Bill Press: What’s the penalty for treason?

[babylonsister]

https://www.facebook.com/BillPressShow?fref=nf


PARTING SHOT

What’s the penalty for treason? Life in prison without parole? Or death by hanging?

Perhaps 47 Republican Senators should have thought about that before they all signed a letter to the Supreme Ayatollah of Iran, warning him not to make a deal with President Obama.

This is the Second Act for Republicans who would rather go to war against Iran than try to reach an agreement with Iran to drop its pursuit of nuclear weapons. First, they invite Bibi Netanyahu to attack negotiations with Iran. Now, they try to sabotage any deal with this letter.

But think about what it means. We’re not alone. We’re at the table with leaders of China, France, Germany, Russia, and Britain. While the United States and our negotiating partners are trying to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program in return for lifting sanctions against the country – a group of all Republican Senators send a letter to Iran trying to queer the deal.

First, Republicans used Netanyahu to undermine President Obama’s attempts at diplomacy. Now, they’re using the Ayatollah.

In my book, by any definition, that, my friends is treason.

That’s my parting shot for today. I’m Bill Press.

[samsingh]

1. how can i not agree with this.

[livetohike]

2. They (the Republicans in the Congress) are so full of themselves. I think they actually believe

they are all powerful and equal to the world leaders and that their demands should be respected. I hope they get smacked down by China, France, Germany, Russia and Britain. It is treason to my thinking and they should be punished as the law requires.

[Bobbie Jo]

3. Agree

But unfortunately he spent his ENTIRE show talking about everything else BUT this morning. It was frustrating to listen.

Good piece, but I think he dropped the ball today.

[libdem4life]

4. The Iranian's answer is even more shocking...most of whom went to University in the US.

Translated briefly,"Republican Idiots". Public smackdown no American could accomplish.

[Romeo.lima333]

6. point of order; "republican idiots" is redundant

[libdem4life]

17. OK, OK Picky, Picky :)

[Romeo.lima333]

23. ;)

[lark]

22. Same as crazy teapartiers

[Romeo.lima333]

5. first they have to commit treason

[Scuba]

7. It might not fit the Constitutional definition of treason, but it's treason, nonetheless.

[Romeo.lima333]

8. well i agree

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. White House Petition page,here:

Address and prosecute the clear violation of the Logan Act by the Republican senators' March 9th open letter to Iran.

The open letter to Iran's leaders by 47 senators of March 9th, warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with the Obama administration won’t last after Obama leaves office, is a clear and direct violation of the Logan Act and is treasonous. This action must not go unaddressed. We petition the White House and the Justice Dept. to take immediate and decisive action.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-charges-against-47-us-senators-violation-logan-act-attempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. Then it's not treason. It's just being assholes. nt

[LanternWaste]

16. Formal and informal definitions are not required to be identical.

Formal and informal definitions are not required to be identical.

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. I'm going to go ahead and guess that in a court, they are.

And if you want someone to be convicted of treason, that would have to be in a court proceeding, not on an internet message board.

[bobclark86]

42. Words have meaning...

Just like the asshole GOPers who said Sean Penn committed treason for visiting Iraq, or when Rosie O'Donnell saidshe was moving to Canada, if you throw around a word with an attached death penalty, you need to treat it seriously, or else you look like an asshole.

[totodeinhere]

20. Unfortunately since it technically is not treason as defined in the Constitution I doubt

if there can be any legal consequences for this stupidity. Hopefully some of those senators will suffer at the ballot box next time but given the short memory of most voters I doubt if even that will happen.

[hack89]

25. In a court room the Constitutional definition is the only one that matters. nt

[dumbcat]

35. Words mean what I want them to mean

Works for us.

[world wide wally]

33. Stop being a Republican apologist.

In YOUR opinion it is not treason and in many other people's opinions it is.
How about if we let the courts decide and we actually make an issue out of it?

