Tweety just shat in his Post Toasties.

[Atticus]

Had to replay the question he just asked his guests! Essentially, "Assume it is proven that Trump's people did cooperate with Russians, thanked them for all the dirt on Hillary and assured them that 'We'll take care of you' once we are in office'---IS THAT IMPEACHABLE???"

Hello?

Read that again: is committing treason and lying about it to get elected impeachable?

He should hear from a lot of us about this!

[Kablooie]

1. Depending on who he was talking to that could be a reasonable question.

Journalistwise, if you have an expert on a topic you can throw them an obvious question because you want to get their view on the topic. For the interviewer to make a statement just presents the interviewer's opinion and might discourage the expert guest from explaining the topic fully.

[FreepFryer]

3. +1 (n/t)

[FreepFryer]

2. Seems like a good question with an easy answer. How did the panel answer? (n/t)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. They didn't want to hypothesize

If Trump colluded with the Russian he would be impeached and removed and if the GOP didn't remove him him and they would be punished at the ballot box.

The market for traitors is thankfully small.

[Gabi Hayes]

7. what's that airhead from DC Examiner/Daily Mail doing on all the time?

has she ever said anything worth listening to?

[lapucelle]

4. For Trump to be guilty of and convicted for treason,

his action would have had to fulfill these necessary conditions set out in Article III section 3 of the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

That's a very high bar. He could, however, be impeached for reasons other than treason.

[regnaD kciN]

9. Exactly...

We're all fond of using the "treason!" charge against Trump and, in a theoretical or moral sense, it could very well be true. But the legal meaning of treason requires aiding an enemy nation...and, although we may not like Putin, it would be a difficult task to prove that Russia is our enemy at this present time. For that to happen, they'd have to either attack us militarily, or do the same to one of our NATO allies. Until then, they are, at best, a geopolitical rival, but not an outright enemy.

It's much like after the 2000 SCOTUS coup -- although there is a sense in which one could say that the Gang of Five betrayed the principles of American democracy and installed the losing candidate, legally-speaking, they had Constitutional grounds to rule on the recount, and weren't forbidden to rule as they did. Theoretical treason, but not legal treason.

[itsrobert]

6. sounds like it was a rhetorical question

obvious answer.

[elehhhhna]

8. No but he could be impeached for blowing Putin in the Oval office.