I've come to the conclusion that it isn't treason

[bluecollar2]

However I am not convinced that Trump, his family and the GOP leadership aren't guilty of racketeering...

From Trump down through his family there seems to be a mob-like approach to everything they do, aided and abetted by the Gingrich, McConnel, Ryan, Nunes lieutenants...

From election fixing, voter suppression, no-bid contracts, private/for profit prisons, visa manipulation etc. This mob and the GOP are waist deep in it.

All we need now is for the DNC to make the case publicly.

[greyl]

1. Just a bit premature, I'd say. nt

[unblock]

2. at least 9 months too late, i'd say....

[greyl]

4. It's too early for someone to conclude it isn't treason.

(I was putting it lightly, since it looks likely that evidence of treason from multiple individuals is already being looked at.)

[unblock]

7. seems you were responding to the o.p. title while i was responding to the o.p. body ;)

[LenaBaby61]

3. "Just a bit premature, I'd say."

Agree.

There's SO much treason going on I can't see straight.

[Skittles]

5. LOL....oh really?

they colluded with the Russian government / Russia mob to help install them into the White House

that ain't racketeering

[kysrsoze]

10. Actually, its racketeering AND treason.

This is a global money laundering scheme, spearheaded by Russia.

[dweller]

6. and I'd agree with you

but then we'd both be wrong... 🙄

[KT2000]

8. when he gives back the buildings

that Obama closed, when they allow the staff back in the country, when they lift sanctions so they can build their oil pipeline, that is what you would call treason.

[GallopingGhost]

9. He openly called for a hostile foreign power

to hack his political opponent.

He and his cronies helped that government interfere in every way possible.

He supported and praised the president of that foreign power while disparaging numerous individuals and institutions in our country.

It is treason and he is guilty of it.

[WinkyDink]

11. My definition includes "conspiring with an adversarial nation to steal the Presidency."

[onenote]

20. your definition isn't in the Constitution.

[louis c]

38. I've had this dicussion with many of you before

I know the constitution. I know treason has to be "aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war". I know you need two witnesses.

When people use "Treason", it is a layman's term. The violation is really under the espionage act. One can even be charged with espionage by aiding a friendly nation, like Israel.

but aiding a hostile nation, which we are not technically at war with (Iran or Russia, for example), makes that espionage even worse.

Hence, people use Treason in the vernacular, as defined in the dictionary, rather than the constitution.

The United States Government executed the Rosenberg's 67 years ago, and we weren't at war with the Soviet Union. and to this day, they were considered traitors' by historical standards.

[pnwmom]

12. How can you know? Accepting bribes to enact policies favorable to an adversary would be treason.

We don't know what DT did, but no one should be ruling out treason yet.

[Voltaire2]

16. the word "adversary" simply is not in the definition of 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. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason.

The confusion is over the phrase "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

ADHERING. Cleaving to, or joining; as, adhering to the enemies of the United States.
2. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, s 3, defines treason against the United States, to consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
3. The fact that a citizen is cruising in an enemy's ship, with a design to capture or destroy American ships, would be an adhering to the enemies of the United States. 4 State Tr. 328 ; Salk. 634; 2 Gilb. Ev. by Lofft, 798.
4. If war be actually levied, that is, a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable enterprise, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy are to be considered as traitors. 4 Cranch. 126.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Publis

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adhering

It doesn't apply to nations or organizations we are not at war with.

MYTH NO. 2
Aiding Russia is treason against the United States.
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.

[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.593948d28bc5|

Some other critics of the administration, including Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who was Clinton's running mate, have suggested the President's son might have engaged in treason by dealing with a foreign adversary -- but that is a possibility that many legal analysts reject.
Both Constitution and federal law covering treason provide the United States be actively at war with the foreign adversary for such a charge.

[link:http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/trump-jr-legal-problems/index.html

[pnwmom]

17. The word "enemies" applies to Russia, since they used cyberwarfare to attack our Democracy.

They used a new method of war, but it was an attack directed by an enemy.

[Voltaire2]

23. Only applies if we are at war with them.

We are not. Nation states are hacking each other pretty much all the time. Nobody is considering it an act of war, at least nobody in charge of deciding what is or not s not an act of war. Until that changes "they hacked us" doesn't matter.

[pnwmom]

24. We weren't at war with Japan when they attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

But if any American had helped in that attack, they would have been guilty of treason.

And this wasn't simple hacking. This was hacking aiming at overturning the people's choice in the election.

[Voltaire2]

25. Everyone considers blowing up your battleships an act of war.

I know it is difficult for some to grasp the difference between "things that are generally considered an act of war" and "stuff that happens all the time between states", but luckily none of those people appear to be in charge of deciding what is or is not an act of war.

If we accept your analysis that hacking another state is an act of war, when do we let loose our military to attack Russia? If we are now in a state of war with Russia, everyone engaged in business with the Russians is in legal jeopardy. When do we start arresting them? If we are at war with Russia why are our astronauts riding Russian space ships to the ISS and back?

I think a reasonable person has to acknowledge that we are not at war with Russia.

[pnwmom]

31. You apparently haven't noticed that the people who are in charge of retaliating

against an act of war are the same people who have been colluding with the enemy to harm us.

And instead of fighting cyberwarfare with cyberwarfare, they are considering rolling back the sanctions we previously put in place.

[Voltaire2]

32. You do understand that a "state of war" is entered into by "states", right?

Last edited Sat Jul 22, 2017, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)

It is not some condition that just happens.

Lets play what if.

Suppose that Clinton won the election. Is it your contention that she would have gone to Congress for a declaration of war against Russia?

[pnwmom]

33. You do understand that our intelligence services say that the GOVERNMENT of Russia was behind

the cyber attack on the US, right?

[Voltaire2]

39. Yes of course they were.

Last edited Sun Jul 23, 2017, 09:40 AM - Edit history (1)

And we are hacking their government. The Chinese are hacking us. The North Kireans are hacking us. Iran is hacking us. We are hacking all of them. Nobody is in a state of war.

Now back to my hypothetical. Clinton is president. The Russian election hacks are revealed. Is it your contention that President Clinton goes to congress and gets a declaration of war against Russia?

[pnwmom]

40. Oh, got it. You're one of the "what about-ers." We're all just equivalent, according to you.

For them to hack into our elections and change our registration rolls is just like the kinds of things we do to other countries.

There's no difference, by your theory, between spying on other countries to learn their plans and hacking into their election systems to change the outcome of their votes.

Wrong.

We didn't get a declaration of war for Vietnam, and we wouldn't need to in your hypothetical. We could attack Russia back with cyberwarfare.

[Voltaire2]

44. We got an authorization from congress for Vietnam.

So you still can't seem to answer the question regarding what a Clinton presidency should do.

Aside from Treason charges against Trump, what military responses should our war with Russia engage in?

[FSogol]

42. People just aren't getting their heads around the fact that a cyber attack is an act a war.

Of course not even that will sway the "both parties are the same / it's just politics /everyone does it" crowd.

[Voltaire2]

43. When do we break diplomatic relations with every

nation hacking us?

The current defense department position on what sort of hacking constitutes an act of war limits it to physical or material damage. For example the stutsnet attack we carried out on Iran.

A clear example would be "taking down the electrical grid".

Now it is a reasonable argument that we need to rethink this. However the primary Russian action appears, for now, to have been the email doc dump to wiki-leaks. That is the sort of election meddling - disseminating leaked documents- that nations have been doing to affect elections in other countries (or their own) for a long time, and it hasn't been seen as an act of war.

[pnwmom]

45. No, the worst Russian action was hacking into the election systems of at least 20 of our states

and changing voter rolls.

http://time.com/4865982/secret-plan-stop-vladimir-putin-election-plot/?utm_campaign=time&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&xid=time_socialflow_twitter

Election 2016 was a step well beyond that. After the Illinois hack and a similar one at about the same time in Arizona, "we realized we were playing a different game," Daniel says. The Russians weren't just stealing information for the purposes of collecting intelligence as they had been in previous election cycles. Instead, Daniel's team concluded, they were showing a possible intent to meddle with the vote.
Illinois discovered the intrusion on July 12, when the hackers triggered an alarm by trying to download the whole file of 15 million voters. Illinois officials took the system offline and found that about 90,000 files had been stolen, more than 75,000 of which included personal data like driver's-license numbers and the last four digits of the voters' Social Security numbers. When Illinois reported the news to the FBI in late July, the bureau dispatched a tactical Cyber Action Team to the state capital, Springfield, where the computers are kept.

Fortunately for the feds, Illinois officials had kept a full backup of all the data on the system from before the SQL attack, so the FBI was able to track what the hackers had done. Bureau agents found that while they were inside, the hackers had attempted to alter and delete information in the voter rolls. In particular, they had tried to change voters' names and addresses. As far as they could tell, none of the efforts had been successful. Most important, Illinois had recorded the IP addresses of the attackers. Those digital fingerprints and the techniques the hackers had used, combined with the intelligence reporting on Russian plans, convinced the feds that the attackers were a group, known as Fancy Bear, that operates as an arm of Russian military intelligence (GRU).

[Voltaire2]

46. These efforts were unsuccessful as far as we know.

from your link: "As far as they could tell, none of the efforts had been successful. "

And that is my understanding as well. The registration hacks were failures. So for now it was the wiki leaks dump that affected the election. Do you seriously want to go to war over that?

[FSogol]

47. Your last paragraph is a perfect example of "everyone does it." Thanks for making my point.

[Voltaire2]

48. When the subject is what constitutes an act of war

acts that are apparently normal in interstate relations are relevant. Going to war is serious. Lots of people will die. Nations generally don't go to war over actions by other states that are within the norms of accepted behavior. Even if they've been harmed by those actions. See for example espionage, the pre internet sort.