[Romeo.lima333]

34. great let's get it to court - im all for it - who's talking about getting it to court

besides us

[BumRushDaShow]

9. The rest of the world knows we have a racial problem here in the U.S.

It starts with the indignities leveled at certain demographics from the lowest levels of our citizenry and rises to doing the same against the very top, i.e., this nation's leader. It doesn't matter how poor or how wealthy, or how uneducated or how educated. Race matters. The only ones who won't admit to it or deal with it, ARE the citizens of the U.S.

As the DU-demonized Attorney General Eric Holder correctly said - "We are a nation of cowards", and the fact that his appointed successor, a well-qualified black female, sits and waits for confirmation after an unprecedented 100+ days delay by self-same cowards, proves the point.

What we are seeing is a manifestation of a proverbial temper-tantrum by those whose system of racism/white supremacy, has been rocked to the core with the election and re-election of a black President. And what makes it doubly painful for them is that he and his family have not provided them a means for justifying their ignorant behavior, as the Obamas have been watched through a microscope and forced to function 24/7/365 to perfection.

[Omaha Steve]

10. I listen to Bill every morning

Several unions are sponsors BTW.

K&R!

[Dreamer Tatum]

11. For those who believe that words should have meaning, here's Treason:

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.

You'd have to jump through several hoops to call this treason. But hey, whatever. Words mean what we want them to mean.

They didn't put cream in my coffee this morning. Treasonous bastards.

[Cosmocat]

26. A letter from senators telling a country

that the treaty the president is working on will not hold up past his presidency is not "giving them aid?"

[Dreamer Tatum]

27. So you're saying that Iran is an enemy?

Pretty clear that enemy status is required for the definition of treason.

Sorry, as much as you may want big scary words to apply, this isn't treason.

[Cosmocat]

29. Sorry

I said nothing about big scary words.

I want people held accountable.

And, your off hand dismissal of Iran as an "enemy" proves your bias here.

Unless you consider putting extensive sanctions on a country while garnering international support to force them to sign a treaty to not have nuclear weapons an act of friendship.

But, proceed with the next condescending and snarky remark to someone you don't know.

[Dreamer Tatum]

31. Meh, whatever. I don't toss words around lightly, like many others.

The GOP is treasonous...on DU. They are also doo-doo heads, booger eaters, scallawags, rapscallions, meanies, and fascists.

The bulk of the world occurs outside DU, however.

[Kingofalldems]

37. You seem to jump in when republicans get criticized.

Am I wrong?

On the other hand:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6209515

[Dreamer Tatum]

39. I called them assholes. What else do you want? nt

[dumbcat]

36. If Iran wants the treaty

How is the Repugs thwarting it giving them aid? Sounds like the opposite, does it not?

[Cosmocat]

38. that doesn't make sense

I think it is pretty obvious Iran does not WANT to sign this treaty given all that has been done to get it to this point to try to get them to sign it ...

SO, they are reluctant to sign the deal and 47 american senators just sent them a letter trying to keep them from signing it by telling them it isn't a valid offer past the POTUS term.

Or in another words - giving them aid ...

Really can't be any more clear.

[dumbcat]

40. If they don't want the deal

why are they still in the talks? If they don't want to sign, who is going to make them? You explanation makes no sense.

[Cosmocat]

46. Your just being stupid now

and trying hard at it.

They are in talks because they are being damaged by the sanctions ... Without the sanctions they would not be talking.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2014/03/21-iran-sanctions-russia-crimea-nuclear

Over the course of the past four years, however, the sanctions against Iran — and the context for them internationally and within Iran — have changed dramatically. Since 2010, the sanctions' impact on Iran has been severe: its oil exports and revenues plummeted; the value of its currency eroded; trade disruptions shuttered businesses and exacerbated inflation. Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran's political elites against the country's creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions.

[dumbcat]

50. Right

And while you're calling me stupid, it's "You're just being stupid now."

Your grammar shames true cats everywhere.

Bye.

[onenote]

54. so you're saying that they don't want a deal that would end sanctions

but want the "aid" offered by repubs, which is no deal and even tougher sanctions and possibly a military strike?

[Cosmocat]

55. more stupidity

have they signed the deal?

No.

Despite years of trying, despite crippling sanctions, despite the uniting of international support to get them to sign it?

Which means ...

They, you know, REALLY don't want to sign it ...

And, 47 united states senators wrote a letter telling Iran that the treaty the president of the united states was trying to get them to sign is not even as good as the paper it is written on, which ...

AIDS them in finding reason to CONTINUE to choose to not sign it.

And, sorry, Saddam knew darn well he was going to get taken down and let it happen. These folks over there have no fear of us going after them militarily.

What this president has is the legitimacy of actually being a reasonable statesman, who has the worlds most significant military behind him. SO, when he meticulously takes steps over time to do everything that needs to be done to coax these people to the table on a deal to keep them from having nuclear weapons, it is on a paper thin margin.

What they did was by far, bar none, the most seditious act by congress in our history. Unprecedented.

This kind of stupidity on this end of things is the inverse of the stupidity of republicans.

They reflectively explode in unison regardess of the facts to whatever they are led to believe.

And, democrats run around fecklessly looking for reasons to avoid conflict even when it is warranted.

Well, gee, golly, this kind of thing has never been prosecuted.

Well, no shit, cause it has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

WTF ...

[onenote]

56. So they are being forced into negotiating a deal they don't want because of the impact of sanctions

And would prefer to have no deal and those sanctions continue.

Look, I'll make this easy for you.

One thing is clear: the repubs don't want the administration to complete an agreement with Iran because they think that agreement would give away too much to the Iranians. What the repubs want is either no deal or a much tougher deal that leaves sanctions in place or strengthens them.

If the Iranians want that deal, then the repubs efforts to prevent it can't possibly be viewed as "aiding" the Iranians.

If the Iranians don't want the deal, as you claim, and are negotiating only because they want to be relieved of the sanctions, then how exactly does it aid them to end up with no deal and at very least the same sanctions you claim they are desperate to have removed and likely would result in even harsher sanctions?

Still waiting for you to begin to make sense.

[Cha]

44. "and comfort"!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. If the country wanted a deal and the senate said such a deal would not be legally binding

that would seem to be the opposite of giving that country aid and comfort.

That's not to defend the GOP; you chose a very odd argument.

[Cosmocat]

47. Are you people seriously this dense or trying to be difficult?

Iran is being FORCED to take the deal by crippling sanctions (the economic equivalent of a military action).

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2014/03/21-iran-sanctions-russia-crimea-nuclear

And, even with the sanctions it has taken years and the force of increased international pressure to get them to this point.

This is a fricken peace treaty they are working on.

What the republicans did was the equivalent to senators sending a letter to Japan just prior to their signing their terms of surrender, telling them that the deal would not be good once Wilson was out of office.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. If you're going to make a personal attack calling people dense you might not want to

come out looking like such a lightweight.

If the sanctions are so crippling and the regime is supposedly so desperate to see them lifted then lifting the sanctions -- which are legislated -- requires the legislature passing a new law stating as much. If the President is bargaining from a position he cannot deliver he risks looking very foolish.

What the republicans did was the equivalent to senators sending a letter to Japan just prior to their signing their terms of surrender, telling them that the deal would not be good once Wilson was out of office.

If congress did not want to accept surrender then the nation would still be at war. Congress has the power to declare war, in fact they are the only ones who can. They do not need a president's permission to do so. If a president elected to not prosecute a war after congress has declared war then it becomes a political question and impeachment is on the table.

That is, at best, tangentially analogous to the current situation. We're not at war with Iran. However, the howling and yelping to have elected members of government arrested and tried for the Logan Act/sedition/treason over a nation that has conducted terrorist attacks against the US, supplied arms to militias that have killed US troops, held Americans hostage in a US embassy, etc. seems like a PR disaster in the making.

