I'm not going to lose hope about everything else. I think our chances in 2018 depend a lot on how much people feel the pain from Republican legislation between now and then.

...I can't argue with your logic, as far as it goes. But I feel that something will break between now and the next election, something that will upset every applecart there is. The survival of liberal democracy in the US is on a razor's edge, and somehow, in some way, the issue will be decided before November, 2020, and don't ask me what I mean because I couldn't tell you. But this fever we're all in simply can't last until then... (I also think your assumption is very unlikely, because Trump *is* guilty of treason...)

There are a range of personal opinions on that question, but there is no controlling authority on that question.

In order to answer that question, an indictment would have to be issued, and the courts would have to decide a preliminary challenge based on that proposition.

Any number of legal scholars could give a range of opinions on the question, but at the end of the day, the answer is "we do not know". The reason we do not know is because it simply hasn't come up before. In general, the US has not elected presidents who have committed felonies before or during their term of office for which prosecution was sought.

Whether a sitting president can or cannot be indicted is simply a matter of belief at this point. Certainly, Vice President Agnew was charged with criminal offenses while in office, and certainly any number of presidents have dealt with civil lawsuits while in office.

But, at bottom, while there are a range of persuasive opinions on the subject, the bottom line is that we simply do not know. These opinions proceed from a variety of general principles, but at the end of the day, if the president pulls out a gun and shoots someone on the White House lawn, we do not know, specifically, what would happen because, again, we've just never had to deal with that sort of a situation before.

We don't have to flip red districts where the Republican won by twenty four points to capture the House which is what Doc Price did in his district. There are a lot more vulnerable Republicans, nearly ninety of them.

suggests that a bottom up indictment strategy would be most effective.

Presumably, there are multiple arenas of investigation which independently & collectively involve indictable acts. The sheer depth & breadth of the collective operation being investigated would require the active participation of multiple parties ... some of whom are most likely KGOP House/Senate persons.

These would be the same persons impeding impeachment....
So, by indicting those in the legislative branch first, the likelihood of successful impeachment & senate conviction increases.

Meanwhile, we must keep in mind that felonious acts have yet to cease...
*45 & klan continue to ignore the rule of law and there is no indication that this pattern of behavior will change.

There is another untested grey area involving the duty of the 3rd co-equal branch to serve as a check /balance when both the Leg. & Exec. are complicit in allowing the Presidential abuse of power to the extent that there is no longer a balance of the shared (but separate) powers.

There is a first time for everything.

regarding indictments, imho a sitting president can be indicted, certainly by states (i'm thinking new york in particular) and i believe by the federal government as well. whether a sitting president can be *tried* while in office is a more interesting question, it's entirely possible that the supreme court might agree that such a trial could be postponed until he's no longer in office. then again, civil cases can proceed while in office (they did this to clinton).

regarding congress, winning back the house is possible but still an uphill battle. then we could indict and force a senate trial, but it's impossible to get 67 democrats in the senate. so we'd still need a good number of republicans to actually convict and remove him.

that's not at all likely now, but a major democratic sweep in the mid-terms might shake enough republicans loose, as they may then see a continued benedict donald in office as too much of a liability. possible, but still very much against the odds imho.

so much so that i don't know that democrats would even bother to impeach. of course they *should*, but washington democrats just don't seem to think that way.


as for the 2020 race, still rather far away, i'll just say i hope it's not a senator. i think we need all the seats we can get and don't want to lose one.