Treason Headlines
[Headlines from DRJ]
Washington Monthly – The President Accused the FBI of Treason:
On Friday morning, the president of the United States tweeted this.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
My Campaign for President was conclusively spied on. Nothing like this has ever happened in American Politics. A really bad situation. TREASON means long jail sentences, and this was TREASON!137K
6:11 AM – May 17, 2019
The Hill – Liz Cheney: Statements by agents investigating Trump ‘could well be treason’:
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said on Sunday that statements by FBI agents investigating President Trump sounded “an awful lot like a coup, and it could well be treason.”
Law professor – Americans have forgotten what Treason actually means – and how it can be abused:
Treasonous acts may be criminal, but criminal acts are almost never treason. As Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies, “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” The Founders went out of their way to define treason narrowly because they knew how it had been repeatedly abused in the past.
For much of the pre-revolutionary period in England, the accusation was a means of suppressing political dissent and punishing political opponents for crimes as trivial as contemplating a king’s future death (what was known as “compassing”), or speaking ill of the king (“lèse majesté”). King Henry VIII even had two of his six wives executed for alleged adultery on the ground that such infidelity was, of itself, “treason.” The English abuse of treason was anathema to a nascent republic dedicated to the rule of law and the right of peaceful dissent.
Thus, to ensure that treason could not likewise be co-opted for political or personal purposes, the Constitution’s drafters not only defined it precisely (it’s the only offense specifically defined in that document), but also specified that “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.” (Article III also limits the punishment that can be inflicted, even with a conviction.)
PS – Vox did not forget: Even if Trump’s team coordinated with Russia, it’s still not treason. (Treason” has a specific definition.)
— DRJ
It’s easy not to know that treason is the only crime specified in the Constitution if you haven’t ever read, or simply just don’t give a damn, what is in, the Constitution.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2019 @ 8:27 amAren’t we still at war with North Korea? I think we are. And don’t we have two witnesses to Trump saying he is in love with Kim Jong Un? We do. Don’t we likewise have two witnesses for any other number of overt acts of aid and comfort? We do.
Well?
nk (dbc370) — 5/27/2019 @ 8:29 amWords don’t matter anymore, nk, but seriously: Is praise for our enemies treason? Wiki says Tokyo Rose “was charged by federal prosecutors with the crime of treason for ‘adhering to, and giving aid and comfort to, the Imperial Government of Japan during World War II’.”
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 8:43 amIt describes her broadcasts as innocuous but her efforts were supportive of Japan.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 8:45 amWhat should we call overt acts to conceal and obfuscate a foreign military’s attack on the United States, of which Trump was the intended and actual beneficiary, and to obstruct and render ineffective our own government’s response to it?
Sounds like “adhering to [our] enemies, giving them aid and comfort” to me.
Dave (1bb933) — 5/27/2019 @ 8:56 amHans and Erna Haupt, the parents of WWII German saboteur and fellow Lane Tech alumnus Herbert Haupt, were convicted of treason for not turning their son and his buddies in to the authorities right away (maybe a little more than that):
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/631/
nk (dbc370) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:00 amSo, okay, Trump’s love for Kim Jong Un could save him.
It is interesting to note that the basis of the Emancipation Proclamation, seizing “assets” held by those in rebellion, conflicted with the limitations on attainder of treason in the Constitution.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/46-corruption-of-the-blood-and-forfeiture.html
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:02 amnk,
Does he adhere to North Korea and [intentionally] further their aims? Truman said nice things about Uncle Joe, then went home and started Containment.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:04 amLast time I looked it was permissible to use a word in more than one sense. The Constitutional definition is not the only way the word can be used. But I’m certainly in favor of rigidly applying strict word definitions. It would lead to less use of humpty-dumpty words like: antisemtism, racism, fascism, and Nazi.
rcocean (1a839e) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:05 amGood point, Kevin.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:06 amRemember when Trump lied about being “Wiretapped”. They never found any wires! What a liar.
rcocean (1a839e) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:06 amSounds like “adhering to [our] enemies, giving them aid and comfort” to me.
After some adjustments and calibration of your hearing aid.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:07 amHanlon’s Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:09 amNah, all you have to do is take off your orange-colored glasses…
Dave (1bb933) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:11 amThe FBI did wiretap Trump Tower but Trump wasn’t the target.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:14 am“Is praise for our enemies treason?”
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 8:43 am
Setting a low bar for treason isn’t particularly great news for the likes of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, etc.
Hoist, meet petard.
Munroe (02db9a) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:16 amOnce again, Trump is showing that he swore to defend and uphold a document that he doesn’t understand.
Paul Montagu (7968e9) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:16 amThe Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t a law, though, and didn’t “seize” (take ownership of) anything – it was effectively a military order targeting for destruction certain assets being used to wage war against the United States.
Lincoln had as much right to do it as FDR did to order bombing of German and Japanese
Dave (1bb933) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:22 amfactoriescities producing tanks, planes and fuel.Once again, Trump is showing that he swore to defend and uphold a document that he doesn’t understand.
First President EVER!
