Last edited Sat Dec 31, 2016, 10:09 AM - Edit history (1)
Sorry, but whatever Trump did, and whatever crimes he committed, he didn't commit treason (which isn't the same thing as saying he didn't commit an impeachable offense).
There's a reason that treason has been so rarely prosecuted in the country' history. There's a reason that the Rosenbergs were not prosecuted for treason (whether they should've been convicted of espionage is another issue), why Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen weren't prosecuted for treason. Why John Walker Lindh wasn't prosecuted for treason. Why Edward Snowden hasn't been and won't be prosecuted for treason.
There are two circumstances in which someone can be charged with treason under the Constitution -- narrow by design of the founding fathers.
First, you can commit treason by "levying war" against the United States and second you can commit treason by giving aid and comfort to an "enemy" of the United States.
The meaning of those terms is well settled. Levying war means taking up arms. And as for whether Trump gave aid and comfort to an "enemy," 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 and, consequently, Trump won't be and cannot be charged with treason. But there may be other crimes that have been committed and we should not shy away from demanding that there be a full investigation and such charges as are appropriate following that investigation.
= new reply since forum marked as read