"Treason"

[Moon]

Anyone remember back during the 2012 elections at one of the presidential debates Romney said Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat? He was thumbed by every loony lefty in the country, including the Chief Loony BHO. Now those same loonies seem to have a "Russia, Russia, Russia" obsession bordering on maniacal. Why do I get the feeling if BHO had done something similar to Trump's Helsinki performance they'd be nominating him for another Nobel?

The White House changed hands in 2017, so now everything is the opposite.

 

[Irwin Corey]

In order for Russia to be an "enemy" and for Trump to be charged with treason -- we'd have to be at war with Russia.

I'll call BULL**** on that. The Cambridge Dictionary defines enemy as:

Something that harms something else

I think Russia assault on our Government and it's elections qualifies them as our enemy.

By the way, very few are actually in agreement with you. You just don't realize that.

Really? And you have statistics for this or, as it sounds, is that just more propaganda?

 

[veritas1]

I think the traitor card is a little overplayed. I get that Trump has attacked our traditional allies, attacked long standing organizations like the UN and NATO, and has cozied up to our traditional enemies, the tyrannical communists and Russia. I can see why people are wary and some are feeling betrayed by Trump. I think that it is perhaps a little tougher to go all out and actually call it treason. I mean, it is fun to see the reactions of the Trumpeteers to it, and his Russia First policies are disconcerting. I think it would take something a bit more intentional on the part of Trump and I don't know if he's actively working to destabilize our alliances and weaken NATO while bolstering Russia, or if he's just being trolled and tricked by Putin into it.

Which "Russia First" policies might those be? Selling arms to the Ukraine? Urging Germany to buy oil from us instead of Russia? Expelling their diplomats? Pulling out of the deal with their close ally Iran? Imposing sanctions? What policies precisely has Trump instituted that are "Russia First"? What anti-Russian Obama policies has he scrapped? If you are going to make such claims, you should be able to support them not just with generalities but with concrete policy examples.

 

[Finch]

Anyone remember back during the 2012 elections at one of the presidential debates Romney said Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat? He was thumbed by every loony lefty in the country, including the Chief Loony BHO. Now those same loonies seem to have a "Russia, Russia, Russia" obsession bordering on maniacal. Why do I get the feeling if BHO had done something similar to Trump's Helsinki performance they'd be nominating him for another Nobel?

Russia did not possess the ability to hack or meddle in our affairs in 2012 and Obama reached out to Putin for some form of truce.. However, Putin did not play nice so Obama said f-you and sanctioned Russia...Which leads us to 2016...

 

[NotreDame]

If his actions were isolated to singular aspects of domestic and foreign policy then I could see your point. However, when fracturing our country domestically and our position internationally is executed across the board in so many policies, then it would take the greatest act of credulousness to deny a specific pattern.

Ikari was correct in his remark there needs to be evidence of an "intent" to harm as opposed to making unwise, not the best, or bad decisions, the former coming much more closely to traitor/treason, whereas the latter isn't.

 

[NotreDame]

The Constitution doesn't define "enemy" as some a nation we are in a state of war with.

adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.​

​
The qualifying words to the phrase "give them Aid and Comfort" is "adhering" and "Enemies." Russia is not an "enemy." Neither do Trump's comments constitute as "adhering" to Russia, or to provide a non-existent enemy "Aid and Comfort."

The Constitutional language draws its inspiration from a 1351 English statute defining treason. The statute read, in relevant part:

if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort.
​
The word "Enemies" rationally does not contemplate a foreign power in a mere tense relationship with the U.S., or what could be characterized as an adversarial relationship. The word "enemy" refers to a foreign power engaged in an armed conflict against the U.S., or perhaps something akin to an armed conflict. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/787437?seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents

 

[NotreDame]

Russia, by definition, is an enemy of the United States.

No one's asking you to like it, but your wishing away of that fact won't change the reality of it.

Which definition? There are legal definitions, and non-legal definitions. The historical evidence shows the word "enemy" in the Constitution was in reference to a foreign nation engaged in armed conflict with the U.S.

 

[Port & Starboard]

I just wanted to remind people on my side of the political spectrum that there are effectively two definitions for treason: a legal one and a common one.

Under the common definition, treason means, in the simplest terms, the betrayal of one's country. However, under the legal definition in the United States, it is more specific:

"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."

In practice and in precedent, the legal definition of treason only applies when we are at war with the enemy in question. Since WWII, literally zero Americans have been convicted of treason. The last Americans convicted of treason betrayed the United States in the interests of varying Axis powers. There have been 47 Americans convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, none for "treason." In other words, cold wars don't count.

This is somewhat confusing, because one can absolutely betray one's country in the interests of a foreign adversary, yet not be guilty under the legal definition. It's confusing because for all practical purposes, it's the legal definition that will actually result in any consequences within the bureaucracy (fines, imprisonment, death, barred from running for office, etc.), therefore it's that definition we tend to work with the most often. But that, of course, does not bar someone from being a traitor under the common definition, which can result in other forms of retribution, such as social and political ostracization.