What about those that HAVE read it and understand it, then go ahead and ignore it. Better or worse?
I’m more concerned with his general ignorance than his particular ignorance. All these contorted charges about some hoped-for legal transgression when the REAL issue is his global unsuitability for the office.
My real issue is that, even as I support many of his political objectives, it’s obvious that he is not the person to achieve them. He is manifestly incompetent and an obstruction to his own goals. He harms his agenda every time he speaks. I have no hope that the Democrats will impeach him for anything that can be sustained, because they WANT him in charge of the right-of-center causes. Much better for them than someone who can get things done.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:24 amNo personal comments, please.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:29 amThe Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t a law, though, and didn’t “seize” (take ownership of) anything – it was effectively a military order targeting for destruction certain assets being used to wage war against the United States.
The Constitution limited the “freedom” of those slaves to the lifetime of their owner, if convicted for treason. Claiming exigencies of war would limit it to the duration of hostilities.
Calling it “emancipation” implied permanent freedom.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:29 amKevin,
I agree with your point (that Trump does not want NK to be strengthened or accomplish it’s nuclear goals), but how do you draw a line between NK and Kim? Kim is NK. What helps him also helps his country.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:32 am“…all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free.”
This does seem like a seizure, followed by transferring ownership back to the individual slave. Until the 13th Amendment passed, this emancipation would have been problematical after hostilities ended.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:33 amI agree with your point (that Trump does not want NK to be strengthened or accomplish it’s nuclear goals), but how do you draw a line between NK and Kim? Kim is NK. What helps him also helps his country.
[Studiously avoiding my cynical expectations]
Do I have to? In any peace negotiations, as in any contract, both parties expect to leave with benefits in return for what they give up. To say that negotiations themselves help Kim is tantamount to calling all negotiations with out enemies “treason.”
Several previous Presidents gave nuclear technology to the Kims in return for assurances that they would abandon weapons research. This helped the Kims more than any words would. Treason?
What about Jimmy Carter’s willful violation of the Logan Act, to the great detriment of the US which was preparing to use military force against NK. Treason?
The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which has demonstrated against nearly all US military actions since their founding on Sept 14, 2001, is connected with North Korea and several of their founding members attended the North Korean celebration of their 60th Anniversary as a nation. Treason?
IMHO, you should work backward in this list, and I suspect that you’ll find a bright line somewhere before you get to Trump.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:48 am“The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower but Trump wasn’t the target.”
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:14 am
In retrospect, Newsweek was so out in front on this story it’s scary.
Trump’s administration has made a series of accusations that Barack Obama ordered surveillance on the president during his election campaign, without any evidence.
Munroe (79b407) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:54 amIn so far as the administration used allegedly Russian sources, that’s the kavalec memo, to secure a fisa waardant based on a dossier, what would you call that.
What is dining with the foreign minister of ourcsecind greatest foe called,
narciso (d1f714) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:54 amWell, it says nothing of the sort, though. Saying someone is free is the opposite of saying they belong to the government.
Yes, I would think the “forever free” part would have been difficult to enforce in civil courts after the rebellion was put down, in states where the laws permitted slavery.
IIRC, except in the case of Tennessee, martial law (and the EP) remained in effect until lawful state governments were re-established, and the 13th and 14th Amendments were ratified by them.
Dave (1bb933) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:56 amOne corrupt politicians dirty laundry is not the nation, despite how they traded our patrimony to make it one in the same.
Biden is much the same with Chinese state aviation, and burissima oil.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/27/2019 @ 10:00 amPre-dating, but anticipating the Emancipation Proclamation as a measure targeting enemy war-making resources, was Major General Benjamin “Beast” Butler’s “contraband” policy begun very early in the war, in late May 1861:
Dave (1bb933) — 5/27/2019 @ 10:08 amOops, forgot the link to the quote.
Dave (1bb933) — 5/27/2019 @ 10:10 amKevin,
Then forget about Trump. How can you separate what is good for Kim from what is good for North Korea?
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 10:17 amIts been the pattern for three generations, yet Wendy Sherman framework trusted then with tens of millions on the promise they wouldnt build a bomb.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/27/2019 @ 10:24 am8. Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:04 am
Explanation: Truman thought that old Joe was not running the Soviet Union, but that the Politburo was.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/27/2019 @ 10:39 amThe long-term damage of Trumpism is to stamp any policy he supports with his own image: selfish, arrogant, petty, vindictive, dishonest, ignorant, irrational, etc.
Radegunda (989c25) — 5/27/2019 @ 10:53 amthe 13th and 14th Amendments were ratified by them.
All states “seeking” readmission had to ratify 13, 14 & 15 as a condition.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 11:04 amButler did that as military governor of Louisiana. He also led the “colored” troops at one point. At several points during the war he liberated all slaves that he came across, as a method of denying assets to the enemy.
Originally a Democrat, he was a Radical Republican when he was elected to Congress at the end of the war and heroically led the impeachment proceedings against Johnson, which would have changed the course of race relations in this country had it succeeded. He is credited for writing or co-writing the Civil Rights Acts of 1871 (the Anti-Klan Act) and 1875.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 11:17 amThen forget about Trump. How can you separate what is good for Kim from what is good for North Korea?
