General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOn the 31 documents listed in the indictment that Motherfucker stole (Part 2)
Let me start with this:
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - 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.
It's plain as fucking day, there's no ambiguity. It leaves no room for mental gymnastics or twisted semantics like the 2A. If that walking embodiment of the effluvia that is a wet fart caused the death of one undercover American because he sold a 'NOC' list then the needles should be placed in his bloated wrist while strapped to 'Old Sparky' while six gunman aim their M-4s at his black, putrid heart.
And then a potters grave open to the public as the most used toilet in America.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
EYESORE 9001
(29,732 posts)What was the method of execution when this was codified? I’m thinking gallows. Wonder if he’d still be talking shit while the noose was slipped ‘round those turkey wattles that formerly held those wretched red ties.
On the other hand, electrocution was deemed appropriate for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and if people died as a direct result of their actions, then it’s what rump deserves as well. That is, if the government can prove their case.
Aviation Pro
(15,578 posts)And peeing in his pants and blubbering, "I *sob* did *sob* nothing *sob* wrong! *sob*
Cue spring loaded trap door.
EYESORE 9001
(29,732 posts)He’s as cowardly as they come. If it’s possible to overdose on schadenfreude, then it may happen if rump’s facade cracks sufficiently to reveal the scared little monster inside. On worldwide media, of course.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,236 posts)EYESORE 9001
(29,732 posts)They were still executed for selling fucking secrets. Conspiracy to sell them, actually. What rump did is worse, especially in light of intelligence assets and those within their sphere who may have been murdered as a result of his actions.
alterfurz
(2,681 posts)...all 239[sic] lbs are impaled with wooden stakes & riddled with silver bullets, then locked inside a triple-lined lead coffin and buried at a desolate crossroads guarded by an archangel with a flaming sword. Trust me, people--it's the only way to be sure!
Traildogbob
(13,018 posts)Gallows. But lower his fat ass slowly to watch him wriggle while tangling and it’s ultimately his fat ass that does him in. All while playing WMCA, then, You Can’t Always get what You Want. I feel certain Jagger and the Village People would approve.
Let him do the two fisted handy as he slips into the end.
GQP have made me sadistic.
Traildogbob
(13,018 posts)Would rather he lives 2 more decades in a miserable nasty cell with not a stainless steel toilet, but a rusty tin one. Only Dark bread and Black beans and Flint water. No electronics. Pencil and paper only. And a Bible.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,236 posts)The legal definition of “enemies” is a nation that Congress has declared war upon.
Period.
That’s why the Rosenbergs couldn’t be charged with treason.
Furthermore, inciting an insurrection is an act, and crime, distinct from “levying war”.
In a democracy, under the rule of law, words have very clear, specific, unemotional meanings.
I hope you agree that, once convicted, Trump should receive the maximum sentence allowed under the law. There are enough potential charges to put him away for the rest of his life. So far, there is no evidence or public information that he could/will be charged with a crime that has the death penalty as a potential punishment (and I oppose the state having that power in any case).
P.S. how many more chapters are you planning in this series of OP’s?
moniss
(9,056 posts)the OP is not talking about the incitement etc. I have not seen a citation for the legal definition of "enemies" and the statute the OP has quoted is about levying war by "whoever owes an allegiance" and legal beagles could have much to say about espionage, trading secrets, disclosing secrets etc. being some of the acts that occur while a war is being levied. It also does not draw a definition of war or cite to anything in statute defining that word.
There may be case law that bears on all of this but absent those specific citation of cases I have nothing to go on that would contradict a broad interpretation of the statute as quoted by the OP.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,236 posts)The kid who ran off and fought for the Taliban (John Walker?) wasn’t charged with treason.
Jane Fonda wasn’t charged with treason.
