Why Not Call It Treason?

[turbinetree]

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

When treason became a Washington buzzword, the pushback came fast and furious.

Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian government attorney, a Russian government lobbyist and others to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton does not qualify as treason, the Washington Post explained, because of the language of the Constitution.

“Treason is a little extreme for this,” said law professor Richard Briffault. “[Russia] may not be our friend, but it is not clear they are our enemy. We are not at war.”

The very allegation is a sign of the “licentiousness of the press,” sniffed the Washington Times.

Team Trump has possibly violated 52 U.S. Code Section 30121, said the experts at Slate. And even on that petty charge, scholars dispute whether a foreign government’s opposition research constitutes a “thing of value.”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/not-call-treason/

[randr]

1. When a foreign power fucks with your free elections

You are at war!

[Gabi Hayes]

2. Funny you should mention that....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029339421

[gordianot]

3. When you are prepared to destroy a nation on short notice that is war.

By short notice within as little as 4 minutes response time. There are two potential belligerents hostile nations China and Russia. One ICBM with MIRV would suffice to do the trick devastating Russia, China and the United States. There is not any treaty that changes that fact. Add France, Great Britain and possibly Israel to that mix.

No declaration of War required and it has been that way for decades. Donald Trump threatens that balance with his extreme nationalism and his support of Russia against our allies is TREASON.

[lapucelle]

4. It's overreach to call this treason.

Here's the relevant statute:

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 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.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Here's the Constitution:

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.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/donald_trump_jr_isn_t_guilty_of_treason_but_he_likely_committed_this_other.html

[turbinetree]

5. What do you call it then?

I call it TREASON

[lapucelle]

11. It doesn't matter what you or I want to call it.

In a court of law, it matters what the statutes say.

The actions do not fit the statutory definition of treason; the actions do not fit the constitutional definition either. Here's the statuatory law that Trump & Co. appear to to have violated.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2014-title52/USCODE-2014-title52-subtitleIII-chap301-subchapI-sec30121

[melm00se]

64. stop throwing

roadblocks of facts in the way of a righteously indignant tirade.

[triron]

15. Fits the "dictionary" definition of treason.

[onenote]

34. the dictionary doesn't define treason for purposes of US law. The Constitution does.

And the cases interpreting the Constitutional provision. And that provision is exceedingly narrow, for good reason. The founders of our nation were themselves considered traitors. Indeed, during colonial times, one who supported the crown might be considered a traitor under the laws of the colony in which they lived, and one who supported the colony's laws might be considered a traitor to the crown. With that dilemma firmly in mind, the Supreme Court has noted, "the basic law of treason in this country was framed by men who...were taught by experience and by history to fear abuse of the treason charge almost as much as they feared treason itself."

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. a. it sure looks like treason when you isolate this passage

or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere

and



b. if this was a democrat, we would not be having this discussion, they would be impeached already, treason charges or not


When you assist our enemy in hacking an election, isnt that giving them aid and comfort?

[Gabi Hayes]

63. It was JUST like Pearl Harbor on a protractedscale

WAR

You got it right

WAR

Watch this compelling clip

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/07/kurt-eichenwald-goes-righteous-rant

[Eliot Rosewater]

66. We have to acknowledge our reality, half the voters (doesnt matter if that is really only 30%

of the population), HALF of us want a dictator who will destroy black people, gay people, women.

They WANT that, right HERE in America.

If we are able to have a free election in the next two and get rid of these traitors, maybe we survive. But I dont see how we can do that since we are inviting Russia in.

BTW, a very large percentage of "progressives" are going to vote 3rd party or not at all in the next two.

[Gabi Hayes]

67. That last sentEnce scares the cats outta me

So did the NPR interview with a software expert who reiterated how easy it is to get into the voter databases AND paperless vote machines, even if they're OFF line

Zip drive, anyone

Holy ballot box, batman!

[Squinch]

12. Clearly Trump(R) has adhered to an enemy of the US, and has given them aid within the US.

There is no requirement, as so many seem to believe, that we be at war. Only that the other party is an enemy.