Don’t have to. All I need to do is identify what is in the interest of the United States, and in a nutshell that is “the elimination of NK’s nuclear weapon and long-range missile capability.” Trump claims that his path will lead to that, and I think we both have strong doubts.
But I have seen stranger things; I never thought the Soviet Union would just end. Standing at Checkpoint Charlie in July 1989, I had utterly no idea that the Wall would be gone in a few short months.
I would have dealt with NK differently. I would have attempted a last-gasp meeting with Kim, at about the same time Trump met him. But it would have involved an ultimatum, and my generals would have been tasked with “removing NK’s nuclear capacity in the least violent way that prevented an assault on Seoul.”
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 11:23 amR.I.P. BART STARR
R.I.P. BILL BUCKNER
Team players; cheers to the sporting life.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/27/2019 @ 11:29 amWhereas floral actually transferred ballistic missile technology to the Chinese, Corzine defrauded to the tune of 1.5 billion, no prosecution for mozilo and co. (ThT was khuzaimi deal)
Narciso (1a432a) — 5/27/2019 @ 12:07 pmWeakening our partners in the process is more than strange.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 12:58 pmI’d seen Buckner play with the Dodgers, and saw his famous blunder on TV. Truly a great player, undone by one mistake. It was heartwarming to read that the fans of Boston eventually forgave him, giving him a 2-minute standing ovation on opening day 2008.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 1:08 pmKevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 11:23 am
I thought there would be a problem with the succession. Then I thought Brezhnev died, and all the members of his Politburo, and some years ahev gone by, and it is still there. But then Gorbachev made a few blunders.
It almost ended in China too, both in April 1976 and in June 1989. And it very probably will end in China, in less than 20 years.
People forget that reaan was no longer president then. Nobbdy thought Communism in Russia was over at the end of his term. So how could Reagan have ended it?
Around that time, in June 1989, I wrote to Lars Erik Nelson of the New York Daily News that it couls end, like it ended in Czechoslavakia in 1968.
Nothing can prevent an assault on Seoul except deterrence, but if it is deterred now, it would still be deterred after a very targeted assault on North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabaility, just so long as North Korea thought that was all. And maybe even if it wsas over before they even realized it had begun.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/27/2019 @ 1:15 pmOh, an assault on Seoul can be prevented, but it would require taking the gloves off. If you think I am talking about a targeted cruise missile attack with high explosives, you are missing my meaning by at least two orders of magnitude.
When the NNPT was signed, the nuclear states agreed that they would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear signatories. To my mind, when a signatory — using the technology their signature enabled — reneges and builds bombs anyway, it is necessary to demonstrate their severe error in the clearest way possible.
Something that only needs to be done once, but needs to be done.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 2:38 pmat some point, they should have relocated most facilities to Pusan, or somewhere north, interestingly the architect of the cheonan, who had been the chief negotiator, for seven years was dispatched, because his demands weren’t being considered,
narciso (d1f714) — 5/27/2019 @ 2:45 pmNote that I consider SUCCESSFUL deterrence to be a complete disaster, in that it ends all hope of non-proliferation and a 40-nuclear-power world is doomed.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 2:55 pmSo, I don’t think that Trump should be impeached for treason, but for manifest incompetence and inability to do the job; something the Founders considered as they discussed the Executive and Impeachment.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/27/2019 @ 2:59 pmThe emancipation proclamation WAS problematic. Which is why we passed the 13th Amendment. In any case, no SCOTUS was going to declare the E-P “Unconstitutional” in the middle of a Civil war. If they’d done so, Lincoln and Congress would’ve either impeached them or simply packed the court with enough of the “right” judges. After the war, it would’ve been different. But by then, no one was going to put African Americans BACK into slavery, because 5 lawyers said so. As Andrew Jackson supposedly said: “The SCOTUS had made its ruling, now let them enforce it”.
rcocean (1a839e) — 5/27/2019 @ 3:57 pmBTW, during the civil war, the Union seized the land of Confederate leaders. For example, all of Robert E. Lee’s land was seized without compensation and made into Arlington Cemetery. After the war, this was deemed unconstitutional, and Lee’s family and others received compensation for any land taken.
rcocean (1a839e) — 5/27/2019 @ 4:00 pmthe way things are going, they’ll dig up Arlington, because it was Robert e lee’s property,
narciso (d1f714) — 5/27/2019 @ 4:14 pm@37. ‘I never thought the Soviet Union would just end.’
It was rotting from within for a long time. To those of us who were fortunate enough to have obtained visas, visited the USSR itself and experienced it on ‘street level’ 20 years before the end -[in my case, April, 1971, when a Communist party conference was going on in Moscow and the city was literally spruced up, banner-and-flagged all over and painted ‘red’]- it was fairly evident the problems facing average citizens in daily life, day after day, were increasingly severe and especially not sitting well w/t young Russians we met. They’d heard RFE; they liked the Beatles and the Stones; they caught glimpses of western media, etc., … they knew they were missing out. For instance, the younger ones literally tried to buy our clothing off of us; particularly our blue jeans, overcoats and such; we had to be wary of that– state police plants being what they were. At the suggestion of State Department staff before departing the UK, we’d all brought along chewing gum, ball point pens and, yes– rolls of toilet paper- to trade w/them for their party badges. [Still have a dozen badges framed up in the den.]
