that no one is above the law. On the bolded part, normally I’d agree, but I’m not so sanguine about the chances that _this_ Congress would agree. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3174 "2017-12-05T06:32:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If there was anything serious enough to indict the president over, Congress would probably impeach first and the Senate would remove from office. Then, he’s just a citizen. THIS Congress? Come on. Trump has been in the ass-pocket of a foreign government even before he was elected. Right NOW, Paul Manafort, his campaign manager, is colluding with a Russian spy, WHILE UNDER INDICTMENT FOR COLLUDING WITH RUSSIANS. There is nothing, literally NOTHING Trump could do that would induce the GOP to impeach or convict him. NOTHING. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3175 "2017-12-05T07:28:01Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > THIS Congress? Come on. Trump has been in the ass-pocket of a foreign government even before he was elected. Right NOW, Paul Manafort, his campaign manager, is colluding with a Russian spy, WHILE UNDER INDICTMENT FOR COLLUDING WITH RUSSIANS. > > There is nothing, literally NOTHING Trump could do that would induce the GOP to impeach or convict him. > > NOTHING. Not true. He could veto the tax cut. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3176 "2017-12-05T09:30:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The way I read that is that such recommendation would have to made to and only to the AG, not Congress. And then the AG would decide whether to include impeachment recommendations within the scope or not. I doubt Sessions would be open to that except in very extraordinary circumstances. And if Congress is receptive to impeachment, they don’t need no stinkin’ recommendation from Mueller anyway. Nitpick: Because Sessions recused himself, Rosenstein is the “AG” for the purposes of Mueller’s investigation. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3177 "2017-12-05T11:51:29Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > THIS Congress? Come on. Trump has been in the ass-pocket of a foreign government even before he was elected. Right NOW, Paul Manafort, his campaign manager, is colluding with a Russian spy, WHILE UNDER INDICTMENT FOR COLLUDING WITH RUSSIANS. > > There is nothing, literally NOTHING Trump could do that would induce the GOP to impeach or convict him. > > NOTHING. Once he puts his John Henry on that tax cut gift to the wealthy, they don’t need his sorry ass anymore. Or even now, Pence could sign it just as well as he could. Privately, they all admit that he’s as nutty as a fruitcake. If Mueller gives them enough reason, they will impeach and convict. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3178 "2017-12-05T12:10:15Z")
The authors of the Constitution did not want presidents going through criminal trials during their presidency. Clearly, the constitutionally valid way of dealing with a rogue president is impeachment, then criminal trial once removed from office, if that’s deemed necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3179 "2017-12-05T13:49:29Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Paul Manafort is literally [colluding with Russians](http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/manafort-bail-russian-intelligence/index.html) while out on bail. This type of thing makes “colluding with Russians” lose all meaning. > [@asahi](#): > > The authors of the Constitution did not want presidents going through criminal trials during their presidency. Clearly, the constitutionally valid way of dealing with a rogue president is impeachment, then criminal trial once removed from office, if that’s deemed necessary. I’m not a legal scholar or anything, but this is the type of legal thinking that I object to as a general principle. I don’t think the law should be based on speculation about what the authors of the Constitution wanted or didn’t want. Unless there’s something in the Constitution which specifically protects the president from criminal prosecution, then he should be subject to the law like anyone else, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3180 "2017-12-05T14:08:58Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > The authors of the Constitution did not want presidents going through criminal trials during their presidency. Clearly, the constitutionally valid way of dealing with a rogue president is impeachment, then criminal trial once removed from office, if that’s deemed necessary. A cite would be welcome. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3181 "2017-12-05T14:20:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Mueller is in a slightly different capacity, although much of what he is doing is the same. I have not seen the instructions he was given, and I’m not up on what the current law is, so he may or may not be required to address the issue of impeachable offenses. If someone has seen his instructions or knows what the current law is, that would be of interest in so much as the matter of impeachment will be considered. If the House flips next year, that is a distinct possibility. Impeachable offenses, however, aren’t the same as criminal offenses. Trump could quite conceivably have committed one or more high crimes and misdemeanors that are not criminal offenses, or may be but are not practically indictable. The set of things that constitute impeachable offenses is a vague one, and isn’t laid out in statute. Consequently it is not really Mueller’s area of expertise. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3182 "2017-12-05T14:29:43Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Impeachable offenses, however, aren’t the same as criminal offenses. Trump could quite conceivably have committed one or more high crimes and misdemeanors that are not criminal offenses, or may be but are not practically indictable. > > The set of things that constitute impeachable offenses is a vague one, and isn’t laid out in statute. Consequently it is not really Mueller’s area of expertise. But if he’s charged with doing so, then he hires someone on his staff who is an “expert” in the area. He’s the director of the investigation, not a worker bee. Let’s be realistic, though-- with only 2 impeachments under our belts as a nation, it’s not like there’s a whole lot of precedents out there. Anyway, it looks the new law governing the Independent Council’s authority has throttled it back quite a bit. Maybe the idea was to try and keep it out of the political realm as much as possible. Because let’s face it, impeachment is a political act. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3183 "2017-12-05T15:08:41Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > A cite would be welcome. Article II, section 4 of the Constitution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799.md?page=158) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799.md?page=160)