Did Trump Commit Treason at Putin Meeting? Here's What Lawyers Say

[hlthe2b]

There are many things you can accuse President Donald Trump of. And treason is now apparently one of those after his controversial press conference with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin at their summit in Helsinki, Finland. But do lawyers agree?

According to federal law on treason, 18 U.S. Code § 2381: “Whoever, 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 and 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.”--snip--

And in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, it says: “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.”

Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, told Newsweek: "If one defines 'war' to include cyberwar—e.g. by deliberately hacking into a nation’s computer-based election infrastructure—then what we witnessed in Helsinki was President Trump openly aiding and abetting the Russian military’s ongoing war against America rather than protecting against that Putin-led cyber-invasion.

"That in turn could reasonably be defined as 'treason' within the meaning of 18 USC 2381 and Art. III of the US Constitution. "Some scholars would resist that modern definition as one the authors of the Constitution could not have contemplated, and others would insist on limiting the definition to situations involving a state of formally declared war, but views like Brennan’s are far from wild," said Tribe.

You need to read the rest to get the full picture:
https://www.newsweek.com/did-trump-commit-treason-putin-meeting-heres-what-lawyers-say-1027643

[smirkymonkey]

1. K&R

[Wwcd]

2. Glad Newsweek put this subject out there. It reaches a broad audience &

defines treason before the RW media venues can defend it.

People need to understand the meaning, since it's a subject that will become a prominent talking point in the future.

Its not difficult to apply the definition to the actions of Trump .

[hlthe2b]

4. It isn't hard to apply the definition generally, but legally, it isn't cut and dry...

After hearing Jill Wine-Banks (who I like a lot) suggest otherwise last night on MSNBC (while Matthew Miller seemed to cringe), I have been seeking a more thorough review from lawyers. I have tremendous admiration for Laurence Tribe, but I think he makes clear that there are "issues" with a legal definition applying here.

[oberliner]

3. The question is - does "war" include "cyberwar" ?

[hlthe2b]

5. and... does "war" require formal declaration--something which hasn't happened since WWII

[oberliner]

8. Another good point

My view is that we haven't hit "treason" yet, but that could be coming.

[hlthe2b]

13. Yes.. it is important to note that the Rosenbergs were NOT charged with Treason, but Espionage

The trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg begins in New York Southern District federal court. Judge Irving R. Kaufman presides over the espionage prosecution of the couple accused of selling nuclear secrets to the Russians (treason could not be charged because the United States was not at war with the Soviet Union).
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-rosenberg-trial-begins

[MGKrebs]

20. Right. Let's say a guy goes to join the Taliban and fight against us

in Afghanistan. We are not technically at war, but any reasonable person would view that as treason I think.
Not sure how you make the distinction between that and this.
I mean, let's say the guy didn't actually go and shoot at US soldiers, but that he was a computer expert, is that any less treasonous?

[shraby]

14. If as reported they can bring down our infrastructure with cyber commands since they

have compromised our energy plants, etc. that is war beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[hlthe2b]

15. Our laws may not have been sufficiently updated to include tech advances/threats such as this.

So, shadow of a doubt applies only to perception. It SHOULD be, but legally, it may NOT be. We have no legal precedence to say either way.

[lagomorph777]

39. I don't think the law excludes non-kinetic warfare.

[hlthe2b]

40. It has never been adjudicated so who knows. Certainly the issue with undeclared v declared war

is likely an even bigger issue. See my other posts re: the Rosenbergs.

[lagomorph777]

42. Yeah. Of course, in their case, espionage was as good as treason, in terms of consequences.

[kentuck]

6. At the very least, it is an abuse of power...

...unlike any the American people have seen in a very long time.

[Voltaire2]

7. A year ago I rejected treason as fitting the crimes.

No more.

[calimary]

38. "Aid and comfort to the enemy" - is it quacking like a duck yet?

I’m not a lawyer or a legal expert. All I know is how it looks - to this civilian’s eyes. And it clearly looks like treason to me.

But what do I know (besides not much in the expertise department)?

