Treason is pretty simply defined as to our government.

[Eliot Rosewater]

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.

Adhering to the Russians giving them aid and comfort in the quid pro quo deal of sanctions for campaign help.

Clear example of treason.

Dont ignore the

OR

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. Nope.

"Enemies" in the context of the Constitution requires an actual state of war. Russia is an adversary but not an enemy in the narrowest sense.

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. Where does it say that?

TREASON

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. Where it says "enemies".

Naming Russia as an "enemy" in a treason prosecution would be the same thing as a declaration of war.

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. But where does it say what YOU said

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.

Enemies is the key word here?

So it is defined in the constitution? If not, which definition will be used?

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. It says it where it says "enemies"

that word has a meaning; it means "one with whom one is in a state of war". It does not mean Russia, which is an adversary. ("Enemy", in a legal context, as applied to the law of nations, is a well-defined term.)

[Codeine]

6. From a professor of constitutional law

currently writing a book about treason;

“Stephen Colbert’s recent segment “Michael Flynn’s White House Tenure: It’s Funny ’Cause It’s Treason” was but one of many accusations of treason hurled against Flynn and other White House associates because of their proven or alleged ties to Russia. “Consider the evidence that Trump is a traitor,” exhorted an essay in Salon. It is, in fact, treasonable to aid the “enemies” of the United States.

But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.”

[Eliot Rosewater]

7. Declared or OPEN war

That wont work, what is an OPEN war?

WHERE is this definition of enemies? link please

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. Are Russian submarines trying to sink American carriers in the Pacific?

No? Then the US and Russia are not in open war.

[Eliot Rosewater]

13. That is the only definition of on open war?

It does not say open war anywhere in the legal definition either, this is someones opinion.

NOWHERE in the definition is that mentioned.

[Codeine]

14. A state of armed conflict between military forces?

It doesn’t seem too difficult to understand.

[CrispyQ]

36. Our definitions & laws haven't kept up with technology.

And our dysfunctional government is incapable of doing anything about it at the moment.

[Codeine]

37. It's not as though our entire range of legal charges

consists of “treason” or “nuthin.”

[CrispyQ]

38. True.

[onenote]

11. Exactly right.

[ffr]

19. It's in the intention, clear as day, to undermine democracies throughout the world

Putin's mission is to elevate Russia and bring down democracies. If he could take down the United States, that would be beyond his wildest expectations.

Get real!

[helmedon1974]

21. How about sedition?

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. Treated separately from treason under US law.

See here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

[onenote]

3. Thanks for playing but nope.

It's been explained here so many times that there is no point in explaining it again. Let's just leave it at this: Countries that are in a state of war against each other do not have diplomatic relations, allow citizens to freely travel between the countries, and have billions of dollars in bilateral trade. And Russia has never been named an "enemy" pursuant to the Trading with the Enemies Act.

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. Good, then Jane Fonda was not guilty of treason, I never thought she was but this confirms it

Nor would ANYONE be who gave aid and comfort to any nation we were not technically at war with, legally that is. Like Vietnam

Did we declare war with NK? Let me check, nope

So one could give NK government info on our troop placements during the Korean war and no problem?

[onenote]

8. Good to see you make the connection

It's far too common here for folks to loosely throw around the accusation of "traitor" and "treason." Those of us that not only protested against the Vietnam War but who assisted others in avoiding the draft, etc. had those accusations directed at us and its nice to see someone finally recognize that yelping "treason" at the drop of the hat is not something we should be doing.

[Eliot Rosewater]

16. No, cant have it both ways, someone just said she is guilty of treason because it was an OPEN

war, I didnt say that but they did, sort of.


So you are NOW making the argument that Jane Fonda was guilty of treason, I dont think she was but that is what you are now saying.

[jberryhill]

35. "someone just said"

I'm sorry, but what court convicted her of this? I surely missed it.

SOMEONE can say damn near anything.

[Codeine]

9. Not "no problem", but not treason.

They’d definitely have an issue with an espionage charge, however.

[onenote]

17. A formal declaration of war isn't a prerequisite

We were in a shooting war with N. Korea, with our troops engaging with theirs. We had no diplomatic relations. So aiding N. Korea as you describe would have opened the guilty party to a treason charge.

