I notice that the latest push back against Trump's treason is denial

[Cary]

"Stop talking about this because you have no evidence that Trump colluded with Putin."

So I guess that means no one should ever investigate anything? Racketeers Gone Wild.TM

[longship]

1. I haven't seen anything like that here.

There are, however, people like me who are abhorred by this treason talk. The reason? Because the framers of the US Constitution defined treason in that document for a very good reason. That is so a charge of treason could not be used as a strictly political tool, as it had been for centuries in monarchy Europe, and other places.

James Madison understood this. Why don't all people here?

That isn't denial. It's the law.

[Cary]

3. Wtf?

1. I never said anything about that being said here, because I wasn't referring to here.

2. I wasn't charging Trump with a crime, because I'm not a U.S. Attorney and have e no authority to charge anyone else with anything. I was exercising my First Amendment rights and I can use whatever term I want. To me there is ample probable cause to justify me referring to Trump's connections with Putin and Russian oligarchs as treason and even more than ample to justify my call for an open, independent and bipartisan investigation.

3. Why are you twisting my post and running flack for the orange gelatinous grift weasel?

[longship]

5. I do not support Drumpf in any way, shape or form.

I support the US Constitution -- and everybody ought to do so, too -- wherein treason is very specifically defined. Again, the history of this is important.

Because only a madman wants to live in a country where charges of treason can be invoked for political reasons! Madison understood that when he helped write Article III Section 3.

Under our constitution, casually flinging charges of treason around is against that very constitution.

The extent that you invoke treason is the extent that we have a problem here.

[Cary]

7. Ever heard of something called "context?"

It's important.

[Cary]

9. "We?"

That's rather presumptuous.

[longship]

13. Read your constitution, my friend.

And more importantly, understand the context under which it came to be. There is a very good historic reason why Article III, Section 3 is there.

That's people's homework assignment.

[Cary]

14. I'm a lawyer

With 31 plus years of experience.

I think I have a handle on the law.

[truebluegreen]

33. Then why are you bandying about the word "treason"?

SMH

[Cary]

34. Because I know what I'm talking about

[truebluegreen]

36. Is that so.

Definition of treason in US law:

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason....

From Black's Legal Dictionary:

"What is ENEMY?
in public law, signifies either the nation which is at war with another, or a citizen or subject of such nation."
http://thelawdictionary.org/enemy/.

We have diplomatic relations with Russia, we trade with Russia, our citizens visit Russia, ergo Russia is not our enemy.

Adversary? Sure. Do we like or trust them? No. Do they like or trust us? No. "Enemy"? No.

Was it real estate law?

[Cary]

38. Which part.of I'm not U.S. Attorney don't you understand?

I'm not charging anyone. This isn't a court. You're conflating political discussion with criminal justice.

Look up the word "context."

[truebluegreen]

39. So.

I'm not U.S. Attorney...

but

I'm a lawyer

With 31 plus years of experience.

I think I have a handle on the law.

and

I'm bandying about the word treason:

Because I know what I'm talking about
.
.
.
.
A word of advice from another not a U.S. Attorney: heed the First Law of Holes

[Cary]

40. So nice of you to troll me

Last edited Sat Mar 11, 2017, 06:14 PM - Edit history (1)

[truebluegreen]

41. ...

[Cary]

63. I was not cognizant of this line of "reason"

Until I stumbled into it with this opening post.

You and your compatriots have convinced me TO CALL TREASON TREASON!

Thanks for giving me this clarity.

[Orrex]

67. If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, counselor...

Next time instead of posting to an open forum to call out a general trend like "the latest push back" without identifying a perpetrator of this push back, it might be helpful to clarify that you aren't addressing your complaint the local readership.

No, you didn't accuse anyone here, but neither did you accuse anyone at all, leaving it instead to the reader to infer your target with no context beyond the venue in which you chose to post.

At the very least you could have saved yourself some pointless back-and-forth sniping.


Just a thought...

[Cary]

68. I see

My mistake was in assuming that I wasn't speaking to any Trump apologists here at Democratic Underground.



The nerve of me.

[Cary]

73. Lovely

Being this way on the Internet makes you feel relevwnt?

