General Discussion

turbinetree

(24,685 posts) Thu Jul 20, 2017, 10:47 AM Jul 2017

Why Not Call It Treason? [View all]

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

When treason became a Washington buzzword, the pushback came fast and furious.

Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian government attorney, a Russian government lobbyist and others to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton does not qualify as treason, the Washington Post explained, because of the language of the Constitution.

“Treason is a little extreme for this,” said law professor Richard Briffault. “[Russia] may not be our friend, but it is not clear they are our enemy. We are not at war.”

The very allegation is a sign of the “licentiousness of the press,” sniffed the Washington Times.

Team Trump has possibly violated 52 U.S. Code Section 30121, said the experts at Slate. And even on that petty charge, scholars dispute whether a foreign government’s opposition research constitutes a “thing of value.”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/not-call-treason/

78 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why Not Call It Treason? [View all] turbinetree Jul 2017 OP

When a foreign power fucks with your free elections randr Jul 2017 #1

Funny you should mention that.... Gabi Hayes Jul 2017 #2

When you are prepared to destroy a nation on short notice that is war. gordianot Jul 2017 #3

It's overreach to call this treason. lapucelle Jul 2017 #4

What do you call it then? turbinetree Jul 2017 #5

It doesn't matter what you or I want to call it. lapucelle Jul 2017 #11

stop throwing melm00se Jul 2017 #64

Fits the "dictionary" definition of treason. triron Jul 2017 #15

the dictionary doesn't define treason for purposes of US law. The Constitution does. onenote Jul 2017 #34

a. it sure looks like treason when you isolate this passage Eliot Rosewater Jul 2017 #52

It was JUST like Pearl Harbor on a protractedscale Gabi Hayes Jul 2017 #63

We have to acknowledge our reality, half the voters (doesnt matter if that is really only 30% Eliot Rosewater Jul 2017 #66

That last sentEnce scares the cats outta me Gabi Hayes Jul 2017 #67

Clearly Trump(R) has adhered to an enemy of the US, and has given them aid within the US. Squinch Jul 2017 #12

Excellent point. triron Jul 2017 #16

While "enemy" might not be defined in the Constitution, lapucelle Jul 2017 #25

I think we can easily say that a foreign power that wants to take over our election is in Squinch Jul 2017 #30

What some can "easily say" lapucelle Jul 2017 #32

Could it be argued that they were NOT acting in a hostile way when they tried to rig our election? Squinch Jul 2017 #33

Who is the "they" you refer to? lapucelle Jul 2017 #41

Putin. Putin's friends. So yes to all of the above. All of our security agencies are pretty much Squinch Jul 2017 #47

I'll say it again. It's a dangerous game to play. lapucelle Jul 2017 #50

And anyone who still supports trump is guilty of what he is guilty of, and if that is Eliot Rosewater Jul 2017 #68

I believe we are looking at treason. NCTraveler Jul 2017 #6

Conspiracy to obstruct the Constitution is at play here turbinetree Jul 2017 #7

Here's an overview of federal conspiracy law. lapucelle Jul 2017 #17

I go back to Watergate, when the yahoo in the White House and the gang turbinetree Jul 2017 #26

I don't think that's accurate. lapucelle Jul 2017 #31

"Why not call a dog a butternut squash?" Because words matter. This wasn't treason. Decoy of Fenris Jul 2017 #8

A dog might not ever be a butternut squash, But both could be eaten all the same. JoeStuckInOH Jul 2017 #28

So, what IS the right word FiveGoodMen Jul 2017 #51

Couldn't tell you. Collusion, maybe? Decoy of Fenris Jul 2017 #55

Well we DO need appropriate and agreed-upon language FiveGoodMen Jul 2017 #56

No one will be charged with treason madville Jul 2017 #9

Because it does not seem to fit with the definition, especially with re: "war". jmg257 Jul 2017 #10

Adheres to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid within the United States. Squinch Jul 2017 #48

Keep your "enemies" close I guess, as long as we can conduct trade with them! jmg257 Jul 2017 #60

Because nobody under investigation will ever be charged with "Treason." MineralMan Jul 2017 #13

This is a dangerous game. lapucelle Jul 2017 #20

Actually, it's really a risk to any real action. MineralMan Jul 2017 #21

Your point is very well taken. lapucelle Jul 2017 #29

Exactly. See post #34 onenote Jul 2017 #37

The New York Times weighed in .......in 1861. lapucelle Jul 2017 #45

Thanks. onenote Jul 2017 #46

They called it treason when kacekwl Jul 2017 #14

And based on that you think we ought broaden what constitutes treason? onenote Jul 2017 #35

I call it Treason. kacekwl Jul 2017 #57

So you admit to wanting to be like them. onenote Jul 2017 #58

When it gets results yes. Sometimes to get the point across you use what people seem to understand. kacekwl Jul 2017 #69

The issues are complicated by our use of language. Caliman73 Jul 2017 #18

imo the (mostly) circumstantial and (some) direct evidence is overwhelming already that Trump triron Jul 2017 #38

I understand the sentiment. Caliman73 Jul 2017 #54

The reason those investigating and the media refuse to go there is that they unerstand how narrow onenote Jul 2017 #73

kick for visibility triron Jul 2017 #19

kick again triron Jul 2017 #22

"treason" is the "double secret probation" of the Left nt Dreamer Tatum Jul 2017 #23

kick again triron Jul 2017 #24

Its treason, the word smiths can slice onions on this but its betrayal of what US stands for period uponit7771 Jul 2017 #27

The "word smiths" are following the Constitution. You're following the dictionary. onenote Jul 2017 #36

The context here is what is right not legal, so of course I'd go with the dictionary right? tia uponit7771 Jul 2017 #39

actually the article in the OP was about the legal definition of treason onenote Jul 2017 #40

In that case right now we don't know, the accusation of treason is not premature even assertion is uponit7771 Jul 2017 #42

By definition if we don't know then the accusation is premature onenote Jul 2017 #43

Agreed SledDriver Jul 2017 #49

I'm happy to call it treason. NT Bleacher Creature Jul 2017 #44

To say that we are not at war with Russia is bullshit, when they have 9000 nuclear warheads pointed madinmaryland Jul 2017 #53

We're not at war. We're not even "enemies." onenote Jul 2017 #59

You mean like this? Gabi Hayes Jul 2017 #61

Amen! Check out Kurt eichenwald on Joy Gabi Hayes Jul 2017 #62

Whoa Gabi Hayes Jul 2017 #65

Kurt's not a lawyer. onenote Jul 2017 #70

Pearl Harbor, cyber style Gabi Hayes Jul 2017 #71

And it took less than 24 hours after Pearl Harbor to sever diplomatic relations onenote Jul 2017 #72

Open your eyes Gabi Hayes Jul 2017 #74

An EMP would be an act of war under some interpretations onenote Jul 2017 #75

You like to hear yourself talk, don't you Gabi Hayes Jul 2017 #76

Oh, you're so mean. I guess I should be crying. onenote Jul 2017 #77

Giving up already? Gabi Hayes Jul 2017 #78