And enemy is not defined for us.

I think if we are being logical, we can all recognize that Russia has been an enemy for two generations.

[triron]

16. Excellent point.

[lapucelle]

25. While "enemy" might not be defined in the Constitution,

Black's Law Dictionary says:

"in public law, signifies either the nation which is at war with another, or a citizen or subject of such nation."

Here is Marshal's construction of the term:

"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/787437.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A52252b7cb5ab01470d1253f4916f8c07

[Squinch]

30. I think we can easily say that a foreign power that wants to take over our election is in

open hostility with us, and therefore Russia fits the bill.

[lapucelle]

32. What some can "easily say"

it not necessarily true nor easily argued in court.

[Squinch]

33. Could it be argued that they were NOT acting in a hostile way when they tried to rig our election?

[lapucelle]

41. Who is the "they" you refer to?

Private citizens of several countries? Russian operatives? State-sponsored Russian operatives? Russian agents? The Russian government?

The first hurdle is determining who was acting.

Then ask constitutional and statutory-language scholars about the arguments that can be made.

[Squinch]

47. Putin. Putin's friends. So yes to all of the above. All of our security agencies are pretty much

on the record and in agreement on that.

[lapucelle]

50. I'll say it again. It's a dangerous game to play.

"I think it's treason, therefore it is" sounds like mob rule to me, and mobs are frequently wrong. This is an ill-advised tactic frequently used by authoritarian governments.

If evidence emerges to substantiate criminal charges (and I believe it has and will continue to emerge), then build a case and charge under the appropriate and relevant criminal statutes. That's the surest way to get convictions. Going off half-cocked with unsupported allegations is no way to win. It makes us sound as extreme and doctrinaire as the other side. We're better than that.

[Eliot Rosewater]

68. And anyone who still supports trump is guilty of what he is guilty of, and if that is

treason, then so be it.

We have gone from "he didnt do it" to "well, he probably did it but it isnt illegal" to "well, it might be illegal but it surely isnt treason"

Or something like that. Look, if a democrat did this they wouldnt be impeached or indicted, because they wouldnt live long enough for that, the deplorables would overpower the SS and kill them.

And yet NOTHING is done when a republican does it...

[NCTraveler]

6. I believe we are looking at treason.

It has been explained to me why it is not treason. I don't think the explanations hold up to today's reality.

[turbinetree]

7. Conspiracy to obstruct the Constitution is at play here

and in my x-military life opinion this is TREASON

[lapucelle]

17. Here's an overview of federal conspiracy law.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf

I've never heard of "conspiracy to obstruct the constitution". Is that an actual crime?

[turbinetree]

26. I go back to Watergate, when the yahoo in the White House and the gang

where committing a conspiracy to obstruct the way the Constitution is to operate under (to defend and protect).
They broke laws to protect the Constitution, even though they were local laws, they were federal law enforcement officials, which eventually went to the federal level, the federal level is the last resort for everything, damn near all state and local laws go step by step with federal law, if not, then it goes to the court for rulings. There main duty is to protect and defend the Constitution, they failed to do this.

Oliver North and that gang was part of a conspiracy to obstruct the laws under which the Constitution was written and they failed to protect the country.

Everything, or almost everything in the Constitution is relegated to the Supremacy Clause

When the word treason was added to the Constitution it was done with Madison and Mason fighting over how this should be interpreted and who should have the power in judgement of that offense, and so the Committee of Detail came up with a standard "treason, bribery, or corruption" as the impeachable offense.

Corruption / Conspiracy in my book under the "federal" guise being played out by these yahoo's currently running this big boondoggle is an act of TREASON, they have violated laws that have been subjected to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, from which they are found to be either Constitutional or not but the courts. And in the present format they are committing a conspiracy to obstruct the constitution.

This is my opinion.

[lapucelle]

31. I don't think that's accurate.

The crime of treason was already defined in the Constitution when Madison and Mason had their debate. Their argument concerned the list of impeachable offenses.

