'Thats the definition of treason': Democratic lawmaker levels serious charge against Trump admin

[DonViejo]

Source: RawStory


‘That’s the definition of treason’: Democratic lawmaker levels serious charge against Trump administration

SARAH K. BURRIS
14 FEB 2017 AT 13:49 ET


Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) used the word “treason” when describing Gen. Michael Flynn’s actions. However, his concern is not Flynn but the role the president played in these series of Russian scandals.

“The bigger problem, the scandal of the century, not the scandal of the week, is this ongoing relationship with Russia,” the former Marine told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Tuesday. “There is no question it’s the unequivocal conclusion of all our intelligence agencies that Russia wanted Donald Trump to be elected president. Either that’s just because they think Trump is Putin’s buddy and he is going to do his bidding or because they have material they can use against the administration. We don’t need to just know what Flynn knew or when his associates in the White House knew, we need to know what Russia knows and what they still hold over the heads of the people in the White House.”

Moulton said he doesn’t believe anything in Washington happens in a vacuum, whether it’s a meeting or a phone call.

“Let’s not lose perspective on exactly who we’re talking about here,” he continued. “If members of the administration are essentially conspiring with Russia, either through the campaign earlier, now than the — look, Wolf, that’s the definition of treason. This is a very, very serious affair. We all have to understand what’s going on with Michael Flynn, but we can’t let this little scandal or perhaps a big scandal at the moment let us lose sight of the much bigger scandal, which is what is the overall connection between Russia and the Trump administration.”



Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/thats-the-definition-of-treason-democratic-lawmaker-levels-serious-charge-against-trump-administration/

[MBS]

1. Good for him.

Seth Moulton has the creds to make this charge.
I've been eaten alive by this story for more than a year now, and I'm glad to see the full story finally coming out in the open. Just in the nick of time.

[onenote]

2. No its not. But thanks for revealing that even some Democrats don't read the Constitution.

I hate it when our side does stupid shit like this.

If this guy thinks we're at war with Russia, let's hear him demand that we recall our diplomats from Russia, close our embassy and terminate all diplomatic relations with Russia, and suspend all trade (imports and exports) with Russia.

He's not going to do that.

[bettyellen]

4. Conspiring to work with Russia the FBI and candidates to effect

Our elections and lying to various govt entities about it for almost a year is not treasonous?

[onenote]

6. Not under the extremely narrow definition of treason in the Constitution

We are not at war with Russia. We maintain diplomatic relations with Russia. We have billions in bilateral trade with Russia (exports and imports). Those are not things nations do when they are at "war" with one another.

Rep. Moulton is many things and is to be admired for them. But he's not a lawyer and shouldn't be spouting off about the "definition" of treason.

[mobeau69]

7. Sounds like an interpretation by a strict constructionist.

A broad constructionist might beg to differ.

[onenote]

11. No, its the accepted interpretation of 200 years of Constitutional jurisprudence

Believe me, you don't want folks running around with broad interpretations of what constitutes treason. Some of us remember what its like to have that accusation thrown at us for "giving aid and comfort" to an enemy (North Vietnam) by opposing the war, avoiding the draft, counseling others to avoid the draft, etc.

[The Sand Reckoner]

17. The issue in this case is whether Russia can be considered an "enemy"

Your argument that they cannot possibly be regarded as such is unconvincing, to say the least.

[onenote]

19. To repeat for the third time:

I refer you to the definition of enemy found in title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense): Section 2204: "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."

The term "hostilities" is not defined in title 50, but it is defined in title 10 (Armed Forces). Section 948a - "The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war."

Our differences with Russia do not amount to a conflict subject to the laws of war.


Now tell me what is unconvincing about that, particularly when viewed through the context of 200 years of precedent. And explain why, under your interpretation, all of us who took affirmative steps to avoid fighting in the Vietnam War, who demanded that funding for the war be cut off, who counseled others to avoid the draft (even if such avoidance involved breaking the law), weren't guilty of treason.

[The Sand Reckoner]

27. And what is your evidence

that that particular definition of "hostilities" (which is not part of any criminal code) is the ONLY one that could legally be applied to support a charge of treason?

[PoliticAverse]

28. What definition do you think the Supreme Court would use - a broader one or narrower one? n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

38. We are in a not so undeclared cyber war. Welcome to 2017. Retaliations and statements...

... by The President included.

I think trying to rig elections and/or blackmail senior White House staff and maybe POTUS meets the definition of hostilities.

And you know what? Who gives a fuck about the strict legal definition of treason. I want every Democrat and every repig with any shred patriotism left in their black souls screaming TREASON at the top of their fucking lungs. Let the actual lawyers work out the details in court.

