**Breaking*** Former DNI Clapper says Trump campaign aided and abetted Russians.

[triron]

Link to tweet

That is a serious federal felony.

[Skraxx]

1. Clapper is Going to War

Trump is out of his league. Clapper has big, powerful, smart friends and if they want to take Trump down, they will.

[triron]

2. Damn hope you're right.

[YessirAtsaFact]

3. I hope you are right

I never thought that the GOP would react to Trump’s collusion with Russia by circling the wagons, so I hope you’re right

[malaise]

10. Then you weren't following the 'keep it in the family' line from

Paul Ryan

[Nuggets]

30. Oh yeah

I expect them to fight tooth and nail to the bitter end.

[calimary]

79. Welcome to DU, Nuggets.

Yep. You call it correctly. They'll fight for all they're worth, to the bitter end.

Even though they're pretty well worthless.

[Zoonart]

43. BOOM! I've been waiting for the intelligence community to say

BASTA!

[KPN]

46. Exactly. The GOP crossed that line long ago

and believe as a whole that they can get away with it if they hold together achieveas one. This is about permanent control in their minds and they are willing — as we’ve already seen — to do anything to achieve that. They have viewed us as an enemy of the nation (as they see it) since their “silent majority” concoction.

[czarjak]

80. "Steeped in the protocol" ????

[33taw]

4. We'll see. He hasn't so far and should have done something two years ago.

[Sherman A1]

85. Yup

I will wait until some thing happens.

[FarPoint]

27. In standing/history Clapper had influence and power....

Now, we only benefit from his wisdom wherein he identifies and explains the crisis within our democracy....I so hope we get a leader to help mobilize all citizens to stand up and demand we stop this abuse coming from all republicans and tRump.

[red dog 1]

32. I hope you're right too!

[awesomerwb1]

40. the Dotard can put his friends in high places

like he's doing and hoping to do with the SCOTUS and lower courts.

[jimlup]

75. Somebody's got to

the fact that this shit that they pass off as "American" is still standing is an affront to democracy and our constitution.

[Poiuyt]

5. Wouldn't this be the same as treason?

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.

[bearsfootball516]

6. Treason requires the two countries to be at war.

[triron]

8. Russia attacked us at a most fundamental level. That's not war???

Declarations of a (shooting)war against a nuclear power are obviously a non-starter.

[bearsfootball516]

9. Not on a technical sense, no.

As much as some posters would love to believe it, we are not at war with Russia.

[dchill]

70. Not until we steal THEIR next election.

[Codeine]

11. Very rarely do countries

have extensive trade relations, full diplomatic relations, and state visits while in a state of war.

The US Code clearly defines enemies, adversaries, war, etc. None of these apply.

[Texin]

20. There has to be a war that has actually been declared & agreed by Congress.

I don't remember whether the US actually declared ware on Afghanistan after 911, but Bush called for a "War on Terror" and he obtained consent of Congress to put boots on the ground there. He didn't declare war on Iraq, but he did obtain approval from Congress to proceed to military air strikes, followed by boots on the ground there as well. If Bush had done anything to "aid and abet" either country, he would have constitutionally been engaging in treasonous behaviors.

We were not "at war" with Russia insofar as a declared action of war on anyone's part, but Russia was actively hitting the United States using cyberwarfare, some of which tRump became aware of. And he and his family certainly knew that Russia had information that woul benefit him in the election which he was happy to take. The information used by Wikileaks to target Clinton was known by tRump to be associated with Russia, and I am absolutely certain that he knew this. Moreover, he and his people knew that there would be a price to pay for that as far as Russia was concerned. It was not freely given out of the benevolence of Putin's heart. Everyone knew that Putin would exact quid for his pro quo, so to speak. Trump gave him what he wanted at that time: he lifted sanctions on Russia almost immediately after he took the oath of office.

[whopis01]

86. That idea is often put out there, but it doesn't match the law

According to 50 U.S. Code § 2204:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/2204

(2) 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;

It specifically says “engaged is hostilities whether or not lawfully authorized”. Which seems counter to the idea that it has to be a war declared by Congress.

[AlexSFCA]

22. no, because congress and president (Obama) did not declare we are at war

[TwilightZone]

77. It has to be a declared war.

It's a fundamental part of the definition and one that many seem to be completely unaware of.

This has been explained to you multiple times, along with links to relevant explanations, and you continue to plead ignorance. Intentional ignorance is not a compelling stance.

[triron]

15. Please show where in the statute this is required.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

[bearsfootball516]

29. "adheres to their enemies"

"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."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.6dbc4d70560e

No open war with Russia means it's not an enemy, and not being an enemy eliminated treason.

[triron]

41. Here is the only legal definition I could find.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/enemy-of-the-united-states/

Thus a nation attacking our electoral system is clearly an 'enemy' according to this.

[Codeine]

56. You've had the legal definition of enemy

provided to you on multiple occasions, with direct links to the relevant sections of the US Code. I’ve provided the links. Jberryhill has provided the links. To somehow insist - yet again - that you are unaware of the actual legalities in question is, at absolute best, disingenuous.

[yaesu]

24. there should be espionage statutes that he could be charged with, like spying, but who knows. nt

[uponit7771]

12. THANK YOU !!! I was making ... VERY POINT ... earlier today!!!

[JudyM]

50. If that was on DU, would you provide link?

I’ve been thinking the same thing, would like to read your thoughts. SMH at the circus.

[uponit7771]

63. Here's the string of thought (link), aiding and abetting is encouraging the crime which I proffer...

Red Don did when he said "russia are you listening"

I'm thinking the poster with the counter argument is saying Russia already hacked ... it doesn't matter, to encourage further hacking (which happened 5 hours after Red Dons encouragement) is still against the law.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12065197

[triron]

64. Agree. I will add, however; the Russians were already encouraged by the Trump campaign (Don, jr-"I

love it&quot .

[uponit7771]

65. Ah !! This is true, then Red Don comes along and further encourages them to commit a crime

[JudyM]

81. Thanks for that. Worth pondering.

[uponit7771]

13. K&R, and ... ***ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT !!! ***

[ElementaryPenguin]

23. Yep.

18 U.S. Code § 3. Accessory after the fact
U.S. Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)

Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 99–646, § 43, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3601; Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, § 3502, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4921; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §§ 330011(h), 330016(2)(A), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2145, 2148.)

[PA Democrat]

14. Couldn't find any confirmation of this on CNN.

Anyone have any further information?

[Duppers]

16. I couldn't either but found this...

VIDEO:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/05/02/james-clapper-attorney-general-william-barr-testimony-ctn-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/

[SunSeeker]

17. Exactly..

Link to tweet

[Takket]

18. Is this just his opinion or does he have access to evidence?

[triron]

19. Ask Clapper.

I doubt very much Clapper would say this without substantiating evidence.

[FakeNoose]

21. I read James Clapper's book last year

The book is awesome and I learned a lot, really enjoyed it.

My main take-away is that Clapper knows a LOT MORE about Chump's treasonous activities with the Russians than he (Clapper) can talk about or write about right now. Clapper may be retired but it all happened while he was still on the job, and they were onto Chump pretty quickly. The intel community did not get fooled in 2016, but it takes time to track down witnesses and locate other proof. They're going to bring down the traitors.

Clapper knows, so does Brennan.

[R B Garr]

26. Great news! I hope that the Intel community starts leaking,

maybe so many of them together that no one individual can be persecuted. I doubt they are going to put up with being demonized like Comey and now it looks like Mueller is getting their treatment.

[FakeNoose]

28. No they won't leak, these guys are career intelligence officers

I'm sure they talk to each other, but they're like Mueller. No leaks ever.

[R B Garr]

31. Deep Throat or something then...? Hopefully. nt

[dem4decades]

34. Wasn't this why Mueller was appointed? And crickets from him?

I don't get it. If Clapper and brennan have the dirt then why doesn't Mueller? Don't get me wrong, i like both those guys but WTF, if there's evidence why is Trump not confronted with it?

[DeminPennswoods]

69. +1

[highplainsdem]

25. Link to the video:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/05/02/james-clapper-intv-nothing-bothered-me-as-much-as-2016-russian-interference-crn-vpx.cnn

[red dog 1]

33. Kick!

[ffr]

35. Let's remember, tRump & Co. did this as private citizens.

They should be afforded no protections beyond what you and I would have.

Donald tRump is a traitor to the United States and should be dealt with accordingly. If Mitch McConnell stands in the way, he should be detained as a Russian spy, so that congress can perform it's necessary oversight.

[JudyM]

51. McConnell aided and abetted in a big way, himself.

[Vestigial_Sister]

84. Any hopefully...

the mealy fucker will be swept out the door in the next election.

[book_worm]

36. Wouldn't this have to be investigated? Won't Barr not appoint a

special prosecutor? and cover this up as well?

[bluestarone]

37. WOW! but maybe Mueller WAS NOT DONE?

He was fired! (my thoughts on this) He really wanted to CONTINUE his investigation!

[triron]

42. I have thought this for some time.

[blueinredohio]

52. Yes I believe Mueller was fired.

[bluestarone]

54. wonder if Mueller will truthfully say

If he was fired or not? In my eyes he WAS FIRED!

[rurallib]

38. This This This must be what the whole Republican Party is fighting so desperately

to keep us from finding out.
Which would mean that some portion (NcConnell. Graham?, Grassley?) have known about it for some time.

[Qutzupalotl]

39. CNN video link:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/05/02/james-clapper-intv-nothing-bothered-me-as-much-as-2016-russian-interference-crn-vpx.cnn

[highplainsdem]

44. Posted in reply 25, too.

[highplainsdem]

45. I hate to point this out, wish Seth Abramson were right, but he's glossed over what

Clapper said after the CNN anchor challenged him on the "aiding and abetting" remark, suggesting he couldn't mean it in the legal sense.

Clapper did backtrack, and he said he was using those words "colloquially."

See my reply 25 above for the link to the video at CNN.com.

After reading Seth Abramson's tweet, I didn't expect to hear that in the interview.

I still think it's significant that Clapper called this "aiding and abetting," but it isn't as strong a statement as Abramson led me to believe.

[dlk]

47. Hopefully, the Intelligence Community has Had Enough

We will see

[FiveGoodMen]

48. For the tweet-impaired (reading at work)

In an interview with CNN's Brianna Keilar, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said former president Barack Obama accepted the intelligence that the Russians were interfering in the 2016 election and that he directly confronted Putin, while the Trump campaign was "essentially aiding and abetting the Russians."

https://www.myleaderpaper.com/news/national/clapper-what-was-the-trump-campaign-doing/video_97abfbe6-45d6-58ec-984b-1772aef08602.html

[highplainsdem]

49. Clapper makes the "aiding and abetting" remark at 1:58 in the video, but says he meant it in a

colloquial sense, after the CNN anchor challenges him and says that wasn't aiding and abetting in a legal sense.

Seth Abramson apparently missed part of their exchange.

[triron]

57. Yes I saw that. Perhaps he walked it back a bit because it hasn't been charged?

Doesn't mean it still might be charged with more evidence of course.

[highplainsdem]

58. I don't know, but he did walk it back, and unfortunately Seth Abramson missed that, and took

it more seriously than Clapper probably wanted anyone to take it.

I posted a separate OP about this

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212066658

since I didn't think anyone was seeing what I'd posted as a reply here.

[triron]

68. No you are wrong. Abramson noted exactly what happened; see below.

Link to tweet

[TwilightZone]

78. False.

Abramson noted earlier in that thread that Clapper would *not* confirm that he meant it in the legal sense.

Link to tweet

[triron]

82. You just illustrated my point.

[cp]

53. Oh, hell yes!

[MBS]

55. And Clapper is as sober-minded as they come

While justifiably freaked out by the treasonous behavior of MF 45 et al

[duforsure]

59. My money is on Clapper any day

Trump told the Russians in the oval office of a spy inside ISIS and what city , and admitted it. I think there were other instances too that he gave aid to the enemy . Did they give the Prince intel information for them to round up his opposition with? Clapper also knows a lot more than we can imagine on trump.

[triron]

60. He did finally say he meant it in a 'colloquial sense' after anchor said 'but not in a legal sense'.

Figure Clapper had to walk it back since it hasn't been charged.
But yet he did say it nonetheless.

[pdsimdars]

61. I am almost nonresponsive to these things any more. Throw out red meat and then nothing happens

Trump is still in power.
As Agent Mulder says, "the Truth is out there, and I want to believe"

[Agschmid]

66. Can someone explain what a "collusive crime" is?

Yeah he said this, but I’m not really sure what it means.

[humbled_opinion]

71. The Speaker

needs a private sit down with Clapper and use the Mueller report and Clapper's evidence as a way forward for impeachment. ENOUGH of the B.S. IMPEACH NOW !!!!!!!!

[hlthe2b]

72. Guys: he walked it back. Collusion isn't a legal term and he meant it "colloquially"

I'm not sure why Seth thinks this advances the "cause"... From a counterintelligence POV, it undoubtedly was as described. but that doesn't help in the legal sense.

[triron]

83. No, 'aiding and abetting', not collusion. He only 'walked it back' because the anchor challenged

him and he opted not to get into a confrontation. Clapper would not casually
make that assertion.

[Cha]

73. Kick!

[Honeycombe8]

74. Mueller's report found that they did not, didn't it? There's evidence, but not enough...

to reach the requirement of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the criminal standard.

???

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

76. Great... wake me when someone goes to jail for this!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[hughee99]

87. If the DNI has proof of this, what action did he take? Nt