# 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:** 160
**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, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3184 "2017-12-05T15:11:57Z")
The Constitution says nothing about a President being unchargeable or untryable or unconvictable in the criminal justice process. Are you under the impression that impeachment takes its place for them? Or do you not see the part where that is specifically separated? ---
**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, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3185 "2017-12-05T15:14:49Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This type of thing makes “colluding with Russians” lose all meaning.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. It’s common sense. There are probably millions of regulations and statutes on the books across all of the many jurisdictions that the president serves. It would be impractical to the point of absurdity to suggest that the president could be held criminally liable and subjected to criminal trial proceedings while in office for violating any of these offenses. He could certainly be tried after leaving office if the behavior is found to be criminal and not associated with the normal functions of his job, but to suggest he can be criminally prosecuted while serving is laughable. ---
**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, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3186 "2017-12-05T15:17:33Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The Constitution says nothing about a President being unchargeable or untryable or unconvictable in the criminal justice process. > > Are you under the impression that impeachment takes its place for them? Or do you not see the part where that is specifically separated? He can be charged, convicted, locked up with the key thrown away – after he is removed from office. It would be dangerous to our nation’s political stability, however, to have potential rivals coming out of the woodwork and deciding to charge the president with all sorts of criminal conduct while he’s serving. There’s a reason that impeachment has a political standard (a very high one) and not a legal one. ---
**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, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3187 "2017-12-05T15:19:52Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > It’s common sense. There are probably millions of regulations and statutes on the books across all of the many jurisdictions that the president serves. It would be impractical to the point of absurdity to suggest that the president could be held criminally liable and subjected to criminal trial proceedings while in office for violating any of these offenses. He could certainly be tried after leaving office if the behavior is found to be criminal and not associated with the normal functions of his job, but to suggest he can be criminally prosecuted while serving is laughable. I don’t see it as a big deal. I know many people who have managed to avoid prosecution for 4 or even 8 years despite all those millions of regulations and statutes. But even if it would be “impractical to the point of absurdity”, I don’t think you can create laws on that basis alone. If that’s indeed the case, then pass a law or amendment supporting it. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3188 "2017-12-05T15:22:01Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > He can be charged, convicted, locked up with the key thrown away – after he is removed from office. It would be dangerous to our nation’s political stability, however, to have potential rivals coming out of the woodwork and deciding to charge the president with all sorts of criminal conduct while he’s serving. There’s a reason that impeachment has a political standard (a very high one) and not a legal one. You seem much more sure of this than a lot of legal minds are. I think you way overestimate what the Constitution actually says about this. ---
**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, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3189 "2017-12-05T15:35:27Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > He can be charged, convicted, locked up with the key thrown away – after he is removed from office. There is nothing in the Constitution or the law to require such forbearance. > [@](#): > > It would be dangerous to our nation’s political stability, however, to have potential rivals coming out of the woodwork and deciding to charge the president with all sorts of criminal conduct while he’s serving. We survived it with Johnson and Clinton, didn’t we? In Nixon’s case, we had to do it, and the same for Trump. > [@](#): > > There’s a reason that impeachment has a political standard (a very high one) and not a legal one. There is no standard for what is impeachable. ---
**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, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3190 "2017-12-05T15:39:07Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This type of thing makes “colluding with Russians” lose all meaning. Collusion has always meant secret cooperation, and ghostwriting a pro-Russia op-ed is both secret and cooperative. This is textbook collusion in spite the fact that you prefer to use an extremely non-standard definition of collusion and your insistence that everyone was using your weird definition of collusion at the start of this. ---
**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, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3191 "2017-12-05T15:44:57Z")
Not going to bother with semantic games. Though I should add that you’re misrepresenting the facts in a manner that fits your position. Manafort didn’t try to write a “pro-Russia op-ed”. He tried to write a pro-Manafort op-ed. ---
**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, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3192 "2017-12-05T15:56:10Z")
You are the only one playing semantic games. You are the one with the unique definition of collusion. Collusion means secret cooperation. You can look it up. Manafort’s ghostwriting activities were both secret and cooperative regardless of the content of the op-ed. This is a canonical example of collusion. Insisting that secret cooperation is not collusion is the kind of semantic game that causes “colluding with Russians” to lose all meaning. ---
