Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Oak2004

(2,140 posts)
37. That's it, exactly
Thu Mar 23, 2017, 06:23 PM
Mar 2017

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).





Get thee to the greatest thread section ffr Mar 2017 #1
AMEN!!! Sculpin Beauregard Mar 2017 #2
LOCK 'EM UP! UpInArms Mar 2017 #3
Love me some Painter. mobeau69 Mar 2017 #4
Me too. Quirky lovable old bastage. nt Snotcicles Mar 2017 #10
Bush ethics is an oxymoron. milestogo Mar 2017 #5
"former ethics lawyer for George W Bush" truebluegreen Mar 2017 #6
It's a little like being rejected by the Ku Klux Klan - for being a bigot. tenorly Mar 2017 #14
maybe it means he was an ethical lawyer BEFORE he worked for Bush... yurbud Mar 2017 #34
This whole thing is so unbelievable: that so many Republicans would put themselves and/or party C Moon Mar 2017 #7
I think they should be most proud that they can't even select... dchill Mar 2017 #17
I'll kick and rec. denbot Mar 2017 #8
Hell, if this were Hillary, never mind any Independent Special Prosecutor. calimary Mar 2017 #50
Link to Painter's tweet Julian Englis Mar 2017 #9
Was that bad? ffr Mar 2017 #11
When you lie down with dogs FakeNoose Mar 2017 #20
it was hard getting past "ethics lawyer for bush" to the article. niyad Mar 2017 #12
Well, we know he needed one, right? dchill Mar 2017 #18
Considering the pain and death they've caused defacto7 Mar 2017 #13
I was told treason is only applied to the military. But con man may broaden the definition. SleeplessinSoCal Mar 2017 #15
What about the Rosenbergs? FakeNoose Mar 2017 #21
The Rosenbergs were charged with espionage, not treason Crabby Appleton Mar 2017 #25
Sorry to burst your bubble. The Rosenbergs were convicted of KingCharlemagne Mar 2017 #26
The Rosenbergs were convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Espionage, not treason jmowreader Mar 2017 #28
can't recall if it was on Rachel Maddow wbere that info came from. SleeplessinSoCal Mar 2017 #35
Treason definition cut-and-paste, + Rosenbergs espionage 1951 not treason ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #36
Thank you. However, We need a new clause. SleeplessinSoCal Mar 2017 #46
Nope..it is in the Constitution pertaining to impeachment. n/t dixiegrrrrl Mar 2017 #42
I am trying to retrace where the idea that treason only pertained to the military came from. SleeplessinSoCal Mar 2017 #45
Does not seem to apply to Republicans DeeDeeNY Mar 2017 #57
Welcome Grizzled ! FailureToCommunicate Mar 2017 #16
Thanks Grizzled Ol Granddad Mar 2017 #40
Just try and catch me gezzer... FailureToCommunicate Mar 2017 #44
They finally used the T word LiberalLovinLug Mar 2017 #19
But DU has repeatedly told me that it's not treason Orrex Mar 2017 #22
Depending on what actions are proven, it would be interesting to see the possible charges... HopeAgain Mar 2017 #23
Yeah, I don't care if he's ousted because of unpaid parking tickets Orrex Mar 2017 #24
DJT is a nightmare come true, but -- Pence? Paul Ryan? Is that a path forward? ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #38
I prefer "Fraud" on the people of the United States (and KingCharlemagne Mar 2017 #27
Yeah, technially treason can only be in wartime? Crash2Parties Mar 2017 #41
Kick. dchill Mar 2017 #29
Painter will get a serious finger-wagging LanternWaste Mar 2017 #30
It seems Republicans are having a bit of a crisis C_U_L8R Mar 2017 #31
Of course it is. It was obvious to anyone paying attention since the platform change at the RNC. nt SunSeeker Mar 2017 #32
kick KewlKat Mar 2017 #33
That's it, exactly Oak2004 Mar 2017 #37
It's only war if Congress passes a formal declaration of war ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #39
One count of treason for each US citizen plenty of years RainCaster Mar 2017 #52
I am not sure that a declared war is necessary Oak2004 Mar 2017 #55
treason also includes "adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #58
"Enemy". Igel Mar 2017 #61
I'd say Vlad supported the election of DJT, but probably does not specifically support him now ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #62
"levying of war" might apply actually ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #60
The Republicans are wearing the label proudly and openly. Kablooie Mar 2017 #43
Painter on Lawrence O'Donnell NEXT! N/T SleeplessinSoCal Mar 2017 #47
Unpresidented (n/t) Kennah Mar 2017 #48
Welcome to DU, Grizzled Ol Granddad! calimary Mar 2017 #49
Trump makes the Bush administration look like a bastion of moral government. phleshdef Mar 2017 #51
Fun to see GWB on a late night show, happy as a clam not to be viewed as the super villain anymore. ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #53
We dont need a special prosecutor thats not beholden to the Repugnants as they knew about Russias cstanleytech Mar 2017 #54
Yep. It's treason. Recced, thanks. Mc Mike Mar 2017 #56
unconstitutional enid602 Mar 2017 #59
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»'There is no other word f...»Reply #37