[Cary]

76. I stated my opinion

Your personal attacks on me are wholly unjustified.

You are not my judge. You are not my peer. You don't know me and you have no business insulting me.

[Orrex]

78. You are an anonymous poster an open forum

In posting, you invited response. Everyone who reads your post is your judge. If you can't handle that, then don't post.

In waiving your alleged law degree around, you invited comment on the quality of your post in the context of your declared profession.


For what it's worth, I am starting to agree that you may indeed be peerless, though perhaps not in the way that you might imagine yourself to be.

[Cary]

80. I never invited you to be a jerk

For the record I never will, either.

[Orrex]

84. Your tone invited an in-kind response, so your complaint is meaningless.

[Cary]

85. Dude, I'm not responsible for you being a jerkt

There was nothing wrong with my tone and your attack on me is uncalled for and totally unnecessary.

Grow up and take responsibility for your own poor behavior.

[FarPoint]

119. That was most unkind Orrex.....

Just move on...Put your energy to the good fight....

[FarPoint]

117. This is a methodical process....

It feels like denial pending production of evidence...The request for proof, the search and inquiry is dragging out because we still treat the Office of the Presidency with dignity... Regardless of the empty suit holding the office...

No one believes him....No country believes him...But we are not acting with emotional action...Thus the appearance of denial....This soon will have legs.

[Cary]

120. I agree, but in the meantime I am definitely encountering denial

I'm not sure why. If the shoe were on the other foot and a Democratic president smelled like a rotten fish I would be demanding an open, bi-partisan investigation. Although I must admit that I don't trust Republicans to ever be objective, so that is a bit of a problem.

And then I get the "both sides do it" crap from the extreme left and extreme right to muck things up.

[FarPoint]

124. It's common knowledge...

Democrats are judged by a very high standard...GOP is holding all the high cards at the moment....We suffer.

[JTFrog]

12. I invoke treason.

Now what problem do we have here. Hit me with it.

The Trump campaign collaborated and aided the Russians in an act of war. The act of war being hacking our elections.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/12/time-treason-charges.html

It Is Time To Seriously Consider Treason Charges Against Republicans

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

~~~~~~~~~~

Of course this issue of “treason” is about more than dishonest Donald Trump’s close affiliation with and stated intent to “adhere to America’s enemies and give the Russians aid;” it is also about the Republicans who aided the Russians to interfere with America’s democracy. The aid to an enemy was in not alerting the American public of a hostile foreign power’s involvement in electing an acknowledged “friend” of Russia, one who may be an American citizen, but has absolutely no sense of “allegiance to the United States.”

