'There is no other word for it:' Former Bush ethics czar says FBI uncovering evidence of treason
Source: RawStory
Travis Gettys
23 Mar 2017 at 10:00 ET
The former ethics lawyer for George W. Bush believes the FBI investigation into the Trump campaigns alleged ties to Russia has uncovered evidence of treason.
Richard Painter, who joined a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of President Donald Trumps foreign business ties, tweeted a link late Wednesday to a McClatchy report on a federal investigation into whether U.S. right-wing websites coordinated with Russian operatives to attack Hillary Clinton.
(The) FBI uncovering evidence of treason, Painter said. There is no other word for it.
Painter also agreed with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that an independent commission or select committee was needed to investigate possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/there-is-no-other-word-for-it-former-bush-ethics-czar-says-fbi-uncovering-evidence-of-treason/
Dagnabbit! If I'd known this was gonna be in Greatest Threads, I'd have dressed better when I posted it! As it was, I was sitting around in my boxers!
![](/emoticons/banghead.gif)
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
ffr
(22,681 posts)![](/emoticons/hattip.gif)
TREASONOUS REPUBLICANS. There's no way to sugarcoat it folks!
Sculpin Beauregard
(1,046 posts)Sing it loud!!
UpInArms
(51,291 posts)n/t
mobeau69
(11,169 posts)![](/emoticons/clap.gif)
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)milestogo
(16,829 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)One of those who greenlighted torture?
tenorly
(2,037 posts)Which some in the Trump regime would be, no doubt.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)C Moon
(12,226 posts)before their own countryjust for power and money.
...and think they wouldn't get caught.
I agree: throw them in a cellforever. They're never going to learn to be a part of our society.
dchill
(38,617 posts)a loyal American as their nominee. I guess treason in the service of avarice is no vice. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater.
denbot
(9,901 posts)Imagine if this was happening to a Democratic President, ya' think there might be a Independent Special Prosecutor seated by now?
calimary
(81,599 posts)They'd be busy building a gallows in the middle of the Washington Mall. And offering pre-sale tickets already.
Julian Englis
(2,309 posts)ffr
(22,681 posts)![](/emoticons/sarcasm.gif)
![](/emoticons/chuckle.gif)
FakeNoose
(32,907 posts)... you get up with fleas.
niyad
(113,934 posts)welcome to du, gog.
dchill
(38,617 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)push the consequences to their fullest extent.
For it to be treason, war would have to be defined to include cyber warfare, our relationship with Russia would have to be defined as in a state of war, or there would have to be a redefining of the constitution or an amendment to it. There would be years of hashing it out but considering the nature of the attack on our democracy I wouldn't doubt that it's time to reset the definitions. New times, new words.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,186 posts)And take a whole lot of other cons with him.
FakeNoose
(32,907 posts)Convicted of treason, not in the military.
The Cold War changed everything.
Crabby Appleton
(5,231 posts)and convicted of espionage.
You don't need to be in the military to be charged with treason.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Espionage, NOT TREASON!
jmowreader
(50,590 posts)SleeplessinSoCal
(9,186 posts)But you're right about the Rosenbergs. It's like the law only applies to certain people.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 § 2381
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.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason
Treason
The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies,aid and comfort has been given.
The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of disloyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, JULIUS AND ETHEL ROSENBERG were convicted of espionage, in1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,186 posts)Russia is an adversary intent on diminishing our standing in the world. And many in this administration have opted to throw their allegiance with Russia over the DEMOCRATIC Party.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that
"The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Note: INCLUDES ... "Vice President, and all civil Officers"
basically those who had to take an oath to be in the office.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,186 posts)It was a liberal person I believe. It may have been on Bill Maher.
In searching I found this to completely confound us.
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/52791-is-the-us-military-constitutionally-obligated-to-arrest-obama-for-treason
DeeDeeNY
(3,357 posts)Bush/Cheney were immune from outing a CIA agent.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,033 posts)Grizzled Ol Granddad
(73 posts)But aren't you that darn kid who throws snowballs at my house, even in July? While I grudgingly admire your ability to keep perfect spheres in a frozen state year-round, I'm still gonna git ya!
