HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Aiding and Abetting"

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:01 AM

"Aiding and Abetting"

@DavidCornDC
Whatever scheming there may have been, Trump and his colleagues constant denying of Russian meddling provided cover for the Russian attack on the US election. That was aiding and abetting.


I don’t understand how people think there’s still a question of *whether* there was collusion, as opposed to “how extensive was it?” The campaign got advance word that Russia had thousands of hacked Dem emails, yet consistently feigned doubt publicly.







19 replies, 2838 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:06 AM

1. Conspiracy against the USA, aiding and abetting...

But wait there’s more...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:14 AM

2. Is treason a valid and appropriate crime if

there is no war currently being fought?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:23 AM

3. No.

Although a specific situation that resulted in war might.

The treason thing is a distraction. People use “treasonous” in its non legalistic meaning and then conflate that with the actual legal definition. It is an essentially dishonest argument. (An equivocation fallacy. )

We are not at war with Russia. We have normal diplomatic and (more or less normal) trade relations with Russia. Trump and his gang likely broke a lot of laws conspiring to get stolen emails, but the treasonous bastards are not going to be charged with treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 01:20 AM

9. Where in the legal definition of treason

does it state we must be at war??
Here is the definition:
"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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 09:17 AM

10. " levies war " and "adheres to their enemies"

has always meant exactly what it says. But please find an alternative legal interpretation of the federal treason statute that has ever been applied.

Here is Justice Marshall making this very clear in 1807:

"To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the Court have been commuted, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the Government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 09:58 PM

15. Does not say "levies war" and "adheres..." it says "levies war" OR "adheres..

OR implies either only one has to be true not both; notwithstanding Justice Marshall's opinion
Additionally an argument could be made that Russia, by attacking the electoral process of the United States, was committing an act of war (cyber warfare).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 10:08 PM

16. Ok have it your way.

We are in a state of war with Russia and treason charges against Trump are imminent.

Or not.

There might be criminal charges against Trump. There won’t be Treason charges. You might believe we are in a war with Russia, fortunately you don’t get to decide these are things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 10:19 PM

17. I agree that the likely criminal charges brought will be easier to prosecute than treason.

Not arguing that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 11:38 PM

18. We are not at war with Russia.

You might feel like we are or that we should be, but we aren’t. Treason, as I keep repeating, requires that as one of its conditions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 12:23 AM

19. Still stand by my earlier argument. No need to pursue this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:27 AM

4. I've been pondering the question lately.

While there has been no declaration of war, there was no declaration of war in the last few wars. There seems little question that the Russian intrusion into the US election was an act of war - a new kind of war - but war none the less.

The only way to know would be to charge some one with treason. If the charge got past the trial judge and the jury convicted, SCOTUS would ultimately decide the question.

There are obviously easier cases to charge and prosecutors aren't usually out to set legal precedent. But, it would be interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomSlick (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 09:26 AM

13. See John Walker Lindh

not charged with treason, as that would not apply. He was charged with a shitload of other major offenses. There was no shortage of laws to charge him. Just not treason.

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:38 AM

6. Espionage and Conspiracy Against the USA are actual crimes. . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:41 AM

7. No, but yes.

The Cold War never ended, just like the McCarthy era investigations never ended, or at least not until 1980 when the VENONA project ceased.

They told us the Cold War ended as the Berlin Wall fell, but the Soviet state merely passed to private enterprise. Many higher ups remained the same. The politburo melted into a generation of oligarchs with their own security needs. The militaries of both countries are ongoing. Putin is a former KGB officer. I don't believe Russia has given up its sovereignty, nor have the old Soviets forgotten the struggle in post-war Eastern Europe.

No state of war exists, technically, but we catch their spies, they catch ours.

Treason can't happen without a declared war? The term has sure been bandied about for Snowden, Assange & Co.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 09:21 AM

11. lots of "terms" get "bandied about" words are cheap.

Neither Snowden nor Assange nor Trump et al have committed treason.

The "cold war" was not a state of war. Nobody caught spying for the USSR was charged with Treason. For example the Rosenbergs were tried convicted and executed for espionage.

"No state of war exists, technically," The thing about laws is that "technically" actually matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:35 AM

5. Republicons are aiding & abetting Russian interference ongoing NOW (Franken) & 2018 midterms.


They are refusing to act on security measures for elections at all level and for all aspects for the operation of elections: voter suppression via database sharing with Russians, voter machine security, tabulation server security, party operations security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 09:22 AM

12. assume all that is true and there is evidence.

Still doesn't fit the legal definition f treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 10:30 AM

14. I didn't say it did, nor did the OP. Please read my post you replied to, and my other post too. . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:48 AM

8. One Thing We Do Know,

..This Trump Guy Had The Worst Year Any Person Of Power
Could Of Possibly Had, Despite Fox News Giving
Him A Prostate Massage For His Lack Of Doing Anything at All.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread