General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnd why isn't treason being mentioned?
Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2018, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)
How is this not treason?
ETA on 12/18: Apparently Judge Sullivan and others don't know that one cannot presently be accused of treason. I didn't notice anyone mentioning not being in a declared war (yes, I know that's what the Constitution says).
From WaPo:
(snip)
When the judge asked if Flynn could be charged with treason, special counsel prosecutor Brandon Van Grack responded, “It’s such a serious question, I’m hesitant to answer it.” He clarified later the government had “no reason to believe that Mr. Flynn committed treason . . . and no concerns over issues related to treason.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pwb
(11,246 posts)Lots more coming out. Patience.
shraby
(21,946 posts)
tblue37
(65,227 posts)But espionage is a likely charge eventually.
Wasn’t GHW Bush’s Dad the only person to be charged under the Dealing With The Enemy Act?
dflprincess
(28,072 posts)which, to me, has always sounded like a money laundry outfit for German industrialist (I've never seen that term used for the bank).
The Federal government seized the banks assets under the Trading with the Enemies Act, but I don't believe Prescott or anyone else was personally charged. Historians have tried to paint Prescott of ignorant of the what the bank's real purpose was.
Prescott went on to be elected to the Senate from Connecticut and, to this day, the annual dinner the Republicans in that state have is called the "Prescott Bush Dinner".
marybourg
(12,586 posts)“Espionage Act” in connection with HRC foreshadows the eventual, completely appropriate use of the words in connection with tRump. It works this way every time with him.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)We used to mock the Right for misusing that word, but now we sling it around with no regard to its actual meaning.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,255 posts)
Article III, Section 3
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.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii#section3
It's indisputable that Trump has given aid to Putin's Russia, which is actively hostile to the United States. What value to Putin were the sanctions that Trump didn't impose, delayed imposing? The value of the propaganda by Trump for Putin would be harder to quantify. The value to Putin of Trump's attacks on our allies around the world would likewise be hard to quantify. Someone can put a dollar amount on the sanctions.
The big question is: How treasonous has Trump been?
This is completely separate from whether or not he should be indicted, impeached, and convicted for the recently revealed campaign finance felonies.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)on DU. “Treason” has a meaning, “enemy” has a meaning, and neither are applicable in this instance. It’s a tiresome and tedious argument, and you’re quite simply wrong.
Hell, even the Rosenbergs weren’t charged with treason, and we were much more thoroughly at odds with the Soviets then than we are with the Russians now.
elocs
(22,542 posts)“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
We have people for whom the word 'treason' means what they choose it to mean...nothing more, nothing less, and there is no arguing with them about it.
Baltimike
(4,138 posts)for war to be declared on us.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)“the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A)declared war; (B)armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C)armed conflict between military forces of any origin”
So no, “cyberwar” is not an act of war as legally defined.
Baltimike
(4,138 posts)It's like saying if we only use bombs, and not guns, we have not had an armed conflict.
The Pentagon and WH both define cyber war as war: https://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2012/06/05/the-white-house-and-pentagon-deem-cyber-attacks-an-act-of-war/#3ea0378568ef
Mike Flynn "ARMY OF DIGITAL SOLDIERS"
Codeine
(25,586 posts)unlike the US Code.
Baltimike
(4,138 posts)But I guess we'll see.
onenote
(42,590 posts)There are billions of dollars in trade in between the two countries. Us citizens can and visit Russia as tourists and vice versa. Russia is not recognized by the US as an “enemy” under the Trading with the Enemies”. Just some of the evidence that a state of war does not exist between the US and Russia.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)the legal parameters of warfare, Congress and the courts make those decisions. No state of war - real or imagined, shooting or cyber - exists between Russia and the US.
Baltimike
(4,138 posts)Because whether or not that be true (and I maintain it is *NOT* the case) you are not the arbiter of these narrow definitions.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Your arguments consist of unfounded assertions and opinion not backed up by legal documentation. I do not claim to be the arbiter of *anything*, I’m merely pointing to the documents used by those who ARE the arbiters of those narrow definitions.
Baseless repetition and continued loud braying doesn’t create reality, no matter how badly you want it to do so. The US has codified legal definitions for treason, for acts of war, and for enemies. The standard for these terms has not been met, not even remotely. I guarantee that there is not one official in the entire government who would make a legal argument that a state of war exists between our nation and Putin’s regime.
Everyone here wants the Tangerine Idi Amin and his wretched little coterie of family and hangers-on out of office, humiliated, jailed, and ruined for life. That desire does not change the fact that pretending a treason charge is applicable is a bit silly and has zero basis in reality.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)1) "consists only" means that application is restricted to a very specific set of facts and context.
2) it is applied only to going to war against the US or assisting an enemy that is at war with the US. We are not at war with Russia any more than we are at war with other geopolitical actors who we sometimes compete with and sometimes are in conflict with.
triron
(21,984 posts)It is ridiculous not to recognize a cyber attack on our electoral system as anything but war.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Not only are we not in a "state of war" we are not in a "cyber war".
A real cyber war hasn't happened yet but when it does it will involve stripping banks of their data bases so entire populations have no access to account information, taking down the electric grid, wiping out air control functions across an entire country and so on.
What happened was a propaganda campaign that was skilfully used through social media to interfere in our elections.
The US has been interfering in elections for decades. When we deposed democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran in 1953, to name a single example where we have admitted our involvement, we were interfering with the internal affairs of another country.
It was illegal, immoral, unwise and counter productive. It did not create a "state of war".
Currently we have a complex and competitive relationship with Russia. In some areas (like supporting the international space station and cooperating against Al Queda and ISIS) we cooperate.
In other areas we compete and other areas we are in aggressive conflict none of those are within a million miles of a "State of War".
It is an unfortunate state and it not only causes harm to the US but, I would argue, even more harm to the poor of Russia who has seen a 30% decline in per capita GDP from about $ 12k to 7K which is largely borne by the lower 40% of the country.
It is most unfortunate for the world that we have Trump and Putin in office at the same time because I know that the root differences between Russia's national interest and the rest of the world can be addressed in a peaceful manner that would be mutually beneficial.
Treason, as established in the constitution has a specific context to either actively being involved in a war against the US or providing support for a war against the US. They were thinking of our greatest traitor Benedict Arnold.
While still not exactly on point sedition is much closer than treason for the acts of Trump:
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority.
In cooperating with the Russians he organized subversion of the constitution and obstructing the process of justice to hold those responsible. His rallies are a clear incitement of discontent against the established authority of Congress, and the Courts which he has gotten by cooperating with the bad acts of the KGB, Putin, et al.
Propaganda war, war of words, police action, border conflicts, cold war exist but they are all completely different from a state of war that pits two countries military in armed conflict with the intention to vanquish the enemy.
It is what Trump/Bolton want to do with Iran. Since we are not at war with Russia the crime of Treason does not apply but I think sedition comes close.
Baltimike
(4,138 posts)than money, but that's an interesting goal post you set up.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)and your personal interpretation of those words has zero legal weight.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,255 posts)Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/325/1/
Please don't just read the syllabus; read the case. It goes on for quite a while about the history behind the treason clause, including a description of "enemies".
The strictest limitation is that the "two witnesses" must witness the overt act of treason.
No one so far has pointed to any holding that says an enemy is restricted to a nation against which Congress has declared war.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Section 2204 of title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense) "the term "enemy" means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States."
As defined in title 10 (Armed Forces), Section 948a - "The term 'hostilities' means any conflict subject to the laws of war."
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,255 posts)You quote from 50 U.S. Code Chapter 39 - SPOILS OF WAR, Section 2204 Definitions, and then tie it to 10 U.S. Code Subtitle A - General Military Law.
How does that constrain the U.S. Constitution or even the courts?
Putin has been engaged in hostilities with the United States for quite some time, ergo, "enemy".
See, e.g., https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/29/politics/russia-sanctions-announced-by-white-house/index.html
Treason requires an overt act that aids an enemy and damages the U.S. (or any one of them), and that overt act requires "two witnesses". The overt act was the failure to impose lawful sanctions, which aided Putin and damaged the U.S. and it is certainly well documented.