Soviet officials made every effort to show us the best Leningrad and Moscow had to offer; you’d expect that. [For instance, the station stops on the Moscow Subway were majestic; each one, literally a unique art museum.] But outside the main cities, in the hinterlands near one of the old czarist palaces, one of the more haunting images I recall was the glimpse of an elderly woman– who reminded me of my grandmother– pulling an old ox cart herself [no oxen] along an unpaved, muddy road. We were not supposed to have seen that, disturbing as it as, and were quickly whisked away from the scene before any photos could be taken. The whole experience is too complicated to pipe out in a few words on a blog but suffice to say the younger generation at that time was hungry and simmering for changes the old farts weren’t delivering. You could see a ‘collapse’ of some kind coming some time, if only for a lack of consumer goods- but the speed the cards fell in ’89-’91 is something to ponder. Certainly a lesson. And a warning.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/27/2019 @ 4:15 pmSurprising you dont realize that Soviet strategy didnt care about those things they were directed to start with tactical nuclear bombardment of NATO front line positionz
Narciso (983b87) — 5/27/2019 @ 5:53 pmAS usual, each side is playing word games. Treason is indeed a narrowly defined crime in the U.S. Constitution, and even if the FBI, DOJ and CIA did the worst that Trump charges, it ain’t treason.
But, if they did the worst he charges (not yet established, but we are getting there), then they betrayed the Constitution by using their governmental powers to undermine the duly elected President.
So treason, no. Betrayal of the Constitution, maybe. Stay tuned.
Bored Lawyer (423ce8) — 5/27/2019 @ 6:36 pm5 lawyers said so.
Before the Civil War, the Supreme Court had 7 justices. It got up to 10 and was reduced back to 9 by about 1870. I think it got up to ten because they waned to put so,ebody on the court.
I looked up soem details:
https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court
So what it went up too 9 in 1837? I do see 2 justices were appointed that year, although one was nominated by Van Buren.
Also:
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/27/2019 @ 7:43 pmIf Betrayal of the Constitution is your standard, then almost all of DC, including Trump, needs to be lined up against a wall and shot.
But to the narrow point you were making, Trump had significant (for him, albeit not for Putin) business entanglements with the Putin regime, and had the IC not tried to figure out how entangled he was, it would have failed massively at its job. Not investigating Trump would have come closer to Treason than the reverse.
Kishnevi (abbfd8) — 5/27/2019 @ 7:58 pmMe at 54 was responding to the Apathetic Advocate at 52…
Kishnevi (abbfd8) — 5/27/2019 @ 7:59 pmInteresting had trinity failed and the invasion of the mainland succeeded Byrnes might have become president, and that would be a whole different world.
Narciso (f49361) — 5/27/2019 @ 8:20 pmThere is a utility, and an elegance, in reserving the word “treason” to genuine cases thereof, and, correspondingly, in avoiding the use of that word in a looser sense for which a different word might suffice.
This is true without respect to Donald Trump or any other individual.
Many people are unconcerned with elegance or utility in language, and they will of course continue to dilute the word’s power through constant over-application. It cannot be helped.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/28/2019 @ 12:25 amno SCOTUS was going to declare the E-P “Unconstitutional” in the middle of a Civil war. If they’d done so, Lincoln and Congress would’ve either impeached them or simply packed the court with enough of the “right” judges.
For the most part Lincoln encouraged the Court to take a vacation, and he also added a justice to help his cases. Taney’s death help him, too. Prior to 1869, “court-packing” had been accomplished several times.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/28/2019 @ 3:44 am#58
The Supreme Court was the entity that handed down the Dred Scott decision. Republicans had no use for it in the 1860s, and Lincoln, in his speeches, was reaching for a theory that the Declaration of Independence was the true source of our liberties, cutting out a Constitution that institutionalized slavery altogether.
Appalled (d07ae6) — 5/28/2019 @ 5:27 amSo the campaign against the challenger echoes this sad chapter in our history:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/me-too-martin-luther-king/?fbclid=IwAR0bakgX5vZ8nEFs9CKh9B56bMMNjWpf8CBDxYe-3VTrQT3OCVZTdZIsD7U
Narciso (f49361) — 5/28/2019 @ 5:30 am59. Appalled (d07ae6) — 5/28/2019 @ 5:27 am
Someone wrote an Op-Ed artivle that sad the Supreme Court also earlier, in 1846 in a decision also wrtten by Roger Taney made a decisoon that went against rights for Indians, United States v. Rogers, and it hasn’t even been explicitly overruled yet!
Now it makes some wrog points, but one point it does make that seems valid is that ot established the “plenary power doctrine.”
And when Congress has plenary power over people, there’s no Bill of Rights. The federal goernment established detention camps and boarding schools, engaged in family separation criminalized some religious beliefs of Indians as a result, it says.