So do I believe that Trump is a traitor in the common sense of the word? Yes, I absolutely do. In fact, that there is any question remaining on this fact is baffling to me. However, we're not at war with Russia, so he will never be convicted of it in a court of law.

Try this theory in court and you would be laughed out.

Your biased feelings are as obvious as your pitiful lack knowledge in the law.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Which definition? There are legal definitions, and non-legal definitions. The historical evidence shows the word "enemy" in the Constitution was in reference to a foreign nation engaged in armed conflict with the U.S.

Enemy | Define Enemy at Dictionary.com

"a hostile nation or state."

 

[NotreDame]

Enemy | Define Enemy at Dictionary.com

"a hostile nation or state."

Here's a law review article showing the necessity of an "armed conflict."

https://www.jstor.org/stable/787437?seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents

 

[Gaius46]

adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.​

​
The qualifying words to the phrase "give them Aid and Comfort" is "adhering" and "Enemies." Russia is not an "enemy." Neither do Trump's comments constitute as "adhering" to Russia, or to provide a non-existent enemy "Aid and Comfort."

The Constitutional language draws its inspiration from a 1351 English statute defining treason. The statute read, in relevant part:

if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort.
​
The word "Enemies" rationally does not contemplate a foreign power in a mere tense relationship with the U.S., or what could be characterized as an adversarial relationship. The word "enemy" refers to a foreign power engaged in an armed conflict against the U.S., or perhaps something akin to an armed conflict. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/787437?seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents

Fair enough and thanks for the information on the source of the language. I agree with you and was simply pointing out that an actual state of war - as in a declared war - isn't Constitutionally necessary for a treason charge.

(And for the record I don't think Trump has committed anything like treason)

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Here's a law review article showing the necessity of an "armed conflict."

https://www.jstor.org/stable/787437?seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents

OK. That does nothing change the fact that Russia is, indeed, an enemy of the US.

 

[Cardinal]

Try this theory in court and you would be laughed out.

Your biased feelings are as obvious as your pitiful lack knowledge in the law.

You have quite possibly the worst reading comprehension of anybody on this forum, and considering your competition here that's really saying something.

 

[Bullseye]

Russia did not possess the ability to hack or meddle in our affairs in 2012 and Obama reached out to Putin for some form of truce.. However, Putin did not play nice so Obama said f-you and sanctioned Russia...Which leads us to 2016...

Russians have been expert hackers for a long, long time. I'm pretty sure they did have the ability to back our systems back in 2012 - and internet security was also not as tough.

 

[trixare4kids]

Anyone remember back during the 2012 elections at one of the presidential debates Romney said Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat? He was thumbed by every loony lefty in the country, including the Chief Loony BHO. Now those same loonies seem to have a "Russia, Russia, Russia" obsession bordering on maniacal. Why do I get the feeling if BHO had done something similar to Trump's Helsinki performance they'd be nominating him for another Nobel?

Stop making so much sense. Leftists don’t like facts.

 

[late]

will not happen; Trump grabbed every single one of the GOP by their ***** & Trump aint letting go

these enablers lost all their cajones to Trump .........

They used to say the same about Nixon.

They won't want to, but if he is taking them down, they'll bail.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Fair enough! I hope in tolerance of tRump we don't find out when it's too late what treason is.

Too late?

What crippling trouble do you think could befall us?

 

[Casper]

I just wanted to remind people on my side of the political spectrum that there are effectively two definitions for treason: a legal one and a common one.

Under the common definition, treason means, in the simplest terms, the betrayal of one's country. However, under the legal definition in the United States, it is more specific:

"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."

In practice and in precedent, the legal definition of treason only applies when we are at war with the enemy in question. Since WWII, literally zero Americans have been convicted of treason. The last Americans convicted of treason betrayed the United States in the interests of varying Axis powers. There have been 47 Americans convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, none for "treason." In other words, cold wars don't count.

This is somewhat confusing, because one can absolutely betray one's country in the interests of a foreign adversary, yet not be guilty under the legal definition. It's confusing because for all practical purposes, it's the legal definition that will actually result in any consequences within the bureaucracy (fines, imprisonment, death, barred from running for office, etc.), therefore it's that definition we tend to work with the most often. But that, of course, does not bar someone from being a traitor under the common definition, which can result in other forms of retribution, such as social and political ostracization.

So do I believe that Trump is a traitor in the common sense of the word? Yes, I absolutely do. In fact, that there is any question remaining on this fact is baffling to me. However, we're not at war with Russia, so he will never be convicted of it in a court of law.

Good post, I am impressed.
Not sure I am 100% on board, it is a serious accusation, and I still need more evidence that it is Treason and not just his lack of skills, but I am leaning in the direction of we may have a more serious problem than I even truly considered.
Good Food For Thought, well done.

 

[calamity]

From day-one Trump has been a Russian disinformation agent doing Putin's work. First he sewed seeds of doubt in the integrity of the electoral system: "It's rigged." Then he sewed seeds of doubt in the media, the FBI, the Intelligence agencies, NATO, the WTO, and any other institution we in this nation hold dear.

The question that needs to be asked is. How could he not be a Russian Asset?