[deminks]

9. 2011 Pentagon considers cyberattacks acts of war

Pentagon: Cyber Attacks Are Acts of War

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/pentagon-cyber-attacks-act-war/351239/

For the first time, the Pentagon has decided that cyber attacks constitute an act of war, reports The Wall Street Journal. The U.S. military drafted a classified 30-page document concluding that the U.S. may respond to cyber attacks from foreign countries with traditional military force, citing the growing threat of hackers on U.S. infrastructure such as subways, electrical grids or nuclear reactors. "If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks," a military official told the Journal. While some say the policy is in keeping with the times, others worry that it could lead the country into war more easily.

(end snip)

another link:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13614125

This was carried out by Russian military GRU. Not a 400 lb Russian hacker sitting on his bed.

[hlthe2b]

10. that is an operational definition, not a legal one.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

21. We're in uncharted territory with cyber attacks.

The world had not yet witnessed a massive cyber attacked that could bring a nation to its knees overnight, and I have no doubt Russia and possibly other international players have that capability. Just like with nuclear weapons as a deterrent, those players know we can counter-attack and bring them down with us - and I doubt if anyone wants that to happen. But, just as with nuclear, there's always the possibility of rogue players in the mix.

Relatively, we might say that we're now in a cyber cold war and heaven forbid if we're ever in a "hot' one. That event could also escalate into a full-blown conventional military conflict.

If a "hot" cyber war occurs, we can bet the definition and scope of "war" will be quickly clarified by Congress.

.................

[hlthe2b]

22. Even if it were considered a "cold war", undeclared war has been deemed insufficient for "treason"

charges.

See my post upstream on the Rosenbergs and why they were not charged with treason.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

33. Agreed, and I think the courts would think that way.

But, wouldn't it be a very bazaar event if Congress declared war in the case of a very bad cyber war?

It seems that legislation may be needed to define these new frontiers of "war", perhaps including such sinister events as cyber attacks, massive nerve agent attacks, and very serious terrorist attacks like 911. In other words, things that could potentially bring the Nation to its knees without a single shot being fired.

Of course, defining the enemy in those cases is a huge problem.

[RobinA]

11. Accusing Him

of treason seems to me a bit drama-ish. I would call it a glaring example of what a moron the guy is, how unfit for office, what a complete lack of understanding of either his role or the country he represents, and generally what happens when you send a child to do an adult's job.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. It is a very loaded term

but i don't think you can excuse his aiding our enemy by calling him stupid.

[Farmer-Rick]

19. Trump, the GOP and Putin have been planning this for years

Of course it's treason.

But the Russian Republicon party will never impeach and as far as I can see, the only thing Dems are doing is complaining and trying to run candidates as if Russia weren't rigging the system. But of course we Dems are Not in a position of power to do much of anything else. See how that all works out for Putin? Kind of convenient for him that the corrupt, racist, party of the KKK is in power now. So convenient...........

[pazzyanne]

30. I think you are letting tRump off too easy.

It is what has been done for him his entire life. He have never had to think of consequences for his actions because they have always been explained away and glossed over. If we go with your definition of "child", then it is way past time to start the "tough love parenting" he needs.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

16. I did not commit Treason!

Just take in for a second that the national conversation will revolve around whether or not the president committed treason. When the discussion goes there, there isn't really a good answer. The fact that this analysis is even taking place should be damning enough for Trump.

[hlthe2b]

17. I agree... The more it is discussed the worse it is for the Trumpsters.

[Nay]

23. I'm not sure we could actually get him jailed/removed for treason -- sounds like there are

enough weasel words in the definition that he would probably skate. However, IMO, the easiest and most relevant law is the 25th Amendment - he's clearly got immense mental problems and attendant behaviors that make him unsuitable for just about any job, never mind the presidency. But who will convince the Pubs to invoke it? We are in a terrible situation here.

I realize we'll just get Pence who, in many ways, is worse, but we MUST get rid of Trump if only to deter other criminals from running for the office.

[exboyfil]

31. Impeachment would be easier

and that is impossible. The 25th Amendment has to be upheld by both houses of Congress, and it has to be continued to be upheld every 30-45 days or so. It does not involve the removal of a President.