There are better ways to win the PR fight; this ain't it. And that's all this is: much sound and fury, signifying nothing. If the DOJ takes a warrant application to a judge they will be mocked out of court. The only thing more impotent than a threat unmade is a threat unkept.

[sanatanadharma]

12. 47 Jane Fonda admirerers

What to make of these Republicans essentially telling the world that the USA can not be trusted and that this country may reverse any international agreement if the next elected officials are as duplicitous and unscrupulous as these 47 republiCON Jane Fonda wannabes.

[shireen]

13. oh, they're secretly using reverse psychology

to broker a deal between us and Iran.

[ColesCountyDem]

19. It isn't treason.

Treason has a specific legal definition, and this isn't it.

Disgusting, un-American and utterly gauche, yes.

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. 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.

Treason is the only crime clearly defined in the Constitution.

This is not treason. You are 100% correct.

It may be a violation of the Logan Act. Only one person was ever charged with a Logan Act Violation, and he wasn't prosecuted because the Louisiana Purchase made the charge moot.

Charging the GOP47 with a Logan act violation will be seen as a monumental act of partisan hackery by the Conservative Media, which is 99 and 44/100ths of the existing media. It would turn Washington into a bigger three ring circus than it is, and even less would get done.

Damned if I can see what can be done about it.

[Cosmocat]

48. Obama being alive is seen as a monumental act ofpartisanship

So, the reason for not addressing this incredibly serious matter is a fear of them doing what they have spent 6 years doing and will do for the next two?

They are going to be jackasses, might as well try to hold them accountable for it instead of cowering a corner balling about how mean they are.

[Demoiselle]

21. They'll get away with it because it is so astonishingly stupid.

The stupid scares me more than the possibility of treason….
(Before you jump all over me, please understand that I fear stupidity more than just about anything in the world. Including Godzilla.)

[Cosmocat]

24. The adminstration needs to press this issue STRONGLY

If this falls within the context of any potential charges and their legal opinion is that it would have standing, they need to move forward.

This could be a seminal moment in this country's history and start to turn back 25 years of republican creep toward complete lunacy.

[shireen]

30. FYI, Republican Senators that did not sign it

The grown-ups:
Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, Tennessee
Dan Coats, Indiana
Thad Cochran, Mississippi
Susan Collins, Maine
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska

[Cosmic Dancer]

32. Nothing will be done about this.

Nothing will be done because these thugs are supported by the Kochs and Adelson who own the process and the dems lack a backbone.

[B Calm]

41. and OMG Hillary had a private e-mail address. . .

[GetTheRightVote]

43. Are they including President Obama and President Bush in these comments...

because they should be thought Obama is far worst then Bush ever was. Both of these men should be in jail as well.

We are losing our form of governance due to run away Presidents like Bush and now Obama. One is no better then the other, both tried to rule over an whole nation of people with little regards to the common welfare of all citizens not only those belonging to one party over the other. People our nation is in some serious trouble here...President Obama has done far worst then President Bush who set all this up to begin with.

We should not hope for one person to tell a whole nation what he is going to order us all to do, governance of our nation should be done thru all 3 branches of our government frame. We are losing America behind these parties and their crowned rulers they keep putting in place to take her from us all. Wake up and think Country before party or we are doom to keep losing her behind a party system which could care less about any of us, Wake Up people!

[babylonsister]

49. WTH are you even doing here

if you despise President Obama so much? And to compare him to dimson? YOU are delusional. YOU should wake up and study history before you make such ludicrous comments.

[Sick_of_TP]

52. It's always about the money

and power. The members of congress that do the most against OB and the Dems are the ones most heavily funded by the Koch Bros. and people like them that have bought and paid for Govt. officials. Not only election funding but crony jobs for them and family. Maybe a nice lobby position later.

[HughBeaumont]

53. Learned from their treasonous forebears in Reagone's administration.

You can get away with anything if the right people see you as a valuable asset.

That's why they let all those criminal fucks off the hook for Iran-Contra. Law unto themselves for the reactionary neo-fascists. Law and order for everyone else.