2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: The Big Con should be arrested... [View all]onenote
(42,373 posts)We have many disagreements with Russia (as we do with many other countries to varying degrees), but that doesn't make them an "enemy" as a legal matter.
Courts looking at the concept of "treason" would not give enemy a broader reading than it is given elsewhere in law (and might give it a narrower reading).
Thus, for example, the courts likely would take into consideration the definition found in title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense): Section 2204: "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."
The term "hostilities" is not defined in title 50, but it is defined in title 10 (Armed Forces). Section 948a - "The term hostilities means any conflict subject to the laws of war."
Our differences with Russia do not amount to a conflict subject to the laws of war.
As I've pointed out several times, treason is a very narrowly defined, very infrequently prosecuted offense. Among those not prosecuted for treason: the Rosenbergs (convicted, arguably unfairly, of espionage), John Walker Lindh, Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, Edward Snowden....the list is actually quite long.
There is absolutely no chance that Trump will be prosecuted for "treason" nor would there be any chance of him being convicted if such a prosecution was brought. Crimes may have been committed by the Russians and its even possible that Trump was in some way complicit, but even that wouldn't mean he would or could be charged with or convicted of treason.