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/federal-treason
From Wikipedia:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/americans-have-forgotten-what-treason-actually-means-how-it-can-ncna848651
Outraged Cries of “TREASON!!!” reveal not only the criers emotional state, but their lack of understanding of the law.
moniss
(9,056 posts)could be applied in the Taliban case as well as others. But I don't know if I would rely on a Wiki entry as opposed to the actual court case citations from Findlaw etc. and then reading the actual documents for those cases. There is much here in this whole discussion that bears examination as to whether it is founded in case law or whether charges not being brought has simply been a practice. If it is just a general practice sort of thing then other applications are not precluded per se. Just because 100 cases before didn't get charged doesn't mean that another cannot be charged. I am simply saying that case law is what is supposed to guide us here and not just relying on a "memo" sort of understanding as an example like we use with not charging a sitting President. That particular memo as an example hasn't really been run through the courts. The reason being that nobody tried it. Doesn't make it a sound way to proceed it only makes it an "out" for not taking action.
I believe my discussion is based not on personal opinion and animus but a questioning of the actual existence and meaning real citations from court cases rather than an opinion of someone writing for NBC or any organization. Usually these articles will state things and make claims about who said or did what but I have no way of checking the voracity of those claims without the actual court case citations. An opinion in DOJ or Congress or State Department or Pentagon is just exactly that and is not law. It may be customary practice but it is not law. I raise questions and I am not claiming to have definition one way or the other. To the contrary, I am asking for definitive legal decisions based on case law because absent all of that I am merely reading opinion no matter the source.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,236 posts)As much as one can prove a negative, in this case, that Trump’s crimes don’t meet the threshold to charge him with treason.
If you’re looking for definitive legal rulings, I suggest you look at cases where treason was charged, and the defendant found guilty, not cases where treason wasnt charged.
You’re not likely to find a modern case, at least not post-WWII, where DOJ sought an indictment for treason, and it was dismissed because the alleged crimes didn’t meet the definition of the statue. Why? Because DOJ isn’t going to bring a case that they know will be dismissed.
moniss
(9,056 posts)that they didn't charge not whether the case law and statute gave applicability and whether the evidence showed a violation. A lack of prosecution is a decision and does not mean that the crime did not occur, the applicability of the law failed or the evidence was insufficient to charge.
Some have argued over many years that DOJ doesn't charge under treason what it can do by other statutes like the Espionage Act. That doesn't mean that a case couldn't be brought but rather conviction may have been more sure by going a different route. There has also been discussion over the years that from an international relations standpoint we want to reserve something as severe as the word treason so that it is not applied against our own people. All of those things would be conscious decisions that are about other things rather than the main gist of what the OP was bringing up which I take to be the black letter applicability of that statute as he quoted it. That is a whole different matter than making strategic choices.
What the statute says, the legislative history and case law about the statute stand on their own for factual analysis and such analysis is not informed by DOJ reticence to charge or decision to apply a statute giving a more sure outcome. The OP didn't proffer anything about other DOJ practices or statutes. Deflection by saying the issue brought by the OP is negated by a standing practice of opinion in DOJ over some period of time/actions are pursued by other statutes is still just deflection. The question remains of whether that statute, as quoted by the OP, has applicability and that is something answered by the actual case law for cases etc. involving that statute. Opinion articles by former this or that official or professor this or that are not facts to rely upon and only the actual case document text itself is truly to be relied upon as factual.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,236 posts)Even if footage surfaces of Trump handing Putin the nuclear codes, I don’t expect him to be indicted for treason, because DOJ doesn’t prosecute cases they know will be dismissed.
moniss
(9,056 posts)one way or the other. The publicly available information is limited and the most truthful statement anybody can make at this point is that we don't know where this is going or if it will go anywhere at all or the twists and turns that take place along the way. That applies not only to the docs case but J6, Georgia, NY and Manhattan as well. It's a safe bet that we have seen a fraction of what the investigators have.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,236 posts)
FakeNoose
(41,634 posts)IMHO - and what do I know, apart from reading DU every day? - Jack Smith is starting out with the easiest and most obvious to prove charges first. And that would be the stolen/hidden secret documents. Once he gets convictions on those charges, he'll move on to the harder to prove ones like treason, insurgency, conspiracy, etc.