I'll ask you the same question: Clinton is president. Should she seek a declaration of war or its equivalent aumf from congress?

[FSogol]

49. No, but she could declare that we will treat the hacking and electoral interference as an act of war.

As for actions, we could place economic sanctions on Russia (France, Germany, and a few other Nato countries would go along with us).

We could shutter Sputnik Radio and RT news, expel diplomats and remove visas from the whole shady Russian banker crowd that seem to be infesting Trump's WHO and business partners. There are a lot of actions that could be taken to harm the Russian oligarchs.

[Voltaire2]

50. Ok, but you do realize that gets Trump

off the hook on a treason charge, which is where this all started. Currently this sort of shit is not an act of war, it is just espionage level misbehavior. We could declare a new doctrine that warned other nations that future meddling would be viewed as acts of war. We can't go back in time and apply that doctrine to 2016.

We can't shutdown foreign news sources unless, like China, we create a Great Firewall.

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. We are at war with them even though that is NOT required to be treason.

You are right.

And you can be certain if this was a democrat, this debate wouldnt be occurring. The deplorables would be hunting down any democrat who did this.

[Voltaire2]

28. No we are not at war with Russia and yes it is required to be treason.

[Eliot Rosewater]

29. wrong

or giving aid and comfort to its enemies by one who owes it allegiance.

[Voltaire2]

30. yes well as I noted up thread, in case law "enemies" means nations or organizations

that we are at war with. Not states with whom we have normal, even if adversarial, relations, like Russia.

[moda253]

18. We have to get off the concept of calling it meddling.

This was a propaganda operation and a cyber attack on our nation. That isn't some scooby doo episode. Those are acts of war. Albeit not in the sense of traditional war but war all the same.

[Voltaire2]

13. treason is a very specific crime

Unless Trump was dealing with nations or organizations we are at war with, treason just doesn't apply. So you are correct, the Trump gang has likely committed several felonies but not treason.

[ck4829]

14. We might as well scrap treason from the books

If we're not going to prosecute traitors based on several events over the recent years, then why keep it?

[Gabi Hayes]

15. Was Pearl Harbor an act of war?

So was this!

Look up Kurt eichenwalds passionate assertion and you might be swayed

This was treason of the highest order

No fffffing question

They stole our election and will steal our constitution

Read Democracy in Chains if you think I'm exaggerating

They're most of the way down the road

Six more states till a constitutional convention

Mark it here

[Iggo]

19. That what isn't treason?

[bluecollar2]

36. All of the behaviour...

[MariaCSR]

21. Nice trolling.

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. Ka ching, you are correct sir

[Grammy23]

22. Since we are kinda in uncharted territory here---

I would say we might want to hold off in declaring what is and is not treason. I think more learned minds than ours are churning this over right now. And have been for some time. I can only imagine the conversations that Constitutional scholars are having these days. We are in for a big learning experience as a nation. Our constitution, the courts , the governing bodies AND our people are being put to a huge test. I hope we are up to the task of saving ourselves.

It is time for those on the tRump train to get their heads out of the sand and join the rest of the citizens who know and have known that tRump (and Putin) were taking us into dangerous places. As a nation, we need to pull together ---if that is even possible---to get to the bottom of EVERYTHING brought upon us by this unholy alliance. If heads roll, so be it.

[DrDan]

34. make the case to who? The Attorney General?

[bluecollar2]

35. checking back in

I understand the point of view of those who dis agree with me.

I am just concerned that by calling it treason we narrow the scope of the issue.

IMO...this crowd are at a minimum...guilty of:

Perjury
Obstruction of Justice
Money Laundering
Failure to disclose relevant information
Dissemination of false information
Use of position to gain influence
Influence peddling
Tax evasion
Interference in government investigations
Use of position for personal gain
Direction of public monies for personal gain
Elections interference
Voter suppression
Passing of state secrets/espionage

Please feel free to add...

If we were to be in a state of declared war some/all of these activities might be viewed as Treasonous...

I believe that the definition of racketeering casts a wider net.

The Trumps and their GOP supporters are just the visible tip of a criminal cabal which includes the Koch and Mercer among others.

[loyalsister]

41. Agreed

I also think rushing to use the most inflammatory accusions possible does not productively contribute to furthering a serious investigation. Particularly one with so many interconnections.
One conclusions I would like to see discussed is that it has been revealed that electing a "successful" business executive means electing someone who has learned how to manipulate and navigate through regulations and essentially game the system.

[sharedvalues]

51. DNC has little power or money. Need prominent dems

We need prominent Dems to do what the right does. Circulate a list of simple talking points.
Then everyone go in front of the cameras saying the same thing. If 10 Dem politicians on TV said "Trump racketeering" every day for a week the whole press would pick it up.


P.s. it is a myth that the DNC is powerful. GOP orgs have tons of money due in part to citizens united. There are very few Dem orgs that have similar power or money.

[bettyellen]

52. The attack and infiltration of voting is an act of war.

And if they participated in it they are st war with Americans. It's treason.