Hypothetically speaking, what if Trump or his proxies had colluded with the Russians?

[bone]

What would be the implications on his presidency to date? Fruit from the poison tree, so to speak, not as it relates to evidence in the true legal sense, but as a matter of policy, etc.

Let's discuss.

If this was legitimate, verifiable collusion proving without doubt Donald Trump working directly in concert with the Russian government prior to the election with the express intent to influence the outcome of the election he would get impeached IMHO. There would be bipartisan support from both political parties in both houses of Congress. That's why the Nixon impeachment worked. And that's also why the Clinton impeachment blew up in the Republican's faces and ushered in a very long lived Democratic Congressional majority.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't make excuses for him and I would want him gone pronto.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

If this was legitimate, verifiable collusion proving without doubt Donald Trump working directly in concert with the Russian government prior to the election with the express intent to influence the outcome of the election he would get impeached IMHO. There would be bipartisan support from both political parties in both houses of Congress. That's why the Nixon impeachment worked. And that's also why the Clinton impeachment blew up in the Republican's faces and ushered in a very long lived Democratic Congressional majority.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't make excuses for him and I would want him gone pronto.

Right, I understand that. Impeachment would be a certainty. But if the means of a Trump victory in 2016 were corrupt from the get-go, and Trump et al were willing participants, then what of everything that followed his inauguration? That is why I used the poorly chosen legal metaphor of fruit from the poisonous tree (since I am not referring to evidence in the metaphor, but the very existence of the administration).

 

[exGOPer]

How did Hillary's agents get info on Trump if they did not "collude" with Russian agents?
If you need the legal definition of principal and agent look it up before posting.

Give me this legal definition of collusion then.

Hillary hired a lawyer - who hired a registered American research firm - who then hired an ex British Agent with subject expertise on Russia - who then INTERVIEWED ex-Russian agents but according to the Infowars Think Tank, Hillary 'hired' agents'.

Stop peddling horse manure, this isn't your Breitbart comment section where every nonsensical drivel is treated as gospel.

 

[bone]

Right, I understand that. Impeachment would be a certainty. But if the means of a Trump victory in 2016 were corrupt from the get-go, and Trump et al were willing participants, then what of everything that followed his inauguration? That is why I used the poorly chosen legal metaphor of fruit from the poisonous tree (since I am not referring to evidence in the metaphor, but the very existence of the administration).

Well, I happen to agree with Nancy Pelosi - for impeachment to work, the irrefutable evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" has to reach a level where both parties in both houses supports impeachment. And that is not an impossible threshold - both parties were thoroughly disgusted by Richard Nixon.

If Nadler wants to pursue impeachment proceedings on Kavanaugh or Trump it would be political suicide for 2020 without buy in from at least a fair number of Republicans.

Those are just my own thoughts.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Give me this legal definition of collusion then.

Hillary hired a lawyer - who hired a registered American research firm - who then hired an ex British Agent with subject expertise on Russia - who then INTERVIEWED ex-Russian agents but according to the Infowars Think Tank, Hillary 'hired' agents'.

Stop peddling horse manure, this isn't your Breitbart comment section where every nonsensical drivel is treated as gospel.

I agree. Even so, TJustice is welcome to start his own thought experiment thread to that end and see where it goes. I just wish respondents would stick to the topic at hand.

Perhaps if I ask nicely, they will leave their whataboutisms at the door and respond genuinely to the hypothetical scenario at hand. I'm not saying here that this happened or will be proven. I just want to know where the scenario logically and legally concludes. Surely even the most ardent Trump supporter would be dismayed with this entirely hypothetical scenario of outright collusion as I imaginatively described it.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Well, I happen to agree with Nancy Pelosi - for impeachment to work, the irrefutable evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" has to reach a level where both parties in both houses supports impeachment. And that is not an impossible threshold - both parties were thoroughly disgusted by Richard Nixon.

If Nadler wants to pursue impeachment proceedings on Kavanaugh or Trump it would be political suicide for 2020 without buy in from at least a fair number of Republicans.

Those are just my own thoughts.

And that would be it? What of all of the executive decisions and whatever enacted by a (hypothetically) corruptly placed president? Would they all still stand as though they were enacted by a legitimate president? And would Pence then be at the helm? Remember, he would have been chosen by a corruptly place president.

 

[exGOPer]

I agree. Even so, TJustice is welcome to start his own thought experiment thread to that end and see where it goes. I just wish respondents would stick to the topic at hand.

Perhaps if I ask nicely, they will leave their whataboutisms at the door and respond genuinely to the hypothetical scenario at hand. I'm not saying here that this happened or will be proven. I just want to know where the scenario logically and legally concludes. Surely even the most ardent Trump supporter would be dismayed with this entirely hypothetical scenario of outright collusion as I imaginatively described it.

Let it be very clear, these people do not care if Trump committed crimes, they will keep shifting the goal posts and play victim crying about Hillary/DeepState/Media and what not. Do not expect any standards from these people.

 

[Poindexter]

Hillary hired a lawyer - who hired a registered American research firm - who then hired an ex British Agent with subject expertise on Russia - who then INTERVIEWED ex-Russian agents but according to the Infowars Think Tank, Hillary 'hired' agents'.

Stop peddling horse manure, this isn't your Breitbart comment section where every nonsensical drivel is treated as gospel.

Jonathan Turley: If Trump meeting is illegal, then Clinton dossier is criminal too
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...-illegal-then-clinton-dossier-is-criminal-too

 

[Frederick Foresight]

*Sigh*

 

[exGOPer]

Jonathan Turley: If Trump meeting is illegal, then Clinton dossier is criminal too
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...-illegal-then-clinton-dossier-is-criminal-too

And like clockwork, what did I say, even their paid lawyers are whatabouters.

Listen troll, prosecute the 'dossier', who gives a shit? Who cares about Hillary? Who cares about Comey?