Reply #7: Treason is such an ugly word ...

[struggle4progress]

and under the constitution, what is apparently required is either actually levying war against US or an equivalent level of adherence to the enemy, with adequate witnesses to overt acts.

Presumably, you contemplate a LIHOP or MIHOP scenario. Completely independent of any facts, I consider (L/M)IHOP impossible under standard rules for mainstream US discourse; pushing either would fracture the critical center. Perhaps a case could be made, with "favorable" evidence, a hair short of LIHOP, but it would be costly to the country: remember that bitter Nixonites waited a quarter of century and spent tens of millions of dollars to seek revenge in the form of proceedings against Clinton; a treason trial of Bush would produce similar rancor.

I personally expect that: (1) * is a nice enough fellow, with (2) limited interest in most matters, and (3) surrounded by a gaggle of ideology-bound advisers inherited from his father's era in government (some of them demonstrably crooks). I therefore expect that negligent lack of attention by *&co is the likely explanation.

You may recall that punishment and prosecution require evidence, under the glorious English law to which we are heir. Such laws (it has been noted) are merely "spider-webs for the rich and mighty." Nobody will prosecute *&co on the theory that "they should have known but in fact were too self-satisfied and ignorant to know."