FailureToCommunicate
(14,033 posts)![Snowball Fight - Elf]()
LiberalLovinLug
(14,180 posts)Its about time someone did
Orrex
(63,270 posts)HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Is Russia an "enemy?" If not, how about the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or the Espionage Act of 1917?
Is it espionage since it was directed against a party rather than the government?
Is it conspiracy to overthrow the Government even though the government was still chosen by an election?
No doubt it is illegal to hack into emails, but I am not sure whether it "legally" (morally and ethically is a different matter) amounts to treason, sedition or espionage. I'm certainly no expert.
Orrex
(63,270 posts)Whatever it takes we must get rid of him.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)My hope is that the FBI investigation turns up broad enough evidence to take out a lot of Republicons in one purge.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)that old warhorse from Tricky DIck's day "Abuse of Power"
Crash2Parties
(6,017 posts)dchill
(38,617 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Painter should get a serious finger-wagging from resident language proselytizers righteously instructing us on appropriate usage due to their most sincere concern that a word used on an informal message board is of very, very critical importance.
C_U_L8R
(45,038 posts)Who are they? What do they stand for?
It seems that most of their horde has run off the Trump cliff
while the rest are left standing there with out a clue.
Unfortunately, most of this is in their hands.
What's it going to be? Cliff or no cliff?
SunSeeker
(51,798 posts)KewlKat
(5,624 posts)Oak2004
(2,140 posts)I know there was talk in the media that "treason" was too strong a word, that very few people had ever been charged with it, that there are strict criteria in the Constitution, etc.
But I have been thinking, quite seriously: If I was a prosecutor, handed this case, what would I charge the perps with? Espionage? Probably. Espionage was part of the picture -- most easily charged as economic espionage, since the DNC is a private organization -- but that does not quite capture what has taken place. This was not an operation where Russia obtained useful intelligence for its own sake: it's one where a foreign power bought themselves some big-time sabotage of our democracy. Yuuuugh sabotage of a Constitutional democratic republic. In fact it stinks of a foreign-sponsored coup de etat.
Possession of property in aid of foreign government would cover anyone who actually handled any of the documents, but I'd still need more.
Seditious conspiracy? Maybe. It hangs on the question of what "force" means. It would depend, frankly, too much on a judge's mood. Insurrection? Perhaps. Again, there's too much interpretation of language needed here. These statutes probably need to be updated with unambiguous language for acts of information warfare, but until then I don't think I'd charge culprits under these statutes.
It's certainly a criminal conspiracy involving hacking, but that does not begin to capture the impact on our nation. It does raise the question as to whether the Trump entourage is covered under RICO -- and I would go there -- but that is still not enough to capture the impact of this on this country. Maybe, again, there is a conspiracy to deprive citizens of their civil rights -- I might go there -- but the crime is not fully captured with any of this.
There is only one crime on the books that truly fits. It's treason. 18 US 2381.
Some persons get hung up on the word "war" in that statute, but it is widely accepted today that certain forms of cyberattack rise to the level of an act of war. It would be unreasonable to argue that treason only applies to war as it was known prior to modern networking -- we don't after all limit our current understanding of what it means to wage war to cannon and muskets, either. If I had my two eyewitnesses (lean on Carter Page and some other lackey, remind them how unpleasant it is spend the rest of their lives in prison, and I might just have two), you bet that's exactly what I'd charge.
Donald J. Trump, the greatest American traitor of all time. Sad (and bad).
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)But treason is a bad fit to the need here (imho) because the penalties for treason spelled out in the constitution are insufficient unless you go for the death penalty, and I'm not there yet on that, even in a case like this; plus executions make martyrs. Apart from the death penalty, treason carries 5 years plus a $10,000 fine, plus a ban on holding office thereafter. That last part is appropriate. (That's actually min 5 years + $10,000, so you could ask for a harsher sentence maybe.)
Criminal conspiracy probably carries more appropriate penalties.
But where does it say there can be only one charge? Go for multiple charges: criminal conspiracy, espionage, and sure, include treason in the list.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 § 2381
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.
RainCaster
(10,953 posts)I will be so happy when I see DFT in chains.
Oak2004
(2,140 posts)A hypothetical: suppose a traitor conspires to aid a foreign power to conduct a sneak attack against the United States. Would it be reasonable for their defense attorney to argue that, yes, my client absolutely did that, but since there was no declared war at that moment in time, my client is innocent?
