Can someone give me the cliff notes?

[loyalsister]

I understand the solid evidence, but a lot of things about the assumptions that apply to the investigation are vague to me because I am not very well versed in the relevant laws and policies.

1. How is it determined that another country is officially considered an enemy? Is that a necessary condition that defines this kind of corruption?

2. I have seen various suggestions. But, I am unclear about details of what specific criminal charges would apply to this unprecedented corruption.

I have come across many suggestions that I find questionable, so I would really like to know specific legal details about what would make this impeachable.

Also, who can call for a special prosecutor, or some other neutral investigative body or process?

Can someone help me understand better?

[PoliticAverse]

1. As to (1) if the US is involved in a declared war with a country, that country certainly qualifies..

as an "enemy". Note that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were not charged with treason and that the US was not in
a declared war with the USSR .

As to (2) was a crime involved? For example hacking into a computer is a crime as is conspiring with some person
or group to hack into someone's computer.

As to "specific legal details about what would make this impeachable.", the constitution specifies one can be impeached for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.”. As to "high crimes and misdemeanors." that's a general term and for background on its historical meaning, see: http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html
Note that impeachment is more a political process than a "legal" one.

As far as a "Special Prosecutor" (now called "Special Counsel&quot , here is a link to the current law on that issue:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2000-title28-vol2/xml/CFR-2000-title28-vol2-chapVI.xml

600.1
Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

§ 600.2
Alternatives available to the Attorney General.
When matters are brought to the attention of the Attorney General that might warrant consideration of appointment of a Special Counsel, the Attorney General may:
(a) Appoint a Special Counsel;
(b) Direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better inform the decision; or
(c) Conclude that under the circumstances of the matter, the public interest would not be served by removing the investigation from the normal processes of the Department, and that the appropriate component of the Department should handle the matter. If the Attorney General reaches this conclusion, he or she may direct that appropriate steps be taken to mitigate any conflicts of interest, such as recusal of particular officials.

As to other "neutral investigative body or process", Congress can investigate.

[loyalsister]

2. Thanks!

So, the decision of whether or not a specific crime is serious enough to be considered a high crime or misdemeanor is politically driven?

Thus, we need GOP members to either grow a conscience, or feel enough pressure (from donors, constituents, etc) to abandon 45?

[PoliticAverse]

3. I think it is vague enough to encompass general "abuse of power". But any actual crime

(felony or misdemeanor) certainly applies. I actually watch some of the Nixon impeachment hearings when they
occurred and one of my vivid memories is Republican Congressman Charles Sandman repeatedly claiming "these
are not impeachable offenses". He was wrong.

It is difficult to impeach and remove a president from office. Nixon would have survived impeachment if he hadn't
recorded himself on tape directing an illegal cover-up.

[loyalsister]

4. I think it should be difficult

Last edited Fri Mar 24, 2017, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe it should be more difficult?

Do you think not defining an impeachable offense as a crime that has had a direct effect on the presidency itself was a founders error?

Bill Clinton clearly committed a crime, but I and other reasonable people don't believe it should have been impeachable.

On the other hand, it seems that limits on what is impeachable could also backfire.