Of course the shop owner is nervous. He might have committed a death penalty crime.

[Renew Deal]

If this is a giant conspiracy as it seems, the punishment is harsh.

"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."

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

I hope this is being investigated and I hope the report comes out 11 days before the election.

[brush]

1. Pls explain what case this is about. The link just goes to a site...

explaining what constitutes treason.

Who did what?

[Thekaspervote]

2. I wonder how much he was paid

[Totally Tunsie]

3. What shop owner? What crime?

Details, please.

[SharonClark]

4. ???

[MissB]

5. I assume this is the Hunter Biden laptop story?

Just trying to piece it together here.

[MustLoveBeagles]

8. This seems very likely

See George II's thread: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142604838

[MustLoveBeagles]

6. What's this about?

[cwydro]

11. No idea.

At all.

[NutmegYankee]

7. He didn't "adheres to their enemies".

For an example of that you have to look at the Confederate States of America citizens who considered themselves citizens of the rebel state and paid taxes/supplied goods to support the war against the USA.

By contrast the best we could do to this guy is nail him on an espionage charge.

[bullimiami]

9. You know who has adhered to our enemies? Trump and his minions.

[Silent3]

10. As far as the Constitution is concerned, we currently have no enemies

A declared state of war needs to exist for the Constitutional meaning of "enemy" to apply.

[bullimiami]

12. Is that written somewhere I missed?

[NutmegYankee]

14. US Constitution, Article III, Section 3

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.

It must be overt, which under the adherence rule means it has to be open and the person has to have physically joined an enemy state. For example, Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose were convicted of treason for their propaganda broadcasts during WWII.

[bullimiami]

18. So nowhere is it in the actual Constitution that a state of war must be declared.

Although this is stated repeatedly as some actual fact.

It does explicitly state adhere to our enemies though.

Russia is indeed an enemy of our constitutional republic. Just not an enemy of Donald Trump:

[NutmegYankee]

19. Court rulings and the common plain meaning of the term in Common Law.

Russia does not meet the legal definition of an enemy to support a criminal charge of treason. Also, adhere would mean they would need to be with Russia, living there and working there.

You may argue as much as you like - no court will back your position.

[bullimiami]

20. sorry. court rulings and common meaning is not the constitution no matter how hard you try.

president is immune to prosecution. NOT in constitution. apparently this is fluid depending on how much of a hypocrite you are.

emoluments. clearly spelled out IN the constitution. but trampled on for 4 years and the republicans ignoring it.

SO sorry. Past precedents, Common Law and someones interpretation which is subject to change are NOT constitutional.


Of course you are probably right about the courts but that doesnt make it right, or constitutional.

[NutmegYankee]

22. You don't think Common law governs?

How do you explain the 9th Amendment? Or hell, all of Article III...

[Silent3]

21. You have to take into account the Constitution is shorter than many click-thru software licenses

You don't have to be a "textualist" or an "originalist" to accept that the Constitution doesn't make a lot of sense unless you take into account some of the understood context and history of jurisprudence that it was meant to stand upon.

While it might seem awfully strict to limit "enemy" to mean a country with which there is a declared state of war, the Constitution certainly doesn't go the other way and declare the term broadly, and it does make clear the process for declaring war, so that's the best (and safest) means to understand the term "enemy" in a Constitutional way.

Now, when it comes to supporting some of these domestic terrorists (AKA "militia groups" ), it could well be said that some are trying to "make war" upon our country, even if they aren't a declared enemy, and that those groups can reasonably be called treasonous for doing so.

[Arazi]

13. Call your Congressman right now!!!!

What is this about?

[cwydro]

15. Apparently it's a secret.

Hilarious.

[Demonaut]

16. context IS everything!

[GoCubsGo]

17. What the hell are you talking about???