"Levying war" requires a common sense understanding. A declaration of war rarely precedes a modern act of war, and often is not even sought anymore. War in the modern era is not a slow process conducted by horse and sailing ship, in which both parties have weeks or months to make their declarations and bring their forces to a prepared battlefield. Wars can start with surprise attacks. They can be conducted by or against non state actors. A war can be initiated and over in 20 minutes, though we all hope never to see such a war.
One of the forms a modern act of war can take is information warfare. An international consensus has formed around the idea that a cyberattack that threatens the survival of a nation and its duly constituted government is an act of war. In such a case it is possible that a act of war might not be detected for months, or even years, after an initial attack -- making it impossible for even the most ardent Constitutionalist to obtain a Declaration of War from Congress until long after war had begun, perhaps not until the war was effectively over.
The only sensible meaning of "levying war" here has to be activities pursuant to an act of war, whether or not Congress had formally declared that war. This attack, which was aimed at damaging or destroying our democracy, fits the emerging understanding of an act of war.
There isn't a lot of case law when it comes to treason. It is understandably a rarely used statute. What little there is includes cases where no declaration of war had occurred.
Absolutely more than one charge could and should be brought here. I'm seeing criminal conspiracy, economic espionage, RICO, money laundering, as obvious charges. But none of those,alone, address the real crime here, which is an attack, not on a server. nor funny business with money, nor any of the other charges. This was an attack on our nation and the principles which define us. Nothing short of treason articulates the nature of this crime.
I would not worry about the listed penalties. They are the minimums. The maximum is death. I would be astonished to see a judge sentence a convicted traitor to anything less than life.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 25, 2017, 05:41 AM - Edit history (1)
I think the sneak attack falls under "adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" so could still qualify as treason. I'm not saying war is a requirement -- somebody else said that -- I'm only saying that the constitution defines both treason and war legally. Often the legal or medical definition of a term is not the same as the commonly understood meaning.
I'll accept your idea that a judge would probably issue a life sentence, as long as he wasn't a closet Trump sympathizer.
Multiple charges are appropriate because more charges increase the chance of a conviction on at least some charge. Also that would make it more difficult for a judge to give a light sentence.
Come to think of it, without treason convictions, there could be another hurdle in the possibility of Pence pardoning any conviction(s), Gerald Ford style. Unless Pence was caught and convicted in the same net.
Another obstacle: Congress might not vote to impeach.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/War
War Open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or nations.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress alone the power to declare war.
Also, I like your idea of a money laundering charge. Had not thought of that, but definitely it fits.
So -- throw the book at them, as the saying goes. We need a case that brings down the whole network, rather than just prying out El Presidente. He's just a badly-chosen front man for the enterprise.
Igel
(35,390 posts)Problem is, Russia's what it was 5 years ago. When calling it a "foe" was deemed risible. "Enemy" is a bit past that; "foe" is more easily metaphorical, one sided, or less intensive
Having Russia seem to be allied with domestic political foes makes it easier to be anti-Russia. But Putin's not really changed his tune. And the analysis a few months ago was right.
Goals: undermine the US. First goal.
Second, hurt Clinton. It's personal.
Third, help Trump.
We the people fell for 1. Willingly, eagerly, because we're all committed to "our" America. No others are acceptable. We loved the scandals involved in 2. And Russia's gone cold on Trump. Few here have noticed that Putin isn't a Trump supporter. To dispose of Trump would further goal 1.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)The position has changed, so the response would naturally change. Vlad wanted to avoid the situation of the US having a strong leader like HRC. Mission accomplished.
New game: Dealing with the US now. I guess Vlad might work to "dispose of" el presidente only if it was obvious that the next in line of succession looked easier to manipulate. That is not obviously true now. DJT is such a bufoon that his ineptitude would be hard to top. That's why GWB is all smiles and cheerfulness on the talk shows now - he's happy that he no longer holds his former place at the top of the heap of reviled presidents. So you'd have to go pretty far down the chain of succession to get to someone better for Vlad's purposes. It would be hard even for Vlad to implement a plan to get that many busy people into one airplane or helicopter together and arrange an accident. No, the chance of Vlad getting any situation better for him than the current one is pretty small.