"Because treason was expressly and narrowly defined in the Constitution itself, Mason was concerned that impeachment power would not reach "great and dangerous offenses' and that 'attempts to subvert the Constitution' might not be 'treason' as defined in Article III of the Constitution, Mason moved to add 'maladministration' as a catchall category."

It was the term "maladministration" that Mason and Madison argued over, not the definition of treason. Madison thought it was too vague.

https://books.google.com/books?id=lCAn23QeJLkC&pg=SL5-PA49&lpg=SL5-PA49&dq=madison+mason+treason&source=bl&ots=hsHCt8svSX&sig=g-unglK3MBY8y1uFLzpaGsUiHV0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQt9Tcr5jVAhXB54MKHSPBAfAQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&q=madison%20mason%20treason&f=false

[Decoy of Fenris]

8. "Why not call a dog a butternut squash?" Because words matter. This wasn't treason.

The reason it's not treason is precisely to avoid the type of thought going on here at D.U.: To stop people from using "Treason" as a political cudgel against a political opponent.The laws regarding treason keep that in mind, and consequentially, it's stupidly difficult to get a charge of Treason to stick. In many ways, the more you falsely scream "Treason!", the more the restrictive nature and wording of the law is vindicated. In that way, you're your own worst enemy.

Just because you really want something to be true doesn't mean it is or will be. A dog can never be a butternut squash, no matter how much you hope and pray about it.

[JoeStuckInOH]

28. A dog might not ever be a butternut squash, But both could be eaten all the same.

Food for thought.

[FiveGoodMen]

51. So, what IS the right word

for lying your way into power only to dismantle a democratic (small d) government?

[Decoy of Fenris]

55. Couldn't tell you. Collusion, maybe?

The only reason I know why it isn't treason is because through both Bush and Obama's eras, all you heard from either side of the aisle was "Treason, treason, treason!" I finally said "screw it, let's see how wrong they are."

Turns out that if someone says "Treason", the best cast scenario is they're probably grossly and recklessly ignorant. The worst case is that they're unfathomably stupid. Pick your poison.

[FiveGoodMen]

56. Well we DO need appropriate and agreed-upon language

to describe the level of treachery, betrayal and criminality that we're discussing.

Reminding each other what words are not technically correct doesn't solve that.

I should also point out:

trea-son
noun

1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.

3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/treason?s=t

So, perhaps the legal definition is not the only appropriate use of the word.

[madville]

9. No one will be charged with treason

Obstruction? Sure.

Accepting items of value, maybe.

He'll end pardoning everyone he needs to anyway, but that will be very damaging if it comes to that.

[jmg257]

10. Because it does not seem to fit with the definition, especially with re: "war".

"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"

We do immense - millions and millions of $$$ - trade with Russia. We are not at war with them.
Not clear we are even enemies.

[Squinch]

48. Adheres to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid within the United States.

Check, check and check.

With respect to the definition of "enemy," when a foreign power moves to bring down the governing structures of the US, that foreign power really has to qualify as an enemy.

[jmg257]

60. Keep your "enemies" close I guess, as long as we can conduct trade with them!

[MineralMan]

13. Because nobody under investigation will ever be charged with "Treason."

That's why not. Treason is a very, very specific crime that requires an actual enemy as that word is defined.

We are not at war with Russia. They are not an "enemy." So, no charges of treason will be made officially.

We often misuse the word in a colloquial sense, but it has a precise legal definition.

[lapucelle]

20. This is a dangerous game.

The framers were careful and specific for a reason. Claiming "treason" does not serve us well.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/homeland-security-chairman-says-hillary-clinton-committed-treason

[MineralMan]

21. Actually, it's really a risk to any real action.

If we demand that people be charged with treason, we may get no charges at all.

Amateurs shouldn't use words they don't actually understand or get their hopes up for something that cannot occur.

Treason is about times of war. Official war. We are not at war with Russia. They are actually a trading partner with us.

They may be an "adversary" but are not an "enemy," as meant by the definition of treason in the Constitution.

[lapucelle]

29. Your point is very well taken.

There is also the caution that the more elastic these terms become, the more it will endanger genuine citizen activism.

[onenote]

37. Exactly. See post #34

[lapucelle]

45. The New York Times weighed in .......in 1861.

http://www.nytimes.com/1861/01/25/news/treason-against-the-united-states.html?pagewanted=all

[onenote]

46. Thanks.

[kacekwl]

14. They called it treason when

Obama saluted with coffee in his hand.

[onenote]

35. And based on that you think we ought broaden what constitutes treason?

There are some of us here who recoil at the loose use of the charge treason precisely because we have been on the receiving end of that epithet. Some of us, in opposing the war, not only marched against the war, but also counseled others on how to evade service, evaded service ourselves, and engaged in disruptive tactics such as blocking the entrances to induction centers and burning draft cards. For those actions, we were labeled traitors because we were "giving aid and comfort" to our enemy.

I fear that some of the folks here who so quickly want to broaden what constitutes treason might well have joined the mob screaming "traitor" at those of us who took overt actions to impede the war in Vietnam from being waged as our leaders then wanted.

The Supreme Court, in 1945, reviewed thoroughly the history of the treason charge and why the founders sought to make it narrower than it had been when applied by English courts. As the Court noted, "the basic law of treason in this country was framed by men who, as we have seen, were taught by experience and by history to fear abuse of the treason charge almost as much as they feared treason itself."

[kacekwl]

57. I call it Treason.

When Fox news,Rush Limbaugh,and all the other scrum who screamed treason every chance they could it sure seemed to work for them Let the lawyers work out the particulars I call treason.

[onenote]

58. So you admit to wanting to be like them.

Sad.

[kacekwl]

69. When it gets results yes. Sometimes to get the point across you use what people seem to understand.

Trump is president and we have NO branches of government. Point proven.

[Caliman73]

18. The issues are complicated by our use of language.

Treason has different meanings in different contexts. There is an obvious legal definition for Treason when it comes to national security and the prosecution of people who aid enemy nations during times of stated war, or times when there is not a formal declaration of war, but the nation is considered a hostile power. If one of our generals were to go to North Korea and provide them with the passwords for our cyber defenses, that would very likely be considered Treason. We are not officially at war with North Korea, but they are considered a belligerent nation, thus the legal consideration of treason.

Treason also has other meanings in modern usage, one of which is a betrayal. People use treason do denote a significant betrayal. In this respect, colluding with a foreign power for personal gain at the expense of the nation could easily be considered treasonous because it is a betrayal of American political and civil sentiment for personal enrichment or power. As stated in the article, "betrayal of country" is the common sense definition of treason.

Overall, I agree with the article in that we should not shy away from the use of the concept of treason with regard to what Trump and his team appear to have done with respect to the Russian involvement in the election. I do think that we need to be out there and talking about what it certainly looks like. I just think that we need to be careful not to pronounce Trump "guilty of treason" before the investigation is completed and all the evidence is gathered.

Dean Obeidallah a former lawyer, comedian, and progressive radio show host explained it in a way that I agree with when he said that he thinks stays away from simply saying "Trump committed treason" but says that, Trump has committed treason ideologically. He has betrayed the American people and American principles with his actions.

[triron]

38. imo the (mostly) circumstantial and (some) direct evidence is overwhelming already that Trump

et al committed treason. Those investigating and media refuse to go there for some reason.
Nothing new would convince me otherwise (if I were a juror).

[Caliman73]

54. I understand the sentiment.

I do however, wonder how you could make that determination without having access to all of the available information and without having clear instruction as to what the nature of the crime you would be voting on.

There is a lot of information out there that would certainly point to some kind of crime happening but we cannot be sure what that crime is yet.

The investigating parties refuse to go there because they can't really. They cannot say that a crime has been committed. They cannot even charge a crime really, except for the FBI I believe. Mueller is special counsel, he is not a sworn officer. He will write a report recommending a certain legal course of action, or not, based on the evidence he and his team were able to compile. If he were to conclude that Trump committed "Treason" without 100% iron clad proof, the reputation of the special counsel and the investigative process would be destroyed. Same with the media. They flirt with the term but they cannot just come out and say that Trump committed Treason, they would again, ruin the credibility of the media, more than it is already damaged if they jumped to that conclusion.

The one time I was ever selected to be on a jury panel, I was 22. I was seated in the jury box. The prosecutor gave a summary of the case, painting the defendant as this dirtbag, but offering information about, but no evidence of the crime committed. At the end of the speech, the judged asked the pool, "Based on the information you have now, what would your verdict be?" Nobody raised their hand so he called on me. "Not guilty" I said. The judge asked, "Why would you say that?" I said, "The picture painted was not good, but there was insufficient evidence presented to prove guilt beyond a doubt so you have to assume innocence." The judge said, "You are absolutely right". The prosecutor used one of his preemptive challenges and had me dismissed from the pool.

Our system is founded on innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Our system is not perfect by any means, but when we presume guilt without due process, we undermine the entire framework of the justice system.

Trump is likely one of the worst people to ever inhabit the White House. He is vulgar, stupid, incompetent, and I believe dangerous. I still say however, that we need to allow the investigation to make its recommendations and then hopefully adjudicate the matter. I want to see this administration go down, and go down in the hardest, most humiliating way possible, but I want it to be done the right way, the ethical way.

[onenote]

73. The reason those investigating and the media refuse to go there is that they unerstand how narrow

treason is under our constitution.

The words of Chief Justice Marshall in 1807 give some indication of how narrowly treason is defined:

"To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the Court have been commuted, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the Government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war. and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into operation by an assemblage of men for a purpose, treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed." * * * * * * * "It is not the intention of the Court to say that no individual can be guilty of this crime who has not appeared in arms against his country. On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men Be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men for a treasonable purpose to constitute levying of war. Crimes, so atrocious as those which have for their object the subversion by violence of those laws and those institutions which have been ordained in order to secure the peace and happiness of society, are not to escape punishment because they have not ripened into treason. The wisdom of the Legislature is competent to provide for the case."

The final sentence is particularly telling, since it indicates that even atrocious crimes seeking to subvert the institutions of government may not be treason, but may nonetheless be dealt with under other provisions of law.

[triron]

19. kick for visibility

[triron]

22. kick again

[Dreamer Tatum]

23. "treason" is the "double secret probation" of the Left nt

[triron]

24. kick again

[uponit7771]

27. Its treason, the word smiths can slice onions on this but its betrayal of what US stands for period

[onenote]

36. The "word smiths" are following the Constitution. You're following the dictionary.

I'm going to side with the word smiths.

[uponit7771]

39. The context here is what is right not legal, so of course I'd go with the dictionary right? tia

[onenote]

40. actually the article in the OP was about the legal definition of treason

That would be the "context" here.

[uponit7771]

42. In that case right now we don't know, the accusation of treason is not premature even assertion is

... I agree with that part of the article.

[onenote]

43. By definition if we don't know then the accusation is premature

I don't know whether or not my next door neighbor who just bought a fancy new car robbed a bank. But it would manifestly premature for me to assert that he is one.

[SledDriver]

49. Agreed

It walks like a treasonweasle... bullshits like a treasonweasle... yup, treasonweasle....

[Bleacher Creature]

44. I'm happy to call it treason. NT

[madinmaryland]

53. To say that we are not at war with Russia is bullshit, when they have 9000 nuclear warheads pointed

at our country. We are still at war with them and must still treat it as wartime. It sure as hell is treason.

[onenote]

59. We're not at war. We're not even "enemies."

There actually are indicia of when countries are at war and/or are enemies. Countries at war don't have diplomatic relations. Countries at war don't allow civilian travel between the countries or have bilateral trade relationships. Russia is not, and has never been, named an "enemy" of the United States under the Trading With The Enemies Act. (In contrast, we are "at war" with North Korea, which is listed as an "enemy" under the TWTE Act). Over the years there have been numerous prosecutions of Americans for engaging in espionage on behalf of Russia. Not one has been charged with treason. Why? Because we're not at war with Russia and they are not an "enemy" as that term is understood in the law of the United States.

It's interesting that you find the fact that Russia having nuclear warheads pointed at us makes be in a state of war with them. That's precisely the argument the McCarthy-ites made. You might want to think about that for a minute.

[Gabi Hayes]

61. You mean like this?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029339421


A fun thread:

[Gabi Hayes]

62. Amen! Check out Kurt eichenwald on Joy

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/07/kurt-eichenwald-goes-righteous-rant

It was an act of WAR!

Saw this live

Compelling

Needs spreading

They've gone after him on twitter with SEIZURE inducing gifs!!!!!

He's going after THEM

He's the goods

[Gabi Hayes]

65. Whoa

The sophistry on this thread amazes

When the true history of this sad episode is written, it will be shown that WAR was (and still is) being waged against the very fundament of our way of life

Not bombs this time.....how passé

Are we at war with isis?

Who poses the greater threat?

Who wrote that funny book None Dare Call it Treason? Wonder whose side she'd be on now

[onenote]

70. Kurt's not a lawyer.

And if he is right that an act of war has been committed, not only against the US, but against England, the Netherlands, Italy, and France, why do those countries, along with the United States, still have diplomatic relations with Russia, allow civilian travel to and from Russia, engage in bilateral trade with Russia. Why haven't any of these countries frozen Russian assets? Why haven't they invoked the mutual self-defense provisions of the NATO agreement. Those are steps that would indicate that a state of war exists and none of them have been taken. And US law defines what an enemy is, and Russia doesn't meet that definition.

To be clear, I'm not defending in any way, shape or form what has transpired and the obvious collusion between Russia and the Trump administration to surreptitiously seek to influence the outcome of the election. But treason has an established, exceedingly narrow, legal definition under the Constitution and a reporter saying its treason without addressing any of the issues raised above is hardly making a convincing legal case.

[Gabi Hayes]

71. Pearl Harbor, cyber style

Got it?

How bout 911?

Fancy it up all you want

This may be one of your last chances to talk like this about Dear Leader

Enjoy yourself

[onenote]

72. And it took less than 24 hours after Pearl Harbor to sever diplomatic relations

and suspend trade and travel.

So, try again to explain how this is war when none of the indicia by which the existence of war are measured exist.

[Gabi Hayes]

74. Open your eyes

Accept reality. Your PH ref makes no sense, aside from the fact that we SHOULD have responded in much more strident terms.
Clearly we see things totally differently

What's it gonna take? An EMP?

Enjoy your POV

We'll see how it shakes out

[onenote]

75. An EMP would be an act of war under some interpretations

Those interpretations focus specifically on the use of cyber to destroy or damage infrastructure.

Foreign governmental efforts to influence the outcome of a US election are not per se unlawful. If they were, then there would be severe consequences for the fact that the presidents of France and Italy publicly endorsed Hillary during the election.

Where attempts to influence cross the line is where they are done surreptitiously and through the violation of other laws, such as laws against theft (whether cyber or otherwise).

My eyes are wide open. The chances of a treason prosecution being brought are zero because under the constitutional definition of treason and the established precedents, there is zero chance of such a prosecution being successful. Time to accept that reality and focus on keeping up pressure on the legislative branch not to enact the most harmful actions being proposed by Trump and the repub leadership, on getting Democrats elected at every level of government, starting in 2017 and continuing into 2018 and beyond, and in pushing for an impeachment inquiry.

[Gabi Hayes]

76. You like to hear yourself talk, don't you

While saying not much worth listening to



"Let's talk about what we did to force you to light that EMP over us, vlad

What can we do to make it up to you?"

[onenote]

77. Oh, you're so mean. I guess I should be crying.

Jeez. Get over yourself. Its a discussion board. If you don't want to have a discussion, don't participate. Go play with your toys.

[Gabi Hayes]

78. Giving up already?

At least you recognize an untenable position, mr/ms thinskin

Shows you have a learning curve of sorts


Now, if you can just find an editor


I'll clearly take KE's experience, including life threatening cyber attacks, over your pretentious bloviata