And then it goes on to day that the Nazis might have drawn some of their ideas from that! (because there’s one Nazi, Heinrich Krieger, who studied the plenary power doctrine and published an article in The George Washington Law Review on federal Indian law, and he was also involved in using some American race law as a model for drafting Nazi laws – and then she wants even to blame that for concentration camps! (apparently soemebody else did that first) And I’m trying to rephrase it so it makes more sense. In academia people can go unchallenged for some time.
And then she goes on about Indian wars and Andrew Jackson saying “The laws of war did not apply to conflicts with savages.”
All because of what – that 1846 Supreme Court decision? Andrew Jackson’s period of activity was before that. She then ties it to the war on terrorism, or at least the use of Indian wars as precedent, and the Trump administration policy toward non-Americans because the Supreme Court invoked the plenary power doctrine in Trump v. Hawaii, to hold that the Trump administration’s so-called Muslim travel ban did not violate the First Amendment.
Look, you can argue that plenary power over people is dangerous, and when that is involved we get to see what could have happened without a Bill of Rights. But that’s all.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/28/2019 @ 6:01 amThere is a utility, and an elegance, in reserving the word “treason” to genuine cases thereof, and, correspondingly, in avoiding the use of that word in a looser sense for which a different word might suffice.
Same can be said about many other words. Like conspriacy and collusion, to use on example.
And since we are on the topic of treason, the Constitution defines treason as:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Something that has always bothered me is that how does one become an “enemy” so that a U.S. citizen can be guilty of treason if he or she gives that enemy aid and comfort.
If Congress declares war on country, that is clearly an enemy. Does something short of a declaration of war suffice? If so, what and by whom?
Do we currently have any “enemies” in the Constitutional sense? Iran? China? Russia? What makes them enemies?
If anyone is interested or knows some sources on this, chime in.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 5/28/2019 @ 11:16 amDo we currently have any “enemies” in the Constitutional sense? Iran? China? Russia? What makes them enemies?
The Framers would have based themselves on the English common law use of the terms “aid and comfort” and “enemies”.
Pull out the old Blackstone, and turn to Book IV Chapter 6
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch6.asp
We are not anything near to being at open war with Russia, China, North Korea, or almost anyone else. Iran and the various jihadi movements would probably qualify as enemies, however: we may not be at war with them, but they seem to think they are at war with us.
kishnevi (0c10d1) — 5/28/2019 @ 12:13 pmIt’s clear to me who committed treason in both senses of the world through inaction and deed, (hint its who hasn’t even received a subpoeana)
Narciso (56e033) — 5/28/2019 @ 12:48 pmKishnevi, obviously one can only go so far in applying 18th century legal precedent to 21st century forms of warfare.
The Russian military launched a series of attacks our country, of that there can be no question. Mueller documents many instances where Trump corruptly attempted to impede or render ineffective our response to the attack, making him, at a minimum, an accomplice after the fact (his son, son-in-law and campaign manager directly participated in at least one of the attacks, of course).
I’d say an 18th century equivalent could be: Czar Vladimir covertly sends assassins to murder the English sovereign, and Sir Donald of Orange – who stands to inherit the throne if the attack succeeds – treacherously helps the infiltrators avoid capture and escape justice afterward.
Dave (3394d4) — 5/28/2019 @ 1:05 pmAs to foreign pirates or robbers, who may happen to invade our coafts, without any open hoftilities between their nation and our own, and without any commiffion from any prince or ftate at enmity with the crown of Great Britain, the giving the many affiftance is alfo clearly treafon
That would seem to include assisting terrorist organizations that direct terrorist acts against the United States.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 5/28/2019 @ 1:55 pmInteresting discussion. Fascinating that Trump believes surveillance of his political campaign is treason and the FBI agents who investigated him for obstruction of justice should go to prison.
It’s almost as though Trump wants to obstruct justice or something.
Dustin (6d7686) — 5/28/2019 @ 1:56 pmwitte was allowed to abscond to iran, in 2013, the same year as snowden, that was the same year Russian hacker stole the exchanges blind, there was the loss of an entire network of agents in china and iran, in that period, there was at least two other agents nabbed for selling secrets to china,
in the uk, focusing on this foolishness, prevented them from spotting the Westminster, Manchester, and at least one other attack, that’s not leaving out that’s when the Colombo mastermind, returned to the west from Syria, under Obama everything was for the taking, like a bodega with broken locks,
narciso (d1f714) — 5/28/2019 @ 2:22 pmLincoln, in his speeches, was reaching for a theory that the Declaration of Independence was the true source of our liberties, cutting out a Constitution that institutionalized slavery altogether.
Historians often call the Civil War and its aftermath the “Refoundation.” Once Amendments 13, 14 & 15 were included, based on the promises Jefferson made, the Constitution was legitimate again.
At least for a few years, anyway. It did not take long before decisions like Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank undid things again. Cruikshank is probably a worse decision that Dredd Scott.