Why are we even having this discussion.


(Not meant to be snarky against you)

[Chevy]

51. Exactly! Considering the lies that were said about Dems.

This would be something that legal experts who have to debate publicly throughout media and that is not a good thing for Rethugs.
Plus if the idiots who believe in Pizzagate want to argue that I say good luck.

[triron]

55. Yes! +10000

[The Sand Reckoner]

69. I'd bet good money on being able to convince the Supreme Court

that a plan to set off a nuclear device in a US city constitutes "hostilities". And that someone planning to do that qualifies as an "enemy" of the United States.

[Alice11111]

40. Keep repeating it in your sleep, the 4th, the 5th, the 6th...

You know what thy say about people who keep doing the same thing over and over without recognizing the result

[radical noodle]

47. "Hostilities" have taken on a different meaning

This has been called cyber warfare.

[onenote]

65. So you believe we're at war with Russia.

Even though a quarter of a million Americans will probably visit Russia as tourists this year, several billion dollars of commerce between the countries will occur, and even though it is not possible to bring a prosecution against an American for such activities under the trading with the enemies act, you still think its possible to bring a prosecution for treason based on actions relating to Russia.

If there has been a time when Americans freely traveled to a country with which we are at war I can't recall it. Maybe we should investigate the quarter of a million folks who visit Russia to make sure none of them are giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States.

[truebluegreen]

82. Thank you.

[brush]

83. I don't get your reasoning or your point. Flynn and possibly others, including trump...

Last edited Wed Feb 15, 2017, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

have undeniably had continued contact with foreign actors who our intelligence agents have found to have influenced our election on trump's behalf.

Crimes against our nation in collusion with a rival nation happened, without a doubt in Flynn's case (and behind the back of then President Obama).

Whether some dare call it treason — sorry for that — or sedition for that matter, who cares what the narrow, strict definition of it is.

It happened and we need to get to the bottom of it and ferret out the guilty parties.

[displacedtexan]

89. Why are Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen in prison?

Collusion with foreign governments for personal and/or political gain is, and always will be, treasonous.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. Bull shit. You are obfuscating.

You are confusing the "act" of treason with the definition of "enemy."

The issue at hand is who is an enemy.

Unless you are saying a President and National security advisor on the payroll of, or giving in to blackmail by, an enemy is not treason. (assuming we settled the "enemy" question)

Of course the right wing will call anything, including not standing for The Pledge at a baseball game, treason. That doesn't matter.

If Russia is interfering with our elections and blackmailing senior White House staff up to and/or including The President, I think we can safely call them an enemy. Not to mention statements AND actions by President Obama prior to these acts of treason made it plain we are in conflict with Russia.

Regardless of how you or anyone else want to as if that Congressman was leveling charges in court, it's still fucking treason.

[onenote]

34. Just because you want to call them an "enemy" doesn't make them one for purposes of the law

To commit treason one has to levy war -- take up arms against the US -- or give and comfort to an enemy. Who is an enemy? Someone engaged in hostilities that are subject to the laws of war -- that is, someone who is taking up arms against the US.

It's that narrow. Always has been and you should pray it always remains that narrow.

[Alice11111]

39. Good argument! 5 phone calls Flynn had w Russia b4 Inag

in which he obviously discussed rolling back Obama sanctions. Like Bannon, Trump, others didn’t know. Now we even know that Comey knew

TREASON! UP! DOWN! ALL AROUND!
Happy Valentine's w a heart!

Is it coincidence that Russia is launching a cruise and flaunting a submarine off the coast?
Like, better keep your mouthskin shut Trumpsters

[Hassin Bin Sober]

41. Thanks for the heart!!

[mopinko]

59. they accomplished their goals. they changed the regime w/o firing a shot. installed a dictator

via a crooked election. unlocked god knows how much classified information. and turned the political discourse in this country into a suicide spin.
and oh yeah, unleashed the hate.

sounds like a war to me.

[mobeau69]

8. But could one consider them an enemy?

[onenote]

12. No.

I refer you to the definition of enemy found in title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense): Section 2204: "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."

The term "hostilities" is not defined in title 50, but it is defined in title 10 (Armed Forces). Section 948a - "The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war."

Our differences with Russia do not amount to a conflict subject to the laws of war.

[mobeau69]

58. But how does the Constitution define them?

[JTFrog]

72. From one of their own: McCain: "Russian cyberintrusions an 'act of war'."

This is not merely a matter of differences. They hacked our fucking election and apparently are in control of our government.

[onenote]

73. John McCain is a big fan of declaring "acts of war."

In 2009, he declared that 9/11 was an act of war that justified locking people up in Guantanamo and trying them in military court rather than criminal court, contrary to the policy of the Obama administration. And in 2010, he declared North Korea's cyberintrusion into Sony Pictures to be "an act of war", a characterization rejected by Obama.

So I'll pass on McCain as an expert witness on what constitutes an "act of war."

[JTFrog]

74. And I'll pass on yours. nt

[onenote]

75. That's certainly your right.

Doesn't make your reliance on McCain any more logical.

[The Sand Reckoner]

9. We had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union

during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Are you saying it would not have been treason for an American to reveal our naval plans to the Soviets during that time since, by your argument, we were not at "war" with them, and therefore they could not be considered an "enemy"?

[onenote]

21. No, I don't think it would have been treason.

We were not engaged in hostilities subject to the rules of war with Russia at the time. We were on the verge of being engaged in such hostilities, but that could have been said about our relations with Russia at numerous points during the Cold War. Yet, no one -- not any of the Americans arrested for espionage who gave away military secrets to the Russians -- were ever charged with Treason.

[The Sand Reckoner]

25. Neither were any of the United States military officers

who fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War, including Robert E. Lee, even though what they did was black letter treason.

Not a good argument for what does and does not constitute treason, sorry.

[onenote]

29. They were pardoned for their treason.

You should work on your knowledge of US history.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360

[The Sand Reckoner]

35. Spare me your condescension

The point which remains undisputed is that the fact that a decision is made not to prosecute someone (for whatever reason) does not equate to their not having committed the offense in fact. Difficulty in proving treason does not in any way mean that an act conforming to the legal definition has not been committed.

You do get that, right?

[onenote]

37. Spare me yours.

I'm not the one who threw out the alternative fact that no one claimed treason applied to the confederate army without bothering to research the question -- something that would have taken fifteen seconds and saved us this back and forth.

Yes, prosecutions are not brought for a variety of reasons. The number one reason: the case can't be won because the accused will be found not to have committed the crime.

There's a reason why prosecutors for 200 plus years have so rarely brought treason charges -- its because they don't want to bring sure losers. Hell even when they think they have a sure winner, it sometimes turns out that they don't, such as was the case with Aaron Burr and more recently Chelsea Manning.

So yeah, I get it.

[GeoWilliam750]

79. Thank you for the information

Sometimes it is good to understand the legal definitions.

[erronis]

53. Thank you, onenote, for a lot of education

Probably more than I want to know or am able to assimilate.

But I like having references to rules and laws that make up our legal code.

I understand everyone's viewpoints that these people (Trump and administration) are destroying this country via connivance or convenience with foreign powers that desire the downfall of this country.

Still, I fear that if we stray into various viewpoints rather than adhere to laws we may end up with "people's courts" - quickly devolving into a non-democratic dictatorship.

[bettyellen]

10. So under anything but a very narrow definition it IS treason, got it!

[onenote]

14. And anyone who knows anything about the history of the Treason provision knows it was meant to be

very narrowly defined.

Again, you really don't want a broad definition if you think about what it actually would mean.

[Hortensis]

13. We do NOT have to be at war. Please reread:

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

Note the "or." Note that the first "them" war would be levied against is the United States--ourselves by the traitor. The second "them" refers to our enemies.

Question would be whether 45's or other persons' actions (such as FBI Director Comey's, for instance) fit the definitions/interpretations of "enemies" and "aid and comfort" as established in precedent decisions. Giving aid and comfort to an enemy, btw, would not require actually colluding with that enemy.

[onenote]

16. To Repeat:

I refer you to the definition of enemy found in title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense): Section 2204: "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."

The term "hostilities" is not defined in title 50, but it is defined in title 10 (Armed Forces). Section 948a - "The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war."

Our differences with Russia do not amount to a conflict subject to the laws of war.

[Hortensis]

20. Hostilities subject to is not synonymous with war.

[onenote]

24. I'll try one more time, not that I think you'll understand.

There are two ways under the Constitution that one can commit treason.

One is to "levy war" and the other is to give aid and comfort to an enemy.

Levying war means taking up arms against the US. That's how it has been interpreted and that's the only interpretation that makes sense since it is the more stringent of the two standards.

The second standard involves activity that falls short of actually taking up arms against the US but involves giving aid and comfort to our enemies? Who are our enemies? Those that are engaged in hostilities subject to the rules of war -- that is, those who are levying war against us.

[The Sand Reckoner]

22. Defining an "enemy" as an entity that plans or intends

to do harm to this country, and including giving aid to such an entity under the umbrella of "treason", is hardly a stretch.

If a terrorist group were planning an attack on the United States, and an American citizen aided them in carrying it out, why would the founders have wished to exclude that from the definition of treason?

[onenote]

26. Yes it is.

If it wasn't a stretch, then those of us who "gave aid and comfort" to North Vietnam -- a country that we were actually in a shooting war against -- by trying to get the government to cut off funding to the war, by blocking draft centers and military installations, by counseling others to avoid the draft were "traitors."

There were people at the time who claimed our actions gave aid and comfort to the enemy and thus should be prosecuted as treason. I can only hope you weren't or wouldn't have been one of those people.

[The Sand Reckoner]

31. That's a quibble over "aid and comfort"

I'm talking about the definition of "enemy". You can make a distinction between direct aid and indirect aid.

And ironically, YOU'RE the one arguing throughout this thread that it doesn't matter what we'd like to be treason, only whether something actually qualifies under the definition. That you or I might sympathize with the cause of anti-war protesters or personally feel their actions were justified has nothing whatsoever to do with whether their actions actually fell under the legal definition of treason. As noted, I don't think they did from an objective standpoint, but IF they did, my own personal sympathies, or the rightness of the war, would be irrelevant.

[PoliticAverse]

71. Remember though that even Jane Fonda wasn't charged with treason. n/t

[The Polack MSgt]

43. Thanks for this - It's tempting too accuse your opponenet of the worst possible crimes

And 45's conduct IMHO rises to the "High Crimes or Misdemeanors" level for the corruption alone.

But "Treason"?
Nah, fun to say, sure but almost impossible to charge someone with it.

Even SGT Bergdhal wasn't charged with treason, and that was probably as close as anyone got in my lifetime.

[Roy Rolling]

49. But I'm mad NOW! LOL

It may be the "aiding and abetting North Vietnam" is such an obscure threat to some. To others who lived through it, they know how off the rails a government can get when it wants to abuse its power...and why narrow definitions are necessary on things like this.

[onenote]

66. Thank you.

A quarter of a million Americans visit Russia every year. If we were really at war with Russia would that be allowed? Hell, Russia hasn't been named an enemy of the US for purposes of the trading with the enemies act, yet some people think that its possible to be charged with treason, a much more serious and narrow offense than trading with an enemy.

[Petrushka]

81. You forgot the operative word "adhering"---

---one would give enemies of the United States "aid and comfort"only if one is "adhering" to those enemies.





P.S.
So . . . now . . . ya gotta define "adhering"!

[NewRedDawn]

36. Hacking the DNC & sending to Wiki leaks to undermine are election

To alter the outcome of our election is Fucking treason! Also have no doubt hackable machines in states that have such machines was hacked to give Trump his narrow Electoral victory. It is Cyber irregular warfare, Look up Duganism

They did so to alter American interest to align with Mother Russia to the detriment of the citizens of the world, Is fucking treason! Not to mention, Probally funding Ms.Jill Stein to take 2-3% of the vote in those close states too.

[lark]

52. Colluding with a foreign government to change the course of an American election isn't treason?

I sure thought that's what I read.

[Alice11111]

32. bettyellen, Of course it's Treason! Don't let anyone tell you it isn't!

It sounds like some people here are trolling for Repubs. We don't have to start WWIII to call out Trump’s Treason, though DT may start it to change the subject.

A heart to you. Happy Valentine's!

[Achilleaze]

5. Comrade Casino & Cabal of Republican Cronies won't do it, but

a person of honesty, integrity and true American patriotism would immediately defend and protect the USA, and not be covering up the republican treachery & TREASON against America.

[Alice11111]

44. !!!

[radical noodle]

46. It seems to me that it's giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US

to allow them to manipulate our election for nefarious purposes.

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.

But maybe sedition?

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[LanternWaste]

48. You reveal your bias immediately

You reveal your bias immediately by stating that anyone who disagrees with your premise has not read the constitution. How... petulant. I hate it when our side does stupid shit like that (six of one, half a dozen of the other-- insert distinction lacking relevant difference below to maintain pretense of validity).

[onenote]

76. Everyone has a bias. Mine is in favor of paying attention to the Constitution

particularly when lowering the high bar for charging someone with treason poses a great threat to those who speak and act in ways that the government doesn't approve, such as counseling people to avoid the draft during the Vietnam war or blocking access to recruitment centers, etc.

[Duppers]

57. Treason

Last edited Tue Feb 14, 2017, 06:30 PM - Edit history (1)

"Aid and comfort" has been interpreted as giving info. Why has the U.S. convicted some citizens of crimes of treason when they passed secret info to the Russians? We do not know what info has been passed to Russia. We need to find out if they interferred with our Democratic Process, our elections. Any private citizens, having done what Rump's administration has done would already be under investigation.

