Trump is in violation of the 14th Amendment, Section 3

[Bernardo de La Paz]

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Trump (Republican) has given aid and comfort to Russia.

He should be impeached on this basis as soon as Mueller presents evidence or sooner if incontrovertible evidence is otherwise presented.

[rogerashton]

1. Interesting idea but

that clause was pretty clearly meant to exclude Confederate officials. If there were a declared war with Russia, then it might apply. But it wouldn't fly in peacetime.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Even if 14th was originally meant for slavery, it has been applied to same-sex marriage & Roe v Wade

Russia has attacked the US with cyber warfare and subverted its electoral system which includes the news and social media necessary to free elections.

Further, the right loves to say that we are in wartime because of 9/11 and Afghanistan and "islam".

Wartime is not a necessary requirement for having enemies.

[hedda_foil]

8. True. The cold war was never a declared war, yet the Rosenbergs were convicted for treason.

[MrsCoffee]

9. They were convicted of espionage.

[onenote]

12. actually, as the law currently stands, wartime or something close to it is necessary

There are a variety of indicia of when nations are enemies. Being named as an enemy pursuant to the Trading With the Enemies Act, is one. Severing diplomatic relations is another. Cutting off trade and travel with the country are further indicia.

Russia hasn't been named an enemy under the Trading with the Enemies Act. Diplomatic relations, while strained, continue to exist between the US and Russia. Trade between the two countries continues as does travel.

[malaise]

2. LOCK HIM UP! n/t

[samnsara]

3. I think his hate filled rallies would qualify!

[Lee-Lee]

5. Without a state of war existing it would ever fly

And it would set a dangerous precedent if it did, because if a state of war is not needed to declare a state or group an enemy you could conceivably pretty much declare any nation or group an "enemy".

That would become a horrendously abused power.

[loyalsister]

14. for example

A war on terror against "enemy combatants."

[ewagner]

6. Not quite....

the person had to be an elected or executive officer who 1. took an oath of allegiance to the U.S.; and 2. Violated that by performing an act of insurrection.

[Ford_Prefect]

7. Treason and Espionage would seem qualified as classes of insurrection.

[Igel]

11. No so far.

But hey, it's a living document. Let's redefine "insurrection" as "doing things we don't like."

So far his "treason" in office has been sharing classified information that was classified under his authority--with far more and more damaging information about that particular information's source going straight from the NYT to Putin's ear.

"We have somebody in ISIS." Ouch. But nobody knew this except the US, the Israelis, and Putin, Lavrov and their intelligence service. None of them are friends with ISIS. Perhaps he told Assad's crew. Again, not friends with ISIS. Maybe Assad's agencies got the information and they're infiltrated. But the maybes are stacking up here.

"We have somebody in ISIS," the NYT announced to ISIS. No maybe. The only out would be if ISIS had moles in the US intelligence service or the WH.

Which is closer to treason, to helping an enemy we're actually exchanging live fire with?

"We got that information from the Israelis, and instead of it being a man on the ground--let them look for that sucker all they want--it's actually because of a vulnerability in their computers that the Israelis hacked"--the NYT told both Putin and ISIS. Apparently the WH didn't know this. The NYT told Trump the information the same time it told ISIS.

Quick: Who did more damage to the espionage against ISIS?

And, no, it's not a done deal, the information given to Russia didn't lead, as a force of nature might, to the NYT's publishing information not given to Russia.

[Ford_Prefect]

13. I was not speaking of the ISIS source reveal since that is barely within the president's purview.

I refer to the actions taken before and since the election which were done in aid of a foreign power and to subvert our national government and the Constitution. No state of war is required. The NYT and other media of record have no part in that conspiracy.

[NightWatcher]

10. Repukes on Fox are already saying "so what if he's guilty". They don't care.

[brooklynite]

15. Is Russia our enemy?

That's a legal question. Define an enemy of the United States.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. A country that has attacked the US, for example the way Russia has.

Russia engaged in cyber warfare and interfered with the 2016 Presidential election and possibly state and Congressional elections too.

[TomSlick]

17. Nifty analysis, but

This section pretty clearly applied only to confederate officers, etc. It only applied to persons who "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States. Since the last "insurrection or rebellion against" the United States was the civil war, It's a dead letter unless there is another "insurrection or rebellion."

There are plenty of sound valid reasons Trump will (I hope) be impeached one day. There is no reason to get creative. KISS - Keep it simple, Sir.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. The section says "or given aid or comfort to the enemies", not just insurrection or rebellion.

I agree that there are other valid reason for impeachment and that keeping things simple is generally better.