There seems to be a non-zero chance that Vlad might have blackmail material on DJT, or DJT could owe him money or want permits for some building scheme in Russian territory, or could be enticed by some other business offer. So Vlad may see lots of possibilities there.
DJT seems to have one talent -- he's like an idiot-savant (sorry I can't find a polite synonym). His one talent seems to be manipulating crowds of people, like those evangelical preachers who used to travel the country putting up circus tents, putting on one-man shows, and raking in donations. At that one thing he seems to be unsurpassed. His speech even has a similar cadence to the stereotypical evangelical travelling preacher. Apart from that, he doesn't seem to be particularly capable at anything. In my opinion, of course. But if Vlad sees it the same way I do, then there would be no reason for Vlad to want to "dispose of" the man. An inept and malleable US president is the best he can reasonably hope for.
As far as foe vs enemy, it's my sense that the word foe designates any opponent, whereas the word enemy connotes feelings of animosity, possibly more so than it connotes opposition. You might be lifelong friends with someone who is currently a political foe, for example, and you might have long-standing enemies with whom you are not currently engaged in any battles or contests.
I'd say an enemy is someone you can reasonably assume would injure you if given a good chance. That definition would probably fit North Korea. It probably would not fit France, even if they happen to vote differently from the US sometimes in some international bodies. The enemy need not be a country; it can be any group of people intent on doing you damage. Certainly during the nineteen fifties Russia was widely considered an enemy. These days, in Syria, they are involved in a war where they seem to be at odds with some of the US allies, in fact I think they've actually done strikes on some groups allied with the US there. Certainly they are at odds with us on Ukraine. So they might reasonably be considered an enemy. If they interfered surreptitiously in our elections, which it seems they did, then unquestionably they can be considered an enemy.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)The excerpt below quotes a Supreme Court decision seeming to indicate "levying of war" (and hence treason) might include something akin to conspiracy. Depending on how you interpret "an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose" -- suppose that might mean something more like a militia, rather than just a roomful of conspirators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason
. . .
In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."
Now, I'm curious what you think about the 2 witnesses requirement: that, apart from confession, you'd need two witnesses to each overt act?
U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. 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.
Also from the same link previously quoted:
In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that " e)very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."
17) In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).
Kablooie
(18,647 posts)SleeplessinSoCal
(9,186 posts)Kennah
(14,365 posts)calimary
(81,599 posts)Don't worry about it! I haven't changed out of my jammies because I've been working on a research project all day. ALL DAY! And at the moment, the MSNBC evening lineup is only about half-finished. (Wonder if that's what trump's status is getting to be, too? About half-finished? They're finding evidence of TREASON? HoooooooEeeeeeee, let's hope so!)
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Jesus, I never thought it could get this bad.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)Don't know what the involvement of JC is right now exactly, but, yeah, things can always get worse, sad to say.
At least, while we survive. Much worse is yet possible.
But, things can get better too; could be we bounce back up rather than, well, continue plummeting.
The FBI investigation(s) and DJT's rising disapproval ratings are encouraging. Some House Republicons are listening to their constituents and refusing to vote for the Avoidable Health Care Axe. Probably we'll get filibustering of the Gorsuck nomination, maybe even block it. NYT and Wapo subscriptions are up, FB is introducing an anti-fake-news plan involving Snopes, and the ACLU had major donations. WSJ ran an editorial highly critical of DJT's tenacious mendacity. Grass roots involvement in protests -- the women's marches, the town halls -- is higher than I remember even during the VietNam conflict. So there are some encouraging signs.
We're living through one of those chaotic tipping points they talk about in math. Interesting times.
cstanleytech
(26,357 posts)actions months ago and stonewalled Obama when he wanted to let the American people know.
Also we need the investigation to not restrict itself to just the Trump campaign rather we need them to investigate every single avenue of who Russia was coordinating with in the US and if it leads to certain higher ups in Congress then so be it.
Mc Mike
(9,116 posts)Get some pants on, Grizz.
enid602
(8,677 posts)". . .a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of President Donald Trumps foreign business ties..." I've heard Trump's line of Chinese made ties described as tacky, too long and having scotch tape on the back of them, but never before have they been called unconstitutional. Oh my, this is big indeed!