The only 'out' I see is if Trump could somehow convince a jury that his intent was not to harm the United States. His rhetoric might make that difficult.
"The very minimum function that an overt act must perform in a treason prosecution is that it show sufficient action by the accused, in its setting, to sustain a finding that the accused actually gave aid and comfort to the enemy."
Codeine
(25,586 posts)for what constitutes an enemy. It also defines “hostilities”. Choosing to misuse both terms doesn’t advance your argument.
You’re trying to expand the parameters of a crime that has been deliberately writte to be as narrow as possible for obvious historical reasons.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)It does require military hostilities
The current acts between the US enacting sanctions and Russia engaging in interference does not raise to a state if war between the 2 countries which, despite some areas of intense disagreement and conflict maintain full diplomatic relations and areas of cooperation that are not affected by Putin and Trump's perfidy.
In some areas Russia and the US maintain close cooperation that could not exist between countries at war.
If the state of war is at level 32 of escalation then level 5 would be recalling Ambassadors and reducing official diplomatic status a to Consular level and we haven't reached that low threshold yet.
While it is true that a state of war doesn't necessarily require a declaration it is also true that while the relations between the US and Russia are not good, none of the elements of war, positioning of military assets etc, currently exist.
The OP asks why people aren't talking about treason and the answer is that the constitution has a very narrow definition of treason while the general public uses it as a more general expression of betrayal of national loyalty.
Personally I think it is closer to sedition, but broadly defined, arguably too broadly.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,255 posts)I quoted the U.S. Constitution above. It is the supreme law of the land and it does not define "enemy".
No one has yet shown me a U.S. Supreme Court decision, or lower court decision either affirmed or let stand, that holds that "enemy" is as narrowly defined as has been argued here.
On the other hand, Cramer v. U.S. goes through a whole list of enemies of which only a few were engaged in military hostilities.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)1) How about Cramer vs. US. It stuck with a narrow interpretation of treason and reversed a lower court ruling
You keep quoting that decision under the mistaken assumption that it some how came up with a wider interpretation of the application of the treason statue from the constitution.
It didn't do that. It reversed a broader appeals court application and said that Cramer did not fit treason.
The Court decided five-to-four to overturn the jury verdict. Writing for the majority, Justice Robert H. Jackson said that the constitution is clear in its definition of treason, limited to the waging of war, or giving material assistance to an enemy. The prosecution and its witnesses could demonstrate only an association and not that Cramer had given "Aid and Comfort," as defined in Article Three. Jackson wrote that the jury had been given no evidence that Cramer had "even paid for their drinks." As such, the majority opinion held, the associations were insufficient to convict Cramer for treason, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed.
2) "No one has yet shown me a lower court case etc.
There are two reasons why none exist
a) treason is one of the least prosecuted crimes in the US. Why? Because it is very narrowly defined so it is very rarely prosecuted. The fact that there is very little case law is because it is very narrowly articulated.
b) the only reason that there would be appeals on the question of application would be if there was ambiguity on how it was interpreted. The fact that no appeals or reversals exist is because (besides it being rarely committed offense) it so explicitly stated there is no reason to appeal the question.
Finally your question of what the courts have held constitute enemy and war, etc is completely off point for the simple reason whatever exceptions are expansions are made in the definition of "war" and "enemy" and again Cramer Vs the US the Court sided with the defense and not the prosecution of the offense none of those exceptions or expansions on what constitutes "war" or "enemy" are present in the current situation.
We have full diplomatic relations and cooperation with Russia in a number of areas. We have strong conflict in two main areas: conflict in the Crimea and interference in internal relations, that is not war.
The fundamental problem with your methodology is that you start with a conclusion and then try to search for a fact here and a fact there that you think proves the point and ignore everything else.
The bottom line is that Treason in the constitution is not synonymous with traitor. You can be a traitor to the country and never conduct Treason as defined in the constitution. Being a traitor means that you betray the interests of the United States. Flynn for example has confessed to crimes that show that he was a traitor. He did not however conduct Treason which is a very specific crime that requires aiding and abetting, either directly or indirectly an enemy of the United States that come about in armed conflict as defined by US Code Title 18
a) declared war
b) armed conflict armed conflict whether or not war has been declared
c) armed conflict between military forces of any origin
None of those elements, nor any element that remotely approaches that has happened so far.
Being a traitor does not mean that you committed treason any more than a pineapple is a kind of apple.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,255 posts)You misconstrue my arguments. I did not point to Cramer "under the mistaken assumption that it some how came up with a wider interpretation of the application of the treason statue from the constitution." On the contrary, it reaffirms a narrow interpretation. I point to it because of the excellent history it presents on why treason is narrowly defined and because it gives examples, in that history, of enemies who were not waging war with the United States.
I didn't mention "traitor" and did not try to conflate "treason" and "traitor". That's a distraction.
1. Treason is defined in the Constitution. Congress has the power to determine the punishment for treason, but not its definition.
2. The Supreme Court has affirmed a narrow reading of that definition, including "two witnesses" to an overt act -- a deliberate, postive action. Cramer v. U.S. overturned a lower court because the witnesses saw what was an opportunity for an overt act, but could not swear to an act of treason being committed in that opportunity. Here, we have overt acts committed which are witnessed by many. A jury would have to determine if the intent is treasonous, see Haupt v. United States. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/631/
3. So far as I can find, the Constitution is silent on what defines an "enemy" for the purposes of treason. Therefore, it's up to the courts to determine that. If case law is sparse, that means it is still open to interpretation.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Been cited
The question of witnesses establish establish an unusual evidentiary standard but points to how restrictive the constitution is on Treason charges.
While the legal, legislative and academic world is quite settled that the constitution considers is clear that it is related to acts during war
Treason against the United States shall consist ONLY in levying war or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort
[
There is nothing in the current series of scandals that approximats anything close to that narrow definition regardless of what silly efforts are made to bastardize the words.
Apparently understanding the restrictive nature of words like "only" that are meant to limit the expansion of the prosecution of the crime is beyond you so you can have the last word arguing a point that has no serious academic or legal support.
lapucelle
(18,187 posts)
mucifer
(23,479 posts)so frustrating
BigmanPigman
(51,567 posts)A retired Lt Col. talked about it with Air Member when discussing Flynn.
It is at 13:25.
shadowmayor
(1,325 posts)Treason is what Nixon did stalling peace talks with the North Vietnamese, what Reagan and Poppy Bush did when dealing with Iran and nothing happened then . . .
Va Lefty
(6,252 posts)Baltimike
(4,138 posts)Perseus
(4,341 posts)Why treason is not being mentioned by the media when referring to Flynn, Trump, Manafort, and I will give a pass to Cohen because in some way I see him more as a victim, someone who allowed himself to get conned.
DoctorJoJo
(1,134 posts)He will be charged with Conspiracy Against the US or Espionage.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)elmac
(4,642 posts)and they both got away with it. The repug party is the most anti American organization ever to exist.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)
forgotmylogin
(7,520 posts)If we were in a war with Russia (an actual declared one, not just at-odds with or in a "cold war" with) and someone like Paul Manafort voluntarily revealed troop locations or battle plans or other secrets to the Russians that potentially puts our soldiers at risk, that would be treason, and actual treason can be punishable by death.
Just because Fat Don throws the word "treason" around and delegitimizes the meaning doesn't mean we should. Dotard is a traitor who doesn't know nor care about actual word meanings when he uses them. Trump declared that not standing and applauding at his SOTU address was "treason".
I think some people believe the definition of "traitor" is "one who commits treason" which is not necessarily true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/05/15/trump-keeps-lowering-the-bar-for-what-constitutes-treason-which-may-not-be-a-great-idea/?utm_term=.e5320a58035b
grantcart
(53,061 posts)
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority.
Trump colluded with the Russians to subvert the constitution and uses rallies to incite discontent against constitutionally protected free speech, Congress and an independent Judiciary.
As Congress comes into greater conflict with Trump I expect that he will try to mobilize greater discontent against it.
AndJusticeForSome
(537 posts)Yes, without getting all pedantic about it, I know we are not *technically* at war, but this was cyberwarfare combined with good ol' fashioned active measures.
A rose by any other name...