~~~~~~~~~~

One thing is crystal clear with Tillerson; his allegiance is not to America any more than Trump’s is and that includes the Republicans who knew about Russia working with the Trump campaign to put a traitor in the White House. And yes, any American whose allegiance is to a foreign power hostile to the United States is a traitor, and by extension is guilty of treason; including those who knew about the Trump-Russia campaign collaboration and aided it with their silence.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Just the concept of any American not being absolutely outraged over a statement such as a citizen having knowledge of attacks “at the hand of a foreign government” is honestly unbelievable. This is particularly true when after months of reports of “suspected” involvement of a foreign government, America’s intelligence community verified what Trump, McConnell, FBI Director Comey, Rudy Giuliani and Trump staffers knew all along; Russians were intimately involved in helping their comrade Trump win the election to garner “aid and comfort” from a cabal of traitors who should be arrested, prosecuted and convicted of treason; the only crime the Founders actually defined in the U.S. Constitution.

~~~~~~~~~~~

For dog’s sake, if it is against federal law to solicit campaign donations from foreign entities, something Trump did with impunity, then it is undoubtedly treason to coordinate with a foreign power to hijack America’s democracy in a bloodless coup d’état of America’s government.

[Cary]

15. I agree

I invoke treason too.



Anyone who doesn't like it can roll it up real tight and shove it.

[triron]

51. Not a lawyer but agree with both of you same rationale as above.

It is cyber war. During the era when the constitution framed cyber was nonexistent.

[longship]

16. Thankfully, the US Constitution also states what being "at war" means.

And, we are not at war by that definition.

Only congress can declare war and I do not recall that part of the constitution being amended.

People need to please stop tiring us all out with their treason screeching.

And they ought to read their fucking constitution. The reason why it's in there is to prevent it from being used as a political weapon!!!!!

I would cite the history of monarch Europe, but it would likely not do much good here. However, I am sure James Madison was acutely aware of that history when he put it in there.

[JTFrog]

17. Here let me tire you some more. It's fucking treason.

And I hope they all hang for it.

[longship]

19. Like the Red Queen???

Off with their heads!!!

Or would you prefer the former British solution, hanged, drawn, and quartered.

I do not want to live in such a country.

Thankfully we have our constitution.

Some folks would throw it all away just because we lost an election. Well yup, it's going to suck for a couple years or so, but what mad person would throw away our body of law to save us?

Not me.

[JTFrog]

20. Thankfully it's not up to you. nt

[longship]

21. And thankfully, under our constitution, not you either.

My best to you.

[JTFrog]

22. Doesn't mean they won't hear me screaming for it!

My best to you as well.

[longship]

24. I just thank that we have Article III Section 3 in our Constitution.

So that charges of treason cannot be casually made, especially for political purposes. This, James Madison clearly understood.

Respectfully, as always.

[Hortensis]

83. Longboat, we ALL know what treason is.

Like pornography, we all know betrayal and traitors when we see them. The same with treason. It is a real thing. No need to explain.

And yet didactic addicts rush in to argue definitions, "ad trauseum," so to speak, every time someone is so foolish as to use the word in front of them.

Btw, we all of us also know that treason can be prosecuted under various federal laws. The word treason, with its common definition, is however far better known than the names of the various applicable laws and charges that federal prosecutors have in their arsenal

But Longboat, if the almost daily revelations of new and broadening circles of evidence for treasonous activities before, during and after the election, and possible prosecution for treason at the highest levels, are boring you, maybe just pass on the subject? So this doesn't happen again?

Back to the original subject regarding "pushback", from Townhall.com

Democrats, Psychological Projection and Russia

Have you ever been around someone who has a bad case of gas, but always finds ways to blame the noxious fumes on those around them? Democrats are masters of the “whoever smelt it, dealt it” game which is really nothing more than psychological projection.

Psychologists define psychological projection as a protective defense mechanism whereby someone dishonestly attributes his or her bad behavior to someone else by inventing false accusations to divert attention away from themselves to avoid blame and punishment.

Undeniably, the Obama administration and Democrats are obsessed with Russia. Their Russia musings were amusing -- until it became almost a daily…weird…sociopathic, psychological projection…kind of thing. It’s uncanny that it didn’t let up until Trump made it known he suspected Obama might have listened to his private conversations. ...

This far-right swiftboat site goes on to list various phony Democratic actions that need investigating, all whiffing of our gaseous treason, of course.

[longship]

86. Well, and again, it is defined in the constitution.

One doesn't get to make up ones own definition.

And it's longship, not longboat.

My best to you.

[Hortensis]

87. Sorry about the name, Longship, but recommend better

potential returns with taking on right-wing liars. Perhaps by dropping a little dot of truth in passing to those who might benefit.

Maybe casually chat about how interestingly little the word treason is used in federal law. And which laws would most likely be used to send people found guilty of colluding with Russia or other foreign agents to prison. The other day I agreed emphatically, yes, Obama will be in huge trouble if he's found to have spied on a candidate for president. As he should be!

[longship]

88. No problem, my friend.

But I will respectfully stand by my posts on this subject.

There are more laws than treason. One that is interesting is the Logan Act. Certainly some of the Trump people violated, or came close to violating it. Might be difficult to prosecute that one, though.

[Hortensis]

89. Nixon went down for stupid covering up. This crowd

is far less competent.

[longship]

90. There is no doubt about that.

And make no mistake, these idiots aren't going to make it four years. I think we all see that. My main issue is how many innocent people go down with them.

I, for one, do not want to be counted among the collateral damage.

[Hortensis]

101. Collateral damage. Huge question where and how much to fight it.

I read that the Pub leadership is counting on getting Democrats to sign on to their ACA dismantling bill in order to pass it. It would allow us to limit some damage at this point, of course, but my inclination, looking to the future, is to let them completely own whatever they can pass by themselves.

[longship]

106. Indeed, they will own it.

This especially since their intent is to dismantle President Obama's two terms. That hangs all their policy changes around their collective necks.

I only hope that:

1. We all survive what is to come.
2. We don't blow our opposition.

Knee jerk reactions are not advisable this early. Our only tools are impeachment and removal or the 25th amendment. Does anybody realistically think that can happen quickly? And then we'd be stuck with theocrat Pence!!!!

We're in a bit of trouble on this one.

[Hortensis]

123. Removal should make us somewhat safer militarily,

but the extremists in Congress and those backing them are behind the dismantling of our governments. It's not just Obama's term, they are trying to purge all progressivism and liberalism from government at all levels. And in the process eliminate almost all compulsory taxation and regulation. They've given up any notion of getting a ring in Rump's nose, but are using sticks and carrots to try to keep him moving the directions they want.

Survival? Are you worried about war, lack of medical care? Aside from war (!), the worst destruction should be economic and to lifestyle, with many millions badly hurt, poverty deepening, and far more elderly facing destitution. (Us if medical bills took our limited assets.) But it'd take a while to develop, and only if we can't reverse this trend.

But I think its reversal is built in as more people start realizing that they've elected people who literally want to destroy the America they grew up in, not go back to it -- the one that made Ozzie and Harriet seem like a normal family--safe, secure, unworried about money or anything else, and, notably, with no dependent relatives anywhere in sight, much less sleeping in the living room or converted garage.

[Cary]

122. Re-reading my opening posts one strains credulity by any claim that I intended

... anything other than the common meaning.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. Put another way...

"And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake." -A Man for All Seasons

[longship]

55. Yup! Then there's the trial scene with John Hurt.

One of the greatest films ever.

And some idiots wonder why treason is defined in the US Constitution? And some other idiots want it used as a political tool, like in this scene.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

57. One of my all-time favorites. That's a great scene.

"It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?"

The same might be asked of certain officials of our current government. "...but for Russia?"

[longship]

58. I'll agree with that.

But that doesn't make it treason.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

59. Sure doesn't. Treason is the only Constitutional crime.

I think there's some espionage going on that could put some folks away, but the Constitutional crime of treason requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of providing aid and comfort to an enemy in a declared war.

[longship]

60. That's the way I would interpret it.

We might have a somewhat adversarial relationship with Russia, one that is rather entangled in history. However, we have never been at war with either the Soviet Union or Russia.

[thucythucy]

61. Congress hasn't declared war since December 1941.

And we haven't been "at war" by that definition since September 1945.

Nonetheless, I'd argue we have indeed been at war since then, in fact nearly perpetually, and I can point to several million dead human beings as evidence of that fact.

