I need Poli-Sci help...how can "IT" not be tried for collusion but can get fired for espionage?

[BigmanPigman]

I don't understand what can and can't happen. And if Mueller's not getting him for collusion then what is aiming for? I am ignorant in these terms and legalities and need this cleared up. Thanks.

[leftstreet]

1. You can 'espionage' without 'colluding' with anyone

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. There is a general principle that a sitting president can't be tried for a crime

until he leaves office. This was determined by the special counsel during the Watergate scandal, but the law on this is not definitive. There is no statute addressing "collusion" by name, but there are many relating to conspiracy, which is essentially the same thing. If the investigation turns up clear evidence that Trump, and not just members of his campaign, was personally involved in the Russians' efforts to influence the election, he certainly could be prosecuted, at least after he leaves office, if that collusion involved the specific elements of some statutory crime - like espionage. There are other statutes relating to election fraud that might also apply.

I would not be surprised if the investigation discovers evidence of financial crimes, notably money-laundering and racketeering, in which Trump aided in laundering Russian money. And there was a quid pro quo - meaning that in exchange for Trump's money laundering through real estate transactions (to avoid sanctions) the Russians would hack the election to destabilize our government. So now the Russians own Trump. Collusion implies an equal relationship but there really isn't one because Trump now has to do what the Russians want in order to keep his dodgy financial dealings secret. As we learned during Watergate, the answers will be found when you follow the money.

[BigmanPigman]

3. Thanks. One more question...

If there isn't an actual law but a "general principle" that only came up as a result of the Nixon crimes then can a new or different general principle develop for this particular fiasco? Are some of them writing this as they go along since it has never happened before and doesn't have legal precedent?