There actually is a definition in the US Code of an "act of war" that makes it expressly clear there need to be a declaration of war if there is an "armed conflict" involved:

The term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;

(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or

(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and

[murielm99]

24. Were we at war with the Soviet Union?

The Rosenbergs were executed.

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Great question

[Codeine]

32. They weren't traitors either. nt

[Codeine]

27. They were not charged with treason.

They were found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage.

[Codeine]

20. I think the point you may be missing

is that the Constitutional definition of “treason” was written specifically to make a charge of treason a very difficult act. The framers worried that such charges, unless very narrowly defined, would simply be used as a way to slap one’s political enemies around.

[Eliot Rosewater]

23. Yeah, I am missing the point, you betcha, now let me ask again, where is that

definition of enemies you refer to.

I need to see that in an official document, government, that ONLY that is what an enemy is.

Then I will take it to the next step

[Codeine]

25. Section 50 of the US Code

the term “enemy” means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States

“Hostility” is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “open war”.

[Eliot Rosewater]

28. Provide the proof.

It is amazing how much info you have on this out of nowhere.

[Codeine]

29. Of?

That’s from the code.

Amazing? It’s easily looked up online.

[jberryhill]

33. That's not how criminal prosecutions work

You were given 50 USC - the entire chapter dealing with the concept.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/4302

The word “enemy,” as used herein, shall be deemed to mean, for the purposes of such trading and of this chapter—

(a) Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality, resident within the territory (including that occupied by the military and naval forces) of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside the United States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation incorporated within such territory of any nation with which the United States is at war or incorporated within any country other than the United States and doing business within such territory.

(b) The government of any nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.

(c) Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term “enemy.”

------

Now, it does not say "subject to a declaration of war", but it appears to be a factual determination as to whether the United States is "at war" with that nation.

The United States does not appear to be "at war" with Russia.

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. Another look

But if a presidential candidate or his lieutenants secretly work with a foreign government that is a longtime adversary of the United States to manipulate and then win a presidential election, that is almost a textbook definition of treason.

In Article 3, Section 3, the U.S. Constitution states that “treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Based on that provision in the Constitution, U.S. law – 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – states that “[w]hoever, 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. Those found guilty of this high crime “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.”

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/16/trump-russia-election-hacking-investigation/

Not sure why folks are so CERTAIN of trump and team not being traitors. Such absolute certainty..

Russia may not meet the legal definition of an “enemy,” but it is certainly an adversary of the United States. It would make perfect sense for Russian President and de facto dictator Vladimir Putin to use his security services to conduct a covert operation to influence American politics to Moscow’s advantage. Such a program would fall well within the acceptable norms of great power behavior. After all, it is the kind of covert intelligence program the United States has conducted regularly against other nations – including Russia

[Codeine]

31. It's right there in the first line;

“Russia may not meet the legal definition of enemy. . .” rather puts the whole issue to bed. Nowhere in the Constitutional definition of treason is the term “adversary” mentioned.

We’re legally in a state of peace with Russia. The Tangerine Idi Amin is guilty of a whole host of things, and is a reprehensible human being who does not deserve to share our oxygen, but he’s not a traitor in the legal sense of the term.

[jberryhill]

34. "may not meet the legal definition"

Yeah, well, in the context of a criminal prosecution the "maybes" are resolved in favor of the defendant. Every element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and not "maybe".

[Jim Lane]

39. That "look" doesn't appear to be by a lawyer

You've been given a verbatim quotation to the U.S. Code (i.e., the law of the land), as well as an opinion from a professor of constitutional law.

You counter with an article by a writer (James Risen) who, according to his online bio, has had a distinguished journalistic career, with "journalistic" being the key word. There is no indication that he even has a law degree, much less any advanced expertise in this particular area.

According to that bio, "Risen won the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for his stories about the National Security Agency’s domestic spying program...." There were probably plenty of right-wingers who thought that exposing facts about the "war on terrorism" was a form of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. If Mr. Risen had been arrested and charged with treason, he might have taken a somewhat less expansive view of the meaning of the term.

You write:

Not sure why folks are so CERTAIN of trump and team not being traitors. Such absolute certainty..

I wouldn't call myself certain. I'm just being practical. It's a virtual certainty that any facts that would support a conviction for treason would also support convictions for other offenses (violations of the election laws, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the law against perjury, the Internal Revenue Code, etc.). It makes no sense to embark on a legally dubious treason prosecution when a conviction might be harder to obtain and might be reversed on appeal.