General Discussion

catbyte

(38,651 posts)

54. I've thought it was a corporate/Kremlin coup d'tat since the morning of November 9, 2016,

Wed Mar 22, 2017, 10:14 PM

Mar 2017

but people thought I was "overreacting." It's looking like I might have been right after all. I've been on the planet since Eisenhower was President and this felt different--darker and much more dangerous. I've never been frightened by an election before--pissed off, yes--but never frightened. I didn't turn on my television for a month after the election, and even then I didn't start watching the news until the last couple of weeks when this whole Russian thing began to heat up.

I absolutely believe that this was treason and I'm starting to think it doesn't stop with the Administration. The way that Nunes, Chaffetz, and now Gowdy are freaking out, I think they are either in cahoots with them or are being blackmailed by them. Wikileaks/Russia hacked both the RNC & the DNC, but only leaked DNC. Why? Developing Republican assets?

I could be all wet & am turning into a conspiracy theory nut, but I don't think so. Al Franken didn't call it hinky for nothing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

148 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A very serious question: Is this treason? [View all] kentuck Mar 2017 OP

No. Because we aren't at war with Russia. They are not officially the "enemy" DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #1

We weren't at war with Russia when the Rosenbergs were executed either or the guy before them uponit7771 Mar 2017 #5

The Rosenbergs were charged with a conspiracy to commit espionage. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #7

Ah, thx for this info uponit7771 Mar 2017 #12

Isn't hacking a form of espionage? LisaM Mar 2017 #34

Could be. I just know it's not treason. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #36

That seems to be the case. For it to be treason we would have to be at war with Russia. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #103

which is what trump and team are guilty of...but not treason Eliot Rosewater Mar 2017 #101

I'm not a lawyer , but that's what lawyers say seems to be the case. Please see Postb 68. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #102

They were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #11

Because Russia wasn't our "enemy" as defined by law. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #15

While I agree, did anyone notice the Dems calling Russia hacking a form of warfare? LOL Lib Mar 2017 #16

Exactly! ananda Mar 2017 #21

Remember how they repeatedly questioned rogers/comey on whether Russia was our "adversary?" LOL Lib Mar 2017 #23

I agree Sculpin Beauregard Mar 2017 #32

pre mediated too. bdamomma Mar 2017 #44

Your not the only one to notice. rogue emissary Mar 2017 #51

Excellent! LOL Lib Mar 2017 #55

cyber warfare. Russia sure thinks it is! triron Mar 2017 #62

The words aid and comfort gibraltar72 Mar 2017 #46

By this term is understood the whole body of a nation at war with another. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #48

AGAIN...cyber war *IS* an act of war, and it does NOT have to be declared. nt LaydeeBug Mar 2017 #47

By this term is understood the whole body of a nation at war with another. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #50

Slippery slope much? CYBER WAR IS STILL AN ACT OF WAR. LaydeeBug Mar 2017 #66

THIS - by the way the esteemed law professor and author uses the same rationale as I did DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #67

And, yet...the FACT still remains that he is conflating one thing with another and so are you LaydeeBug Mar 2017 #86

Why would we join cretins who maliciously and fallaciously accused Presidents Obama and Clinton ... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #88

Why would we bring a knife to a gun fight? Nice try. No dice. nt LaydeeBug Mar 2017 #92

Non sequitur DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #94

False comparison LaydeeBug Mar 2017 #95

I will defer to a Yale Law graduate and law professor. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #96

I will defer to the Constitution of the United States, and you made ANOTHER false coparison. LaydeeBug Mar 2017 #117

Ultimately it doesn't matter what we think constitutes "Treason", it will be up to the Supreme Court DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #118

On this, we agree. nt LaydeeBug Mar 2017 #122

Which Democrat has introduced a declaration of war against Russia in Congress? n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2017 #93

Conversely, which member of the Duma has introduced a declaration of war against us ? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #97

But then the notion of "war" has changed treestar Mar 2017 #82

that could be interpreted treestar Mar 2017 #73

Please see Post 68 DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #76

Tell Putin that Skidmore Mar 2017 #112

Putin is a deplorable tyrant who persecutes glbtq folks, scoffs at the rule of law... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #115

Some people say that what Russia did--attacking our electoral process --constituted an act of war. pnwmom Mar 2017 #147

They are betraying our country Horse with no Name Mar 2017 #2

Close enough for government work. dchill Mar 2017 #3

.... A HERETIC I AM Mar 2017 #90

There are enough crimes to jail them for years. roamer65 Mar 2017 #4

No. Not according to the Constitution. Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #6

According to Congress, they are. OliverQ Mar 2017 #10

Adventure and enemy are two different words Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #17

Enemy has a specific legal meaning. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #18

Do you people really, so strongly, Ghost Dog Mar 2017 #38

Who wants war with Russia? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #39

They committed an act of war orangecrush Mar 2017 #49

So are you calling on your member of Congress to introduce a declaration of war onenote Mar 2017 #61

To put it colloquially.. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #89

Just one question orangecrush Mar 2017 #98

Only if that interference is by force of arms onenote Mar 2017 #109

you need a case law cite treestar Mar 2017 #75

Please see Post 68 DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #77

No we aren't. former9thward Mar 2017 #20

Sorry, but according to Congress they're not. onenote Mar 2017 #56

That could be made into a legal interpretation treestar Mar 2017 #74

I think it falls within the purview of the espionnage act. drray23 Mar 2017 #8

Definition of treason: kentuck Mar 2017 #26

It does not matter what the dictionary definition says drray23 Mar 2017 #28

+10000000000 onenote Mar 2017 #59

Trump's staff members must believe it their actions were treasonous... TheDebbieDee Mar 2017 #9

It is impossible for me to read the following and not come to that conclusion. Miles Archer Mar 2017 #13

Colloquially? Yes. Legally? No. Codeine Mar 2017 #14

It would be better described as espionage... 2naSalit Mar 2017 #19

They worked with a foreign power to affect our election, a move that was favorable to that foreign still_one Mar 2017 #22

Recommended. H2O Man Mar 2017 #24

Note: H2O Man Mar 2017 #31

I think it is very close, but not legally "there" by traditional definition. elfin Mar 2017 #25

Treachery Dem2 Mar 2017 #27

Not sure rufus dog Mar 2017 #29

HELL YES Skittles Mar 2017 #30

Legally, no GP6971 Mar 2017 #33

Campaign laws L. Coyote Mar 2017 #35

No, only because we are not currently at war with Russia. musicblind Mar 2017 #37

The definition of "war" has changed over the centuries. kentuck Mar 2017 #40

And the Cold War wasn't "war" for purposes of the crime of treason onenote Mar 2017 #58

For some reason, it sounds more serious than "espionage"... kentuck Mar 2017 #63

There likely is some statute treestar Mar 2017 #79

Aiding and abetting an enemy randr Mar 2017 #41

Problem with that is the definition of "enemy" truebluegreen Mar 2017 #107

Intentional interference into our nations sovereign randr Mar 2017 #121

Go argue that in front of SCOTUS truebluegreen Mar 2017 #144

I understand your point randr Mar 2017 #145

Congress could create new laws truebluegreen Mar 2017 #148

GREED panader0 Mar 2017 #42

what is the definition of war in the 21st century? mopinko Mar 2017 #43

The same as it was in the 20th Century, at least until congress changes it onenote Mar 2017 #57

i cant imagine infiltrating and overthrowing the government of the u.s. mopinko Mar 2017 #106

So should we be invoking the NATO mutual defense obligations? onenote Mar 2017 #111

invoking nato would be smart, since the whole thing is also an attack on nato. mopinko Mar 2017 #128

Technically, no but... Chitown Kev Mar 2017 #45

Keep in mind matt819 Mar 2017 #52

The Rosenbergs were electrocuted for conspiring to commit espionage. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #53

I've thought it was a corporate/Kremlin coup d'tat since the morning of November 9, 2016, catbyte Mar 2017 #54

Orans Dictionary of Law MFM008 Mar 2017 #60

And the definition of espionage is: kentuck Mar 2017 #64

Yes. It's treason. DT, Pence, Kushner, Ryan, Turtleman, Alice11111 Mar 2017 #65

The skinny DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #68

+1 onenote Mar 2017 #69

If Trump and his cronies are proven to be in cahoots with Russia there will be hell to pay ! DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #70

Would you call it "espionage"? kentuck Mar 2017 #71

Now I am just guessing or hypothesizing. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #72

Did they or did they not, overthrow our government? One of the first acts out of the shraby Mar 2017 #80

Possible crimes committed: Conspiracy to violate the CFAA onenote Mar 2017 #114

Wouldn't it be espionage as well? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #116

I don't think so. onenote Mar 2017 #120

This is interesting DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #123

I don't think the information at issue here would qualify as a "trade secret" onenote Mar 2017 #124

We likely need another statute. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #125

Agreed. Many of the current laws relating to electronic communications are outdated/unduly narrow. onenote Mar 2017 #126

Which begs the question DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #127

You raise a much debated question of ethics and law onenote Mar 2017 #131

Gawker got sued out of business for publicizing the Hulk Hogan sex tapes. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #133

It was admitted at trial that the tapes had no news value onenote Mar 2017 #134

I'm using colloquial parlance... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #137

I don't know the details of all of the testimony and argument onenote Mar 2017 #140

If a democrat did it, they would call it treason and they would interpret the law Eliot Rosewater Mar 2017 #130

ok but it would be better if he had cites treestar Mar 2017 #78

We were at war with Germany. They were the "enemy" That wasn't in dispute. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #81

interesting, what are the three cases? treestar Mar 2017 #83

Voila DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #87

google scholar results treestar Mar 2017 #84

Cramer seems like an easy one, even for a layperson. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #85

It's the essential charge, if not the eventual charge. Hovering naysayers notwithstanding. (n/t) FreepFryer Mar 2017 #91

In other words it's not treason but using a rhetorical flourish makes it so. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #99

We don't, and it doesn't. Hovering naysaying notwithstanding. (n/t) FreepFryer Mar 2017 #104

If you believe DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #105

You've made your views amply known on a multitude of comments already. May I have my own last word? FreepFryer Mar 2017 #108

Which I'll leave to Richard Painter, former Bush WH Ethics czar. FreepFryer Mar 2017 #110

You may. The last word is yours. Have a great day. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #113

Yes, high treason JesterCS Mar 2017 #100

Even espionage charges seem unlikely ymetca Mar 2017 #119

I believe a foreign dictator interfering in another nations election process workinclasszero Mar 2017 #129

The language sticklers here - and I am at heart one of them - will say no because we are Squinch Mar 2017 #132

At different times I have compared Trump to DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #135

Ooh. Trump the Traitor is even better! You can't say his actions aren't traitorous. Squinch Mar 2017 #136

Putin's actions to subvert our elections are either international terrorism workinclasszero Mar 2017 #138

The language you cite establishes undercuts your conclusion onenote Mar 2017 #143

I'm always wary of a race to the bottom. onenote Mar 2017 #139

Interesting that the liberal William O. Douglas voted to uphold his conviction. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #141

But even if we do not agree on "treason," he is certainly a traitor. Though I'm sorry you have Squinch Mar 2017 #142

I don't think so. Bradical79 Mar 2017 #146