Besides which, the statute cited above defining treason refers to individuals, "owing allegiance to the United States" who "levy war" against the US. It doesn't matter whether that individual aligns him or herself with an entity technically at war with the US, it's the actions of the individual that matter.

And I hardly think current concerns about Trump and Company selling out US interests in return for Russian aid in winning the election (and what else? Bribes? Help with his businesses? What else is going on here?) is comparable to Henry VIII going after someone because they criticized his various divorces. And so I doubt that "Monarch Europe" is of much relevance in this instance.

[longship]

62. I'll stand by my posts here.

And it does not at all matter whether you think we are at war or not. To be at war under our constitution means a very specific thing.

And only a mad person would want us at war with Russia.

I am done here.

[Orrex]

79. No one's been convicted of treason since 1952

And of the four convicted post WWII, all were convicted for acts committed during WWII.

Incidentally, three of those four were pardoned, and one died in prison on a life sentence.


In short, "treason" may be the wrong card to play here because it's a longshot to prove, and it has a notoriously shaky record over the past six decades or so.

[thucythucy]

91. I agree in terms of bringing charges that will stand up in court,

but I still thinking selling out our democracy, and undermining our national security in return for financial and political favors from a hostile oligarchy amounts to treason in the common use of the word.

[Eyeball_Kid]

28. Oh, come on. Maybe "Treason" is being discussed because it's actually taking place.

Common people are reading verifiable information highly suggestive of the alarming possibility that Trumpy and/or his inner circle are Russian Assets or Spies. And you know what? They're concerned about their nation and they want to talk about it through the First Amendment guarantees. Do you have a problem with that?

Folks compare the Constitution's definition of treason with what they observe through video and other publications. If it looks and walks like treason, then the common consensus just might be, "It's treason." Legally, it becomes an allegation yet to be legally proven, but we all know that.

And no, "casually flinging charges of treason" is NOT against the Constitution. If speech gets too offensive, we have libel laws to help regulate our behavior. Hopefully, you don't have a problem with that.

[truebluegreen]

37. We're not at war with Russia.

Ergo, not treason. It is a matter of law, not common consensus. See post #36 .

Various other nefarious things are possibilities, but not treason.

[longship]

43. Nope!!!

The only definition of treason important here is the one in the US Constitution. That's the fucking law.

And I do not understand why any sane person would want to lower the bar to treason charges.

Well, you are free to fling treason charges around Willy Nilly all you want. But a court of law would have to decide such a thing. And I do not think a "seems like treason to me" argument is going to do it.

That's why it's in the constitution in the first place.

[NastyRiffraff]

92. And here you go, straight from 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.

If you don't think changing the Republican platform to "soften" language against Russian invasion of Ukraine is giving "aid and comfort" to an enemy, there's no sense in engaging you in this conversation. It happened, and it was quid pro quo. And it's unlikely that's all Russia wanted as payback for helping Trump "win" the presidency. It's not an accident that the State Department's budget is being severely cut, or that the latest WikiLeaks dump has been CIA documents. BOTH actions directly help Russia, and we haven't seen it all yet.

And yes, it's treason.

I like the Constitution too.

[longship]

93. Note: we are not at war right now.

That's defined in the US Constitution, too, I might add.

Only a mad person would want to go to war with Russia. And only a really barking mad person would want to go to war with Russia just to satisfy some warped desire to charge somebody for treason.

Russia is not our enemy, in spite of our current adversarial relations.

If you want to charge somebody with something, try the Logan Act. Treason would not fly.

[NastyRiffraff]

95. Okay, I'll try one more time.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort

There's an "or" in there, meaning levying war OR adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. War is not the only criteria (and certainly war with Russia would NOT be treason as defined in the Constitution, only war against the U.S.). i'm not charging anyone with anything; I don't have the power. I AM saying that a charge of treason is very possible here.

I like the Constitution.

[longship]

96. I cannot and will not support this.

And where are treason supporters going to get a prosecutor foolish enough to try it? You aim too high and your target gets away.

What has happened is not treason, no matter what some people think.

[ronnie624]

107. "shall consist only in levying war"

'War' is legally defined by US code as, "Open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or nations."

The bar for treason has not been reached, it's just that simple.

[NastyRiffraff]

126. "OR in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort"

