Seth Abramson discussion on Judge Sullivan's use of 'treason' in Flynn's case. It was treason. eos.
He corrected himself after realizing he misunderstood the prosecution's argument...
7:10 AM ·
·
1h
Replying to
@threeguysyesh
No...not really. He apologized and said he wasn't suggesting Flynn committed Treason (notice the capital "T," which is used to denote the *statute*). Law & Crime called it an "unconvincing cover for a misguided question," but it was misguided *only* because cyber-war isn't "war."
Seth Abamson
·
1h
Sullivan used the word "treason," suggesting disloyalty to country with at least an investigation into whether cyberwar qualifies as "war"; it was taken as "Treason" (and cyberwar *isn't* war statutorily), so he had to back off. No reason to think he didn't have serious concerns.
Seth Abramson
·
1h
Sullivan never said he misunderstood the prosecution's argument—in fact what he was asking is why the prosecution didn't consider investigating Flynn for capital-"T" statutory Treason. Then he researched the statute overnight and had to correct his understanding of the *statute*.
Seth Abramson
·
I've *always* said Flynn *didn't* commit capital-"T" statutory Treason. I've also said that's almost *entirely* because the statute hasn't been updated to reflect our age. Once it's amended to include cyberwar, there's a real chance what Flynn did *will* later be seen as Treason.
Seth Abramson
·
For the moment, then, we can say these things:
(1) Flynn acted small-"t" "treacherously" (disloyalty to country in time of conflict);
(2) Most Americans—once they know the story—would colloquially call what Flynn did "treason";
(3) *Eventually* we'll call it statutory Treason.
Sparklepuff
Is there a possibility that we think of Treason as more restrictive than it really is, currently, because we've never had this situation?
There are many levels of defined treason.
It's dangerous that the statutory version is so restrictive that it's essentially unprosecutable.
= new reply since forum marked as read