**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, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3193 "2017-12-05T15:59:36Z")
By all means, have fun. ---
**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, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3194 "2017-12-05T16:05:20Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > By all means, have fun. Thanks buddy. I will. ---
**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, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3195 "2017-12-05T16:30:55Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > You seem much more sure of this than a lot of legal minds are. I think you way overestimate what the Constitution actually says about this. The president could just end a criminal investigation and dare congress to throw him out of power. He could keep firing attorneys generals, federal agents, and lawyers until he’s forced out of power, either by congress or military coup. The president can do whatever the hell he wants until he is stopped by political force. If he doesn’t want to be investigated, he won’t be. It has nothing to do with legal minds. ---
**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, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3196 "2017-12-05T16:32:53Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > There is no standard for what is impeachable. Precisely - because it’s a political process that doesn’t involve criminal courts. ---
**Author:** ![SingleMalt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/singlemalt/32/3961_2.png) [@SingleMalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleMalt)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3197 "2017-12-05T18:23:25Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > He can be charged, convicted, locked up with the key thrown away – after he is removed from office. It would be dangerous to our nation’s political stability, however, to have potential rivals coming out of the woodwork and deciding to charge the president with all sorts of criminal conduct while he’s serving. There’s a reason that impeachment has a political standard (a very high one) and not a legal one. This conclusion is by no means a given, and many legal minds (including Ken Starr) have argued the opposite: a sitting president [can be criminally indicted.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-president-can-be-indicted--just-not-by-mueller/2017/07/27/a597b922-721d-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.bc2d50f8deb6) However, no court has had the opportunity to rule on this. ---
**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, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3198 "2017-12-05T20:14:29Z")
> [@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 sure this is true but even if it is (which I doubt), I say screw the Founders. They didn’t anticipate having a criminal president conspiring to turn the nation over to a hostile foreign power and having one so intent on ignoring the rule of law. This fucker needs to be convicted and imprisoned (better yet, executed) as an example so that future would-be dictators aren’t tempted to follow his destructive, criminal, treasonous path. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3199 "2017-12-05T20:29:27Z")
> [@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. Kaveladze again? ---
**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, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3200 "2017-12-05T20:32:58Z")
> [@SingleMalt](#): > > This conclusion is by no means a given, and many legal minds (including Ken Starr) have argued the opposite: a sitting president [can be criminally indicted.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-president-can-be-indicted--just-not-by-mueller/2017/07/27/a597b922-721d-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.bc2d50f8deb6) However, no court has had the opportunity to rule on this. There is also no reason that a sitting president couldn’t continue in office after he was indicted or even convicted. So, unless you want to initiate a constitutional crisis, it seems rather pointless to even try to convict before impeachment and removal from office. ---
**Author:** ![SingleMalt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/singlemalt/32/3961_2.png) [@SingleMalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleMalt)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3201 "2017-12-05T21:20:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > There is also no reason that a sitting president couldn’t continue in office after he was indicted or even convicted. So, unless you want to initiate a constitutional crisis, it seems rather pointless to even try to convict before impeachment and removal from office. This doesn’t preclude the Oval Office being reduced to a more rectangular 6x9 cell, does it? We are well into uncharted territory here. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3202 "2017-12-05T21:29:52Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The Constitution says nothing about a President being unchargeable or untryable or unconvictable in the criminal justice process. > > Are you under the impression that impeachment takes its place for them? Or do you not see the part where that is specifically separated? In fact, the Constitution also says, “Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.” That seems to indicate that the Founding Fathers expected that people who are impeached would also be tried for crimes. ---
**Author:** ![SingleMalt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/singlemalt/32/3961_2.png) [@SingleMalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleMalt)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/3203 "2017-12-05T21:35:25Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > In fact, the Constitution also says, “Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.” That seems to indicate that the Founding Fathers expected that people who are impeached would also be tried for crimes. IANAL, but I see this as an exclusion to double jeopardy, in that the impeachment and Senate trial do not obviate another, criminal trial (“shall nevertheless be liable”). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799.md?page=159) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799.md?page=161)