I think we are in dead girl or live boy territory here, and I am not even convinced that would be sufficient.

[Scarsdale]

18. Putin has much

more than a pee tape on tRump. tRump is desperate to keep something under wraps. Another sex scandal means nothing to him, he actually seems to take pride in that.

[lagomorph777]

41. That sounds right to me. There's probably a more explicit treason tape than the press conference.

[Dem_4_Life]

24. K&R

[Mr. Ected]

25. Did the Constitution ever define the term "war"?

Has the Supreme Court ever had to define or discuss it in the context of interpreting allegations of treason? Seems all the other elements of treason are present here.

If the Constitution is indeed a living document that morphs over time to encompass modern advancements not present at the time of its writing, then it's entirely possible the Court would take on the question as to whether cyberwar rises to the same level as a customary war with respect to treasonous acts.

This particular incursion is interesting because it was initiated by a hostile power's military operations, drawing the definition even closer. Moreover, the effect of the act on the nation and the intent of the accused seem vital here. If this isn't treason, it damn sure is close enough to sniff its fetid odor.

[onenote]

44. Supreme Court, 1795

"it is uniformly and clearly declared, that raising a body of men to obtain, by intimidation or violence, the repeal of a law, or to oppose and prevent by force and terror, the execution of a law, is an act of levying war."

Intimidation or force of violence.

There are several other clear indicia of when two countries are in a state of war with one another. For one thing, they don't maintain diplomatic relations. For another, they don't allow their citizens to travel to the other as tourists. And they don't maintain billions of dollars in trade with one another. By those measures as well, we are not at war with Russia.

[MineralMan]

26. Congress can impeach, convict and remove a President.

The current Congress appears to be unlikely to do that, despite the evidence.

Our best recourse is to elect a Congress that will live up to its responsibilities. There will be no Treason charges filed in any federal court against Donald Trump. That I guarantee.

[exboyfil]

28. I believe you are correct

This only ends with a "health emergency" or Jan. 20th 2020 or God forbid Jan. 20th 2024.

[exboyfil]

27. Several have been convicted of treason without

any declaration of war. Whiskey Rebellion, Fries' Rebellion, John Brown's Rebellion, and Miner's March.

The Wikipedia on this subject is pretty interesting. Last entry is Donald Trump - better known as the worst President of the United States. I am sure that will be scrubbed pretty soon.

[hlthe2b]

32. whiskey rebellion 1791, Fries' Rebellion 1799-1800, John Brown (treason AGAINST VA, not US)

Likewise Miner's March resulted in treason charges AGAINST WV, not US)

So, no, we really do not have precedence for Federal treason charges in the absence of declared War.

[exboyfil]

34. Good points

The likelihood of ever getting a conviction of treason against anybody without a declaration of war is basically zero. Also you would never get over the existing hurdle of a sitting President who could commit murder and theoretically pardon himself if it was done in DC (maybe not that far).

[Thomas Hurt]

29. The GOP does not see it as war, they see it as being competitive in the world...

That is why Rand Paul said what he did....this is being tough, if you failed to defend yourself, you got what you deserved. Usual amoral social darwinist bee ess.

At worst it is a crime to them...

[True Blue American]

36. Rand Paul is

A Republican dip stick,like his father. No one paid any attention to him,either.

I loved Scaramuchi trying to make Trumps words into dialing down the rhetoric. I turned CNN off.

[True Blue American]

35. Republicans did not want to do anything about Nixon,either, until they did.

[malthaussen]

37. The statute is very clear.

The definitions, not so much.

Is Russia an "enemy" under law? If not, Mr Trump can give all the aid and comfort he pleases.

If cyberwar is "war," and Russia demonstrably executed an act of war against the U.S., then does an ipso-facto state of war exist between the two nations? We know, of course, that only Congress can declare a war. But the lines are fuzzier now.

But the bottom line is simple: something is unlawful if you have the leverage to enforce it as so. Otherwise, it's just another day.

"Treason never prospers, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

-- Mal

[Hassler]

43. I'll leave the wordsmithing to the lawyers. Until they catch up, I'll call him traitor trump.

It's treason.