Cruikshank denied any incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the States, as well as any duty by the States to defend any person against any other. Among other things, it nullified federal civil rights laws, allowed lynching, and denied any person the right to arm themselves, speech, assembly, or voting. In short it was the foundational document of Jim Crow.
You really have to read it in its entirety to see how despicable it was. And it was decided by Republican judges.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/28/2019 @ 2:32 pmI think the road to jim crow, was a horrible detour,
https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/28/christopher-steele-not-cooperate-durham/
narciso (d1f714) — 5/28/2019 @ 2:56 pmInteresting discussion. Fascinating that Trump believes surveillance of his political campaign is treason and the FBI agents who investigated him for obstruction of justice should go to prison.
I think (it can be hard to interpret Trump) that he means that the post-election discussion between Strzok and others about “stopping Trump from becoming President” was treasonous. Certainly any overt act by a government official to prevent the lawful President-elect from taking the oath would be treason. But that’s a far cry from a few emails.
Left as an exercise for the reader is “what if there was a conspiracy to create false evidence that Trump was working with Putin to steal the Presidency, and this resulted in the Mueller investigation?” Would doing so be treason? Is this just a fever-dream of the wackier fringe of Trumpdom?
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/28/2019 @ 2:57 pmAnd it was decided by Republican judges.
The compromise that ended Reconstruction while allowing Hayes to become President had widewpread implications. Basically the freed slaves were thrown under the bus and the Radical Republicans were driven from office. After that, there were only words and promises, never action. Hasn’t changed much since, even though African-Americans changed sponsors.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/28/2019 @ 3:03 pmKevin, I’ve enjoyed your comments in this thread, but I disagree that this is necessarily treason. It’s not war, it’s not aiding enemies. If anything that act would have harmed the North Koreans and Neo Soviets (joke).
Besides, Trump was talking about the investigation itself being treason, and the investigation did not prevent Trump from taking his oath. So it’s attempted treason-lite?
Trump is calling for “long jail sentences” for the people who investigated his campaign’s collusion with Russia, or as Trump puts it “that Russia thing.” It’s almost as though he just wants to obstruct justice.
Trump likes to project his sins onto others. He will have a primary challenger, and a democrat challenger. Will he claim they’ve committed treason? Will he demand spying on their campaigns? Will the IRS leak their tax returns? I’m genuinely curious how bad it’s going to get.
Dustin (6d7686) — 5/28/2019 @ 3:16 pmIt’s an act against the United States and the integrity of its government. “War” does not have to involve tanks. An “overt act” (and 2 witnesses) is all that is needed.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/28/2019 @ 3:24 pmQuestion: is an incontrovertible video recording of an overt act sufficient if two people see it?
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/28/2019 @ 3:24 pmthey violated rule 13, regarding up to date representations before the fisa court, now you think that’s fine, I guess much the way hoover thought levinson and o’neals connection to king, justified his surveillance, well you’re entitled to that view,
narciso (d1f714) — 5/28/2019 @ 3:28 pmpart of what I was referring to earlier:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/28/london-bridge-killer-khuram-butt-energised-anjem-choudary-had/
choudary allegedly inspired the Colombo mastermind, the one year he attended school in the uk,
narciso (d1f714) — 5/28/2019 @ 3:32 pmI think Treason shall consist only in levying war against the USA, or in adhering to the USA’s enemies, giving them aid and comfort. I don’t think investigating the President’s campaign, even if that investigation did thwart his inauguration, would really qualify.
Well for video to be evidence someone has to testify that the video is an accurate representation of events. I bet if you have two witnesses that the video is true that would be sufficient, and if all you have are many people who saw the video but cannot testify as to its accuracy, you do not.
Dustin (6d7686) — 5/28/2019 @ 3:36 pmDustin,
You do understand that I’m just exploring the topic, not suggesting that what Trump says means much. Is a bloodless military coup “treason”? I’m pretty sure that obstruction of justice, or outing a CIA agent, isn’t “treason.” Yet you hear those, too.
I think that treason is so hard to define that for the most part other charges (e.g. espionage, terrorism, murder) are substituted. John Walker, Aldrich Ames, etc were fairly called “traitors” but were charged with other crimes.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/28/2019 @ 3:37 pmIt’s like a koan. Investigating someone’s lies and cheating isn’t an act against the integrity of the government.
Dustin (6d7686) — 5/28/2019 @ 3:39 pmLet me restate:
Question: is an incontrovertible video recording of an overt act sufficient if two or more people see the video?
By incontrovertible, say it is a WH security recording with all kinds of encrypted validations in the digital data, and several experts attest to its provenance.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/28/2019 @ 3:40 pmKevin, I certainly understand where you’re coming from.
Yes, it’s one of those terms folks use a lot. But generally not the US President talking about his own investigation that he supposedly did such a great job cooperating with.
While I like Beldar’s point (that we need to stop stretching the language beyond recognition) my main issue is that we have a very bad president right now. It’s much simpler than the finer points of how we’d define a criminal offense (the constitution uses commas and “or” and dependent clauses in a way that normal legal interpretation doesn’t).