 

[Cardinal]

Good post, I am impressed.
Not sure I am 100% on board, it is a serious accusation, and I still need more evidence that it is Treason and not just his lack of skills, but I am leaning in the direction of we may have a more serious problem than I even truly considered.
Good Food For Thought, well done.

While I don't agree with the standard you've set, I can at the very least wrap my head around it. But if all anybody comes away from this thread with is that there is a clear difference between the legal and common uses of the word, then it should be enough that other posters in other threads don't move word under the false notion that trump will ever be indicted for treason.

Unless, of course, we really do go to war with Russia, at which point we've got a lot bigger problems on our hands than whether or not some people on an anonymous debate forum are using a word accurately.

 

[Casper]

While I don't agree with the standard you've set, I can at the very least wrap my head around it. But if all anybody comes away from this thread with is that there is a clear difference between the legal and common uses of the word, then it should be enough that other posters in other threads don't move word under the false notion that trump will ever be indicted for treason.

Unless, of course, we really do go to war with Russia, at which point we've got a lot bigger problems on our hands than whether or not some people on an anonymous debate forum are using a word accurately.

I agree 100%, especially with your last comment. Hence one of the reasons why, in my personal life, I do what I do in being as ready for whatever may come as I can be and the more that clock tics down the more one should be aware of the very real possiblities.
I Truly hope all works out for the best, but I am pragmatic and learned long ago to prepare for whatever life throws at me. Today that thought is even more relevant. Not planning ahead is planning to fail, that is unacceptable for me and mine.
Enough of that for the moment, wrong site anyway, now back to whatever were doing....Sorry to go off on a tangent but it is becoming more and more relevant these days.

 

[OscarLevant]

I just wanted to remind people on my side of the political spectrum that there are effectively two definitions for treason: a legal one and a common one.

Under the common definition, treason means, in the simplest terms, the betrayal of one's country. However, under the legal definition in the United States, it is more specific:

"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."

In practice and in precedent, the legal definition of treason only applies when we are at war with the enemy in question. Since WWII, literally zero Americans have been convicted of treason. The last Americans convicted of treason betrayed the United States in the interests of varying Axis powers. There have been 47 Americans convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, none for "treason." In other words, cold wars don't count.

This is somewhat confusing, because one can absolutely betray one's country in the interests of a foreign adversary, yet not be guilty under the legal definition. It's confusing because for all practical purposes, it's the legal definition that will actually result in any consequences within the bureaucracy (fines, imprisonment, death, barred from running for office, etc.), therefore it's that definition we tend to work with the most often. But that, of course, does not bar someone from being a traitor under the common definition, which can result in other forms of retribution, such as social and political ostracization.

So do I believe that Trump is a traitor in the common sense of the word? Yes, I absolutely do. In fact, that there is any question remaining on this fact is baffling to me. However, we're not at war with Russia, so he will never be convicted of it in a court of law.

No but he could be impeached

 

[NotreDame]

OK. That does nothing change the fact that Russia is, indeed, an enemy of the US.

To the contrary, since Russia is not engaged in armed conflict against the U.S., then they are not an “enemy” under the Constitutional provision for treason.

A salient point made by the author of the law review article was that the word “enemy” in the treason provision of the Constitution is in reference to a foreign power engaged in an armed conflict against the U.S.

Russia may be an enemy in some other sense, but is not an enemy under the treason provision of the Constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lurchadams]

I just wanted to remind people on my side of the political spectrum that there are effectively two definitions for treason: a legal one and a common one.

Under the common definition, treason means, in the simplest terms, the betrayal of one's country. However, under the legal definition in the United States, it is more specific:

"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."

In practice and in precedent, the legal definition of treason only applies when we are at war with the enemy in question. Since WWII, literally zero Americans have been convicted of treason. The last Americans convicted of treason betrayed the United States in the interests of varying Axis powers. There have been 47 Americans convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, none for "treason." In other words, cold wars don't count.

This is somewhat confusing, because one can absolutely betray one's country in the interests of a foreign adversary, yet not be guilty under the legal definition. It's confusing because for all practical purposes, it's the legal definition that will actually result in any consequences within the bureaucracy (fines, imprisonment, death, barred from running for office, etc.), therefore it's that definition we tend to work with the most often. But that, of course, does not bar someone from being a traitor under the common definition, which can result in other forms of retribution, such as social and political ostracization.

So do I believe that Trump is a traitor in the common sense of the word? Yes, I absolutely do. In fact, that there is any question remaining on this fact is baffling to me. However, we're not at war with Russia, so he will never be convicted of it in a court of law.

In the common sense then, it is. I guess where it might apply legally is that we technically were at war at the point Russia attacked our democracy. We just saw a world leader provide aid and comfort to an enemy. Whether it was in the common sense or legal sense - it was the true sense.

 

[NotreDame]

Fair enough and thanks for the information on the source of the language. I agree with you and was simply pointing out that an actual state of war - as in a declared war - isn't Constitutionally necessary for a treason charge.

(And for the record I don't think Trump has committed anything like treason)

I share your sentiment, his comments are very problematic. His remarks placed Putin’s denials in direct competition to the conclusions made by U.S. intel communities. That’s a serious problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk