I think the Republicans want him to go as well as the Dems. They are just being coy while they look for a Republican to run in his place. I think 45 is doing some good things but he just keeps tweeting insults to too many people.

@Grecio You're giving him more credit than he deserves. I don't think he's doing anything "good" at all.

@KKGator Who do you favor for the Dem presidential candidate? just Asking. Some of the Dems socialist views don't sound that bad really. Some free government healthcare, redistribute the wealth, free college (I am not being facetious)

@Grecio I haven't chosen anyone to support yet. I'm not particularly enamored of any of them.

Although, as an Independent, I don't support Schlutz either. The fact that he is responsible for Starbucks does not impress me.
I really don't want to see any Independents in the mix this go round. I don't want anyone taking votes away from 45's opponent, whomever that may end up being.

I think there was an internal DOJ memo that has been cited as well. I do see the logic in a sitting president having better, more important duties than to have to defend garbage suits, however, no one is above the law. As this is a unique situation without case law it will be interesting to see how it plays out. The current political divisiveness will definitely play a role.

@MizJ I agree with you that no one is above the law.

Look at that! It doesn't say ANYTHING about having to be "at war".

@KKGator That's why I got curious and looked for the statute, I would have been surprised if being at war was a requisite. Treason could weaken our defenses and make us vulnerable.

@MizJ Thank you for doing the research and posting it.

@KKGator You're welcome. All I did was stick "US treason law" into the search bar. I am truly curious to see whether Mueller's findings will be made public in part or full. The redactions in the public version of the filed indictments are making me crazy.

@MizJ Yeah, me too.

Levies war against, but not be at war.

@KKGator, @t1nick, @MizJ when you go see your doctor do you argue with him or her? Do you really want to argue the law with an attorney? An enemy as defined under the statute is a country or party within the country in which we are in a declared state of war. There is more to the practice of law than reading a statute. You have to know the legal definition of the terms within the statute, which is one of the innumerable areas of knowledge obtained over a three-year period of full-time study of the law. That is why we receive a doctoral degree and have to pass a 3-day exam which is 24 hours long. Come back when you are attorneys and I will be happy to argue any legal issue with you.

@mooredolezal Thanks for the clarification. I don't think your defensiveness is warranted though. By people more knowledgable weighing in, in specific areas is how we learn.

@mooredolezal.

yes I have argued with my doctor I was proven to be correct. We are just human aftercall and fallable. Medicine is notorius for holding on to old paradigms and knowledge in which new information has replaced or corrected. Doctors are generally so busy it difficult for them to keep up. Plus technology and science moves so fast, it can be difficult to keep up with the new information.

I do not know if that is true for the law profession.

@mooredolezal I have NO problem arguing with anyone about anything.
I have very little respect for "authority", whether it be a doctor or anyone else. Lawyers aren't special. I'll argue with them, too.
You being so defensive is unfortunate for you. It doesn't matter much to me.

@KKGator if you think you know more than a professional or expert in any given field then you are a fool, a narcissist, or both. Not having respect for someone, contrary to your belief. is not a positive attribute. I hope you find yourself in court one day and are disrespectful to the judge. You sound like a modern-day teenage asshole that is a product of poor parenting. As far as my being defensive, don't be so definitive and absolutist in your erroneous argument and you will find me less defensive. I prefer discussion over correction, but you made that impossible.
I do question why you are replying if it does not matter to you(and will probably do so again)?

@KKGator, @t1nick yes it is very true for the legal profession. Is constantly evolving and growing. As far as my example,I was making a generalization. Of course doctors make mistakes. Maybe your neurosurgeon would have been a better example. Or any other specialized field where you have no knowledge. Perhaps even your lawyer!?

@t1nick you are absolutely correct, my comment was not really aimed at you. Accept my apologies, I should have responded to you separately.

I really want there to be verified grounds for him to be charged with treason.
Then, I want him to be executed for treason after he's been found guilty.

@KKGator treason is not applicable. One can only be charged with treason when they give aid or comfort to an enemy with whom which we are currently in a declared state of war.

He may however, be charged with espionage.

@mooredolezal Congress could always pass new legislation to alter those parameters.
Hey, if I'm going to ardently hope for his legal execution, I'm going to want the law to accommodate that.
Although, I wouldn't cry over his assassination, either.

Addendum

He could absolutely be charged with treason.
The nation does NOT need to be at war for treason to be applicable.
Please see @MizJ's post.

That is why several of the charges were deferred to the SDNY (Southern District of New York), a state jurisdiction. I believe here are no statute of limitations on his crimes in this District ( I could be wrong). But it doesn't preclude that he can be indicted while a sitting president.

@t1nick there was always a statute of limitations except for murder. It would be better to indict him after he has left office. Unless you want to try him while he is actually in office. Remember he has a right to a speedy trial that he can invoke.

@KKGator yes and monkeys could fly out of my ass! What kind of argument is that the law could change so you are right?

@KKGator Do you really want to argue the law with an attorney? An enemy as defined under the statute is a country or party within the country in which we are in a declared state of war. There is more to the practice of law than reading a statute. You have to know the definition of the terms within the statute. That is why we receive a doctoral degree and have to pass a 3-day exam which is 24 hours long. If you want to argue the law with me I suggest you become an attorney first to avoid any further embarrassment.

@mooredolezal Some his Federal crimes have a a statute of limitations that will expire while he is in office if he gains a second term.

@mooredolezal Again, I'll argue with anyone about anything, if I'm in the mood to.
You can stuff your "superiority".
It doesn't matter to me that you are an attorney.

@KKGator if you are talking about my superiority as to knowledge of the law over you or any other layperson you are correct. I could care less who you argue with, if you want to make a fool of yourself go ahead.

@KKGator, @t1nick yes I know that. I was speaking to the this term in office.