This is going to be the wildest presidential election so far. Trump’s “Lyin’ Ted has an ugly wife” is nothing compared to what’s coming. And if it pleases Team R, we need to remember how the left’s version of what Trump does is going to license Team D to do it too.
I’m trying to imagine Sean Hannity reacting to Obama saying the Benghazi investigation was treason.
Dustin (6d7686) — 5/28/2019 @ 4:01 pmI think the several experts attesting is the “two witnesses” requirement, as a matter of evidence, and not the rest of us watching the video, which obviously doesn’t tend to prove or disprove anything in the video.
Dustin (6d7686) — 5/28/2019 @ 4:03 pmrip tony horwitz, ‘ghosts of the south’ was his last book,
narciso (d1f714) — 5/28/2019 @ 4:38 pmKevin M (21ca15) — 5/28/2019 @ 3:03 pm
It took about another 15 years to get to Jim Crow (segregation) and another 7 years to get to what can on;y be called pogroms. Maybe that started in North Carolina, where till then African Americans hadn’t lost the right to vote. These pogroms (nobody has ever used that word) continued in scattered places in the South (including Oklahoma) until about 1921, when more elite people looked at the results of the 1920 Census, and, although they prevented the House of Representatives from being reapportioned, they determined that this had to stop. They were forgotten as part of deal to bring peace and the next generation not told about it, just like they were not told about the experience of slavery.
I think, for example, Frank Johnson, the fiddler, was deliberately forgotten because that was necessary in order for the destruction of the black part of Wilimington North carolina in 1898 was deliberately forgotten.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/05/20/rhiannon-giddens-and-what-folk-music-means
The massacre was probably done for political reasons. Some people were afraid they might vote – that some white candidates would try to get them to vote for them and they wanted to eliminate this possibility.
In Alabama it started about 1902. It was called whitexxxxx I think. They got some all white counties.
Blacks began leaving the south in 1916 during World War I when immmigration from Europe was more or less cut off. Theer were attempts to prevent trains from stopping when they knew a number of blacks were going to leave town (having been recruited by factories in the north)
After the 1920 southern Congresssmen were claiming the population loss was due to the displacement vbecause of the war abd was temorary but they knew better. One reason for the failure to reapportion was also that the number of members of the House of represenatatives had been fixed at 435 in 1911. Previously, every censusu it was increased so that no member of Congress lost hs district.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 5/28/2019 @ 4:42 pmwe have a very bad president right now.
It’s been a steady decline since Reagan.
Reagan > HW > Clinton > W > Obama > Trump. Who’s next?
Would Bernie be worse than Trump? Somehow I’m not inclined to give the federal government more power without a SERIOUSLY stepped-up game.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/28/2019 @ 4:43 pmIt took less than 10 years for the US SU=upreme Court to void all federal civil rights laws and to acknowledge that murdering black folk was OK if the State didn’t prosecute.
https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2016/12/13/historical-united-states-v-cruikshank/
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/28/2019 @ 4:47 pm*It took less than 10 years after the Civil War for the US Supreme Court (1875) to void all federal civil rights laws and to acknowledge that murdering black folk was OK if the State didn’t prosecute.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/28/2019 @ 4:51 pmBTW, I’d love to see Trump, Biden and AOC compete on Jeopardy!
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/28/2019 @ 5:11 pm@50 There were several artists, writers and poets, who visited the USSR. It had a certain appeal to the avant-garde, inspired more by Tolstoy and Dostoevsky than Marx. Perhaps some were committed communists, but most were probably just curious. They wanted to see first hand what was going on.
One of them was E. E. Cummings. What he found on his travels severely depressed him. He wrote about his experience in Eimi: A Journey through Soviet Russia. You should read it, especially the chapter on his visit to Lenin’s tomb–long lines of people in drab clothes, marching like unimaginative automons, stripped of spirituality and creativity, devoid of humanity. The inevitably of the collapse of the Soviet regime was evident a long time before your visit, DCSCA, and the rapidity with it occurred was predictable.
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 5/28/2019 @ 5:17 pmPaul hollander wrote a long volume on it in the 80s, political pilgrims, it’s a real long list from Sinclair and wells to harold pinter
Narciso (56e033) — 5/28/2019 @ 5:24 pm“Enemies” means people we are at war with, and only Congress has the power to declare war.
And, no, a security video is not two witnesses even if it’s seen by every person on the planet. Two security guards watching the perp’s overt act through a video monitor while he was acting overtly might be.
nk (dbc370) — 5/28/2019 @ 6:11 pmIs a bloodless military coup “treason”? I’m pretty sure that obstruction of justice, or outing a CIA agent, isn’t “treason.” Yet you hear those, too.
A military coup would not be treason, but the USC has sections on sedition, insurrection, etc, that would almost certainly cover such a thing.
I don’t agree that Strozk and company did anything wrong, but I suppose the best legal case against them would be a charge that they were trying to deprive Donald Trump of his civil rights (specifically, the right to be POTUS after winning a valid election).