You forgot that part. I fixed it for you.

[ronnie624]

128. If we are not at war with Russia,

then we are not enemies, according to the US legal definition of the term. Russia is not my enemy, and your opinion does not make Russia an enemy of the United States.

[Demsrule86]

82. Colluding with the Russians is treason.

[uponit7771]

6. I have, weekly... not even LPC posters either wanting HARD evidence of collusion vs just the hard

... circumstantial shit that's out there

[Cary]

8. It's a canard

Circumstantial evidence is as relevant and salient as so called hard evidence.

[longship]

44. Damn it! Read your constitution!!!!

Circumstantial evidence is insufficient for a treason charge.

And it says so right in the constitution.

One does not get to just make shit up on this topic.

Read your constitution, my friend.

(You claim to be a lawyer? )

[Cary]

46. Oy

For the 50th time I'm not charging anyone with treason.

Get a grip.

[longship]

48. Read your OP!!!

You wrote it. Read it!!!

Oh please somebody save us all from equivocations.

[Cary]

49. I accused your traitor of treason

Cry.

[longship]

50. I am done with this.

Last edited Sat Mar 11, 2017, 07:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Your arguments are inconsistent. You equivocate.

You claim to be a lawyer but seem to be woefully ignorant of the US Constitution and its historic context.

There is no meaningful discussion left here.

So, I will respectfully leave you here.

Good luck to you, sir.

[uponit7771]

65. Typical hit and run with waving hand... I've seen this before and I just posted about it before ...

... reading this.

[longship]

66. I stated my case. You stated yours, poorly. Let's just leave it at that.

[uponit7771]

75. Benedict Donald is a traitor, that we both can agree on... that's my case... that's why I can leave

[Cary]

97. Why behave that way?

Seriously? What on earth are you defending?

No one said anything about him being prosecuted, yet. That would be up to whomever it was who would prosecute him. You're arguing, I guess, that there's not enough to prosecute anyone on some theory of treason.

I don't know if there is or isn't enough to prosecute anyone. I know the same things you do and it meets my definition of treason, which I don't have justify to you or to anyone else. I feel there is a reasonably objective argument. I don't see how you can possibly claim otherwise, or why you and the other people playing this insipid game are getting so emotional and so belligerent about it.

Can you explain that to me? I mean, you disagree and that's fine. But why get so personal to the point where someone here who doesn't know me and isn't qualified in any way to judge me starts going on about how lousy I am as a lawyer?

Who does that? I'll tell you who: every online "conservative" whom I've ever revealed that information to. I swear, every single one has uttered that idiotic libel. Do you know why? Because they're cowards and morons and they're jealous. I earned the right to call myself an attorney and no "conservative" or erstwhile Democrat has any right whatsoever to take that away from me. And they're not taking anything away anyway; they're proving themselves to be assholes and idiots.

So please, I ask you nicely: why are you behaving this way?

[longship]

98. I am defending the US Constitution.

I took an oath twice in my life to defend it. I honor those oaths.

What are my opponents here defending? Not much as far as I am concerned.

And BTW, where are the treason advocates going to find a prosecutor to take on their treason case? Even if they find one naive enough, does anybody expect that this wouldn't end up in the Supreme Court? I cannot think of a worse thing than deliberately triggering a constitutional crisis under the current regime.

You aim too high, you miss the target. You may even end up shooting yourself in the foot.

I cannot support what people here are suggesting.

[Cary]

100. Spare me your righteous indignation

You aren't defending the Constitution. You do sound just like those vapid "strict constructionists" who cloak themselves in "original intent" which is only their cherry picked interpretation.

There is a difference between a criminal prosecution for treason under the statutes and the Constitution, and what we all are talking about here. You can't nullify that by just proclaiming you are the arbiter. You aren't the arbiter, and please cease and desist in your belligerence over this. If we want call this treason in the court of public opinion we have every right in the world to render that conclusion.

And you're very wrong about the evidence too. There is very powerful evidence of Donald Trump being an unwitting, at best, asset of Vladimir Putin. And that means you're an apologist for that unwitting agent, if he is unwitting.

[longship]

102. There is no case for treason!

It is not a matter of what one feels about it. It is about what the US Constitution actually says.

I stand by my posts here.

Good bye sir.

[Cary]

104. Can you address the actual argument?

[longship]

108. No! I am done with this thread.

I've made my case.

[Cary]

110. Your "case" is a straw man

[longship]

112. I said buh-bye, sir.

Have a good day.

[Cary]

114. So what?

I'm making my point whether you wish to address the actual subject or not.

I have a right to do that too. And I have a right to call Trump a traitor.

[Cary]

72. Yeah, right?