[onenote]

67. Citation?

And assuming that giving info is aid and comfort it still has to be given to an "enemy" and Russia isn't an "enemy". If it was, trading with Russia would be banned under the trading with the enemies act. It's not. Travel to Russia would be banned. It's not. Diplomatic relationships with Russia would be severed. They're not.

Russia's interests and US interests are not aligned (although Trumpster thinks they should be). But that doesn't make them an "enemy" as a legal matter. And until some other steps are taken, it would be legally impossible to charge anyone with aiding and comforting an "enemy" that hasn't been declared an enemy.

[yurbud]

64. I half agree with you. Trump & his people could have committed crimes but it shouldn't

be used as an excuse to start a war.

[NewRedDawn]

70. War will be started by Putin

Putin is already in a Low grade Dugganist war with all liberal democracies, Ukraine, & the civillians in Syria. Trump & Bannon want to start a front against certain Muslim countries that have oil reserves, Mexicans, China. They are the worlds Enemy as well as Isis

[hueymahl]

86. Thank you Onenote

You are absolutely right. It may make us feel good about using that term in a political sense, but from a legal sense, it is reckless.

As the party of reason, all of us Dems should have a strong understanding of the constitution. When they go low, we go high.

[Nitram]

88. Onenote, you sound a little off-key. I'll quote from the consittuion:

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

[Initech]

15. The time to fight back is now!!

They can't get away with treason!

[nycbos]

18. Seth Moulton is awesome.

[MBS]

23. I agree! n/t

[LiberalLovinLug]

30. #ifobamahaddoneit

The list grows daily.
If Obama and the Democrats had undermined the election and colluded with a hostile foreign government, with monetary gains or blackmail behind it.
A wife that won't even live with the President in the WH.
The flurry of draconian executive orders.
The peeing hookers. And all the other disgusting stories.
I won't list everything. We all know.
But I'd like to see an ongoing website where every time Drumf steps in it, that question is asked. Obama OR Hillary for that matter.

[Liberalagogo]

42. This thread is so much nicer

after a certain poster was put on ignore.

[Dustlawyer]

45. We need to march again and show them that we mean to have an independent investigation!

The POS Flynn was part of the Trump campaign and working with the Russians! We need to protect that the will of the people, in our most basic democratic function, electing our leaders, is carried out without interference!!!

[Duppers]

63. +100

[world wide wally]

50. This is NOT the time to pull any punches

[mgardener]

54. Who knows what what was promised?

No records of that conversation.
The rest of the world must be very very nervous.

[cbdo2007]

56. They need to start calling out the rest of the Repubes and saying they are conspiring as well

[Angry Dragon]

60. Clint Eastwood : Hang Um High

[elmac]

61. Sniffles is more worried about this

Link to tweet

[Hassin Bin Sober]

62. Will leaks be happening? Depends on how badly you sell us down the river.

Or if you have any more Russian spies on the payroll, eh Mango Mussolini?

[Docreed2003]

78. Funny how he didn't seem to care too much about leaks

Saturday night when he had his whole national security team on display at his resort discussing the North Korea situation out in the open....and he certainly didn't mind leaks during the campaign when it benefitted him!

[brush]

85. Yeah, that whole think in Florida at the restaurant, with him in the spotlight and everybody...

watching him be his idea of presidential just epitomizes everything there is about trump.

He's a megalomaniac who craves attention and loves to show how important he is, who cares whether classified material was laying around where people and wait staff with no security clearances had their cell phone cameras out to shine actual spotlights on them, and of course trump, who relishes it all.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

68. It is ABOUT FUCKING TIME.

Put them all up against a wall and shoot them.

[regnaD kciN]

77. Damn shame we don't have a Democrtic congress to investigate this

[Tatiana]

80. Good for him. We should be calling this treason!

I don't care if it "technically" fits the Constitutional definition of treason or not. That's our problem! We're the only ones trying to play by a set of rules the Republicans abandoned a long time ago.

It's treason! These people are traitors! And we need to paint them with that label from now until we regain the House and Senate.

Because honestly, they have betrayed their country and the Constitution for money and power.

[Progressive dog]

84. That is the definition of treason

Trump aided Putin in attacking our government and our political system by cyber attacks. Those cyber attacks are an act of war.
Trump and crew did participate with a foreign government to wage war against the United States. That is treason.

[Nitram]

87. It's too bad Nixon and Reagan got away witth very similar treason.