Kishnevi (fe869b) — 5/28/2019 @ 6:31 pm“Enemies” means people we are at war with
Oh? Where does it say that? The Soviet navy was not an enemy fleet in 1957? Does “Cold War” have no meaning? Hell, by that definition the Viet Cong weren’t enemies.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/28/2019 @ 7:26 pmhttps://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/28/new-comey-op-ed-deep-state-treason-conspiracy-theory-russiagate-dumbest-dumb-lies/
Kishnevi (fe869b) — 5/28/2019 @ 7:57 pm@84. I read “confederates in the attic.” Good book. R.I.P. 60 is young.
JRH (52aed3) — 5/29/2019 @ 6:29 amI think the law applies the treason clause exactly so we do have to be in a declared war to bring those charges. Thus, right now, we are only in declared wars in Afghanistan and with Al Qaeda — which is why Adam Gadahn was the first person since WWII to be charged with treason (for giving aid to AL Qaeda).
But … the government can and does charge people under the Espionage Act. For example:
DRJ (15874d) — 5/29/2019 @ 6:51 am95.
The insurance policy was in case Trump won, and the thing was, they actually believed there might be something to it. All of Comey;s arguments don’t make the Steele dossier something that should have any significant credibility.
They were under pressure from leading Democrats (especially Harry Reid) to start an investigation of Trump and compromised.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/29/2019 @ 7:09 amIt was the Democrats, not the FBI, who wanted to leak the fact that thee was an investigation (to balance the investigation of Hillary)
And they did:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump
The FBI wasn’t co-operating in the leaking.
Comey wasn’t nonpartisan. He attempted to be bipartisan.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/29/2019 @ 7:26 amDavid Corn’s article in Moter Jones continues:
The former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence is Christopher Steele. He leaked either at hsi own iniatice or at the best of people working for the Democratic Party. Not at the behest of the FBI.
The statement in the headline that there was a Russian operation to cultivate Donald Trump seems to be correct, although it never really was a very good operation.
The statement that the Russian government had for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump is not. Co-opt, OK maybe. Maybe they had hopes of making him (and/or perhaps others?) into a second Armand Hammer, but it never went very far, and Donald Trump never lent himself to that, and the proof of that is, no deals were consummated except for the hosting of the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow.
If the idea is that Russia assisted him, where did they do it? Some Democrats are still trying to prove that it was true.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/29/2019 @ 7:36 amRobert Mueller has just completed reading astatement at the Department of Justice, he took no questos, and doesn’t want to testify. If he does he won;’t say more than what’s in the report.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/29/2019 @ 8:12 amWhataboutism noted, and it’s questionable Trump actually read the Constitution. If a president well enough understands the document, at least he knows where the line is and when he crossed it.
Paul Montagu (7968e9) — 5/29/2019 @ 8:57 amIf a president well enough understands the document, at least he knows where the line is and when he crossed it.
Premeditation is generally worse. Again, the voters chose Trump BECAUSE he didn’t follow the rules, not in spite of it.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/29/2019 @ 9:01 amAmericans want a dictator? That is what you think we voted for?
DRJ (15874d) — 5/29/2019 @ 9:19 amConservatives used to think the rules matter and our problem with liberals is they ignore them or twist them. Now some apparently want to ignore them more.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/29/2019 @ 9:26 amThe last president can use the power of his office to crush the tea party arm two Mexican cartels and surveil opposition candidates on spurious grounds that what fair play is about.
Narciso (56e033) — 5/29/2019 @ 9:33 am@86. No- it has been a steady decline since July 20, 1969– the pinnacle, literally anf figuratively, of the American Century. Watergate and Vietnam started the slide as the post WW2 world rose; Reagan just bought you false glitter w/Uncle Sam’s credit card.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/29/2019 @ 11:30 amDustin continues to be the star of bad takes:
“The Russian military launched a series of attacks our country, of that there can be no question.”
Produce the bullets and the shell casings before you start throwing allegations about an ‘attack’ around, kid. Everyday spy shenanigans that Mexico and China routinely get away with ain’t it.
“Mueller documents many instances where Trump corruptly attempted to impede or render ineffective our response to the attack,”
“We had to break into Cohen’s office and the National Enquirer’s vault or RUSSIA WOULD HAVE WON!!!”
“making him, at a minimum, an accomplice after the fact (his son, son-in-law and campaign manager directly participated in at least one of the attacks, of course).”
This is where normal people tell you to go soak your head.
“I’d say an 18th century equivalent could be: Czar Vladimir covertly sends assassins”
I suppose memes and spam traps could be compared to an assassination, if you were an idiot.
“Interesting discussion. Fascinating that Trump believes surveillance of his political campaign is treason and the FBI agents who investigated him for obstruction of justice should go to prison.”
Setting up max-sensitivity perjury traps for every member of his staff they could get their hands on is in fact obstruction of normal executive operations, and should be treated as harrassment to terrorism depending on the individuals investigating and the coordination and corruptness of their methods.
“It’s almost as though Trump wants to obstruct justice or something.”
Nah, Trump is simply ensuring that a very obviously prejudiced department doesn’t produce disparate impact or disparate outcomes.
Third Year's The Charm (7cf2fa) — 5/30/2019 @ 7:06 pm