And then changing the subject to me, personally, and walking away in a snit.

It's actually kind of interesting what some people have morphed into. The enemy of their enemy is their enemy?

[Cary]

70. Sorry I don't meet your standards.

Nice ad hominem. You should be mighty proud.

[uponit7771]

64. MiniPootin "hack HRC emails"... hackers hacked HRC emails .... that's not cirmcumstantial and is...

... enough for treason but please go ahead and defend this bullshit while the rest of us fight this over cancer

[shraby]

10. Espionage is a better word.

What better way to learn a country's secrets besides helping a comrade become head of that country? Next step have that comrade appoint a foreign agent to the head of the national security council. Both have access to state secrets and the ability to see to it they go to the hands of the one who helped get them there.

[longship]

11. I would go along with that.

However, I cringe when "treason" is flung around so casually.

Some people here need to read their constitution and understand why treason was specifically defined in that document.

[JTFrog]

18. That word works too. They can all hang for that as well. nt

[Cary]

35. Lock them up!

[Kimchijeon]

94. Right, I like that. Whatever it's called, there needs to be serious consequences.

[SHRED]

2. And who will investigate that isn't connected to tRump?

[Cary]

4. That can be arranged.

[coco22]

23. Its irritating ...

as I watch RepubliCONS pretend and tell us how the constitution works, while in the background they are plotting and planning on how to hide what is obvious to everyone who is looking.

The Dems look scared as hell everyone is slow walking this but this was Hillary or Obama we know what would be going on by now. I want to know who Trump and CO are blackmailing in both parties. We don't know what they have done already and what they are planning.They are trying to bring down the country as far as I am concerned..

[Cary]

25. Republicans are in control

Both sides don't do it.

[coco22]

26. MANCHIN..

[Cary]

27. Please spare us

Both sides don't do it.

[guillaumeb]

29. Allegation is one thing.

Proof is another. So if there are allegations, with seeming evidence in support, those allegations should be investigated. But jumping from allegation to an accusation of treason risks alienating those who might listen to the allegation, but will reject the accusation.

[Cary]

30. God forbid I should alienate a Trump supporter

Appeasement of fascists and traitors works wonders.

[guillaumeb]

32. I am not suggesting alienation of a possible Democratic voter in 2018 or 2020.

Considering that President Obama won states that were lost by Clinton, what I am suggesting is that we pressure our Congress members and the media to keep these allegations in the public eye.

[Cary]

31. This thread took a different time turn than I anticipated

Kind of disappointing that my point would be twisted this way it was about an article in The Nation and a couple of people I saw on TV saying the New York Times, Washington Post and MSNBC hosts were going to far and should shut up. It wasn't about treason, per se.

But I take names here.

[Calista241]

42. Treason has a very specific definition in the Constitution

And even if Trump did everything we think he did, he cannot be tried and convicted of treason.

And nobody else can be charged with Treason either.

Basically, we have to be in a declared war with someone, and we have to be able to demonstrate that Trump "gave aid and comfort to the enemy."

[LaydeeBug]

47. not a declared war...and cyber war is still an act of war.

[Calista241]

56. That is simply not true.

The Constitution reads:

"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."

Even if we suspect Trump coordinated with the Russians in leaking Podesta's and the DNC's emails, that's not treason.

To convict him of treason, Congress would have had to declare war on Russia. Then, Trump would have had to given them something that could reasonably be determined "aid and comfort" by a court.

[lagomorph777]

109. That's nonsense; you are making that up. Here are the real words.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

It says nothing at all about "we have to be in a declared war with someone."

[Calista241]

121. See below:

In the case of the United States vs. AARON BURR, Chief-Justice MARSHALL said:

There is no difficulty in affirming that there must be a war, or the crime of levying it cannot exist.

[lagomorph777]

125. Have you somehow deluded yourself that we are not at war with Putin?

Or perhaps you are sympathetic to him?

[Calista241]

127. Fuck off with that shit

I presented an actual argument supported by real legal opinions.

If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't think that because you consider some country an enemy, doesn't mean that someone else can be prosecuted for treason because of that.

And it's not up to me to convince a jury of anything. If you want Trump to be considered for treason, you HAVE to PROVE that he gave "aid and comfort" to "an enemy."

Courts have ruled that enemies are "any country, govermnment, group, or person engaged in hostilities."

Why we wouldn't prosecute him for fraud or Logan act violations, which would be infinitely easier to do, is beyond me. But everyone here is jumping on the treason bandwagon, which is a legal impossibility.

[lagomorph777]