Codeine
(25,586 posts)it doesn’t legally lead to a treason charge. It’s not pedantry, it’s the law. 
Still a host of other charges one could levy, however.
onenote
(42,590 posts)Apparently some here are convinced that Russia is waging war against the US in the Constitutional sense of that term.
So what would they urge a Democratic House of Representatives do first on January 3?
Pass a declaration of war against Russia or some other form of war powers authorization?
Pass legislation banning trade and travel with Russia?
Pass a resolution demanding that the administration cut all diplomatic ties with the country waging war against us?
Take steps to add Russia to the list of nations covered by the Trading with the Enemies Act?
A few other questions:
What role should the military play in fighting back against the war being waged against us by Russia.
What is our goal in responding to Russia's war against us: regime change in Russia?
How does this war come to an end: do we seek Russia's surrender or enter into some sort of peace treaty?
blogslut
(37,982 posts)or both 
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)For example, conspiring with Russians to interfere with an election, not telling the FBI you've been working the Russians spies after they warn you Russian spies may try to contact you, conspiring to obstruct justice, or in a stretch: tweeting that the lawful operations of the Special Counsel are unlawful and compromised.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us
"The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation."
blitzen
(4,572 posts)among the worst of crimes and tantamount to treason?
Trump and his folks have conspired and have committed espionage. We used to throw the book at such criminals and consider them worthless scum.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Again, FYI.
blitzen
(4,572 posts)elfin
(6,262 posts)Russia is now categorized an "adversary" as opposed to being an "enemy" in a "war." However, we are at war in the strategic and cyber sense. But no "war" has been declared by Congress.
Simply legalistic semantics IMO.
Trump and his ilk are traitors and have committed treason as far as I am concerned. Hang'em ALL.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)In England, treason laws were often changed to suit various prejudices of the King or Parliament. The strangest one I found was that it was once treason for a Welshman to steal cattle. I guess the government didn't care if an Englishman stole your cattle.
Anyway, to prevent such obvious abuses of treason laws, the Constitution made strict limits on treason. In the age of Donald Trump, it's something we should actually be thankful for.
Baltimike
(4,138 posts)some on here are saying we have to be in a "shooting war" for it to be treason.
This is silly.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Just FYI
Baltimike
(4,138 posts)all the live long day
Codeine
(25,586 posts)about what a media outlet might choose to tell its ignorant-ass viewers. The fact is that”treason” is an actual crime with an actual definition, not a catch-all phrase with which one paints a political foe.
Treason is narrowly defined for a reason, and I think that’s a good thing. Trump can be charged with any number of crimes for his misdeeds, and I dearly hope that he will be (though I have my doubts), but treason won’t be one of them.
Baltimike
(4,138 posts)that I was being facetious...um...maybe it should have?
The definition of "arms" and "war" belie your narrow parameters. I think that is a good thing.
Two tugs of a dead dog's dick? 
Codeine
(25,586 posts)of my interlocutors. I picked it up from comics writer Warren Ellis and I never miss an opportunity to use it. 
EndGOPPropaganda
(1,117 posts)Murder has a colloquial sense and a legal sense.
Treason has a colloquial sense and a legal sense.
This is treason.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Treason has no colloquial sense. It is spelled out in law. That’s how law works.
And murder has no real colloquial sense. At least as courts apply it.
But I doubt your mind will be changed.
Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #57)
EndGOPPropaganda This message was self-deleted by its author.
harumph
(1,893 posts)Trump's actions aren't treason by definition (however much some here want that).
People have talked about "cyberwar" this or that... it's just a friggin
term and has NO LEGAL WEIGHT. It does not matter
what the pentagon says about cyberwar. They're not part of the
legislative body. There are statutes that deal with treason and
Trump's crimes as terrible as they are - do not rise to the
legal definition.
It's much closer to espionage:
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/espionage
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-37
and even closer to "fraud."
The guy is a money launderer, misused campaign fund (and MAYBE abetted espionage) and that's what's going to bring him
down - not wishing on unicorns.
AndJusticeForSome
(537 posts)A hostile foreign government conspired with our citizens, disabled our democratic process and usurped the top power position in our government.
Is that what happened, or not? If not, please explain.