Chump is going to be dealing with this stuff for the rest of his life.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,236 posts)She gets deep into the weeds, examining court transcripts, details of specific statutes, legal precedents, etc.
Definitely not a clickbait outrage farm.
sanatanadharma
(4,089 posts)Trump could sell all of the USA to Putin and be not be charged with treason.
As there have not been any enemies for 85 years, the military should be reduced and the blockade against Cuba lifted.
Or we could redefine the words treason, comfort and aide and adhering, and allegiance, because decades of war without an enemy is a sign of insanity.
Aviation Pro
(15,578 posts)But we were still in a full engagement with Afghanistan at the time Motherfucker stole the documents.
sanatanadharma
(4,089 posts)I read some saying that treason requires an enemy and the legal definition of enemy requires Congress to declare war, so thus we are told, we can not hold trump to be treasonous.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,236 posts)You can’t, because there are none.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Has the enemy the statute is referring to been identified, and if so, what is the evidence of THE ENEMY's possession of the documents you are referring to? And I am not even going into the evidence of a transaction you are referring to taking place.
Unless all three are identified beyond reasonable doubt, referring to 18 US Code is purely academic.
Blue Owl
(59,106 posts)
moniss
(9,056 posts)about claims that we are "not at war" and so don't have a statutory "enemy". Although Congress didn't declare war in Korea we never ended hostilities with an official peace treaty. I am not sure we need a formal declaration by Congress in order to have a statutory enemy. I also don't know if the treason statute requires a declared war because the language quoted says "or adheres to their enemies" so it talks about two scenarios that are not necessarily tied together because of the use of the word "or" rather than "and".
Also the statute in question, and as quoted, is specifically talking about someone owing allegiance being the one levying war etc. So there may well be legal matters to chew on here. As quoted I don't see a requirement for a declared war or that the war against the US must involve anybody other than the person owing allegiance to the US.
There may be case law clarifying all of this but absent that it would appear that the statute was written broadly enough to cover acts that were unknown or unthinkable at the time of passage and purposely gave latitude in defining what constitutes "adheres to their enemies". Because the penalties specified have a broad range from 5 years/10K to death it would indicate that the statute contemplated a wide interpretation of treason for a wide variety of acts.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,236 posts)moniss
(9,056 posts)to charge or not charge rests with DOJ and any of their decisions do not make those decisions law but rather just an opinion. Much like the "don't prosecute a sitting President" situation. There is nothing at all in case law or statute prohibiting DOJ from charging a sitting President. It is just their decision/opinion not to do so. As I stated elsewhere, I am asking whether there are actual court cases people can cite that bear on the statute as quoted by the OP? I don't care what professor or former this or that claims as their opinion. Many times when we examine these written articles of opinion we find that the conclusions they claim a court case made are extrapolations made by the author of the article rather than the actual case text. Without the actual cases we are all just reading opinions about opinions of DOJ. If there is such case law let's all see it and we can all read it and decide from there. I prefer to be informed on these matters by facts rather than just opinions. I've gone down rabbit holes in times past relying on articles from supposedly authoritative people making conclusive statements and that's why in matters like this I want to dispassionately look at the actual cases.
Always remember that the lack of charges and prosecution doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed. It also doesn't mean there is insufficient evidence or applicability either way of the law. It simply means a choice was made not to charge. Why is another discussion.
The charges that have the most weight of evidence, so far, have been charged and we will see later about anything else. I remember much the same kind of discussion taking place prior to the J6 trials about whether sedition could be charged and convictions obtained. I believe the Oaf Creepers found out. Either way the discussion was healthy to have on a merits basis and I respect your question for being a genuine inquiry about the subject. None of us are crazy(even after all these years), deluded, foolish(well maybe a little) etc. and a good factual discussion with hypothetical aspects is a good thing on any topic here on DU as long as we make sure to be strong on the factual accuracy and that's where I'm beginning on the comment by the OP.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,236 posts)Not even the TV lawyers on the MSM are suggesting Trump’s crimes fit the definition of the treason statute.
The facts:
DOJ has declined to prosecute anyone for treason