129. I'm happy to prosecute on any valid grounds...

It's just that the publicly known evidence for treason looks pretty strong. We know that Russia attacked us; the IC is unanimous. Ergo, we are at war. We know he colluded; he did it on TV when he invited Putin to hack us. The innumerable other revelations all point in the same direction. He colluded with our enemies, and I am confident that any honest investigation will prove it 9 ways to Sunday.

However, it makes sense to throw the book at him. All the other things you list are equally valid, and if he is forced to defend against them all, it makes it that much harder for him to win.

[Calista241]

130. You're inventing new definitions of the term "hostilities"

And re-interpreting "attack" and "makes us enemies."

And the "evidence" we have is more of a strong suspicion. We think we know where the attacks came from, and we think we know which groups launched those attacks.

A court is going to demand provable facts in order to sustain a prosecution. Who exactly did what, when did they do it and what exactly did they want to accomplish.

And courts are not going to look kindly at any prosecutor that assumes a state of war exists between us and any other country absent a declaration from lawmakers.

[lagomorph777]

131. Courts don't apply here (To Agent Orange himself) - impeachment is a political process

and what you have to prove there is that more of your voters support impeachment than oppose it.

[Calista241]

132. For impeachment I agree. But everyone here is talking about treason.

[lagomorph777]

133. Treason is relevant in that context

The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

[Calista241]

134. IMO, they would never do it for treason unless they had a rock solid

Stand up in court evidence. They'd find some other pretext to vote his ass out.

And I'm not sure we want them to impeach him for treason either. The world is a dangerous place when you're calling other countries enemies, declaring various actions "acts of war", seizing money and imposing sanctions.

Especially when those other countries have nuclear weapons, a capable military, and a shitload of supporting actors around the world.

[LaydeeBug]

45. I faced this one often myself...but the head of the DNC has said he thinks they hacked the election

so they can go take a flying leap.

[delisen]

52. One can act treasonably without your actions fitting a narrow legal definition

I suggest using the term acting treasonably regarding hiding that one has an allegiance to a foreign power while also being a citizen engaged in an election campaign in one's own country.

I think companies that have had secret unauthorized business dealings with foreign powers while the US had sanctions against such dealings have acted treasonably.

[BainsBane]

54. It may not fit the legal definition of treason

but the Asshole in Chief is a traitor.

[Cary]

69. He's a Russian agent

[caroldansen]

77. Not yet. But give it time.

[Demsrule86]

81. There is lots of evidence of Trump's treachery.

[LanternWaste]

99. We often install an automatic barrier in regards to conversations and discussions.

We often install an automatic barrier in regards to conversations and discussions. There is the legal, formal and classical definition of the word treason which may or may not apply. There is also the informal, camp-fire meaning of the word.

We do this with the word 'guilt' quite often. E.g., I told a co-worker this morning that there was dog poop on the floor in my kitchen over the weekend and I think my puppy is guilty. A person much less clever than he wants to believe will tell me guilt can only be decides by courts.

Given context, we are both correct. Inserting appropriate context shows us the the clever guy is simply hoping people think he's clever as he installs the auto-barrier against other opinions.

[Cary]

103. True, but I'm not the one demanding that the "formal constext" apply to the "camp-fire context"

Nor visa versa.

Whether there could be an indictment or a prosecution is simply not something I have addressed. Nor am I prepared to address it. Why should I be?

[LanternWaste]

105. I didn't think you were.

'I'm not the one demanding that the "formal constext"'

I didn't think you were.

I think a handful of others are dogmatically insisting one and only one context be allowed in any given discussion-- and they believe they decide what the context will be.

[ronnie624]

111. The problem is

people can damage their credibility by running around screeching things that the facts do not support, even if they are doing it 'informally'

[Cary]

113. And I didn't think you were addressing me.

I agree with you. I'm just clarifying my own position, which is that I'm perfectly justified in calling them traitors given the evidence.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

[Blue_Tires]

115. aka the Intercept's second most popular method of reporting

the first is naturally "Since some Dem said or did something at some time all criticism of the GOP and reporting on GOP scandals is invalid!"

[Cary]

116. Very true!

Mostly Bill Clinton. They seem to be quiet about President Obama.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

118. They're trying to bring Hillary in on this as well

by claiming that she met with the Russian Ambassador as well. Insofar as we know, however, there was nothing shady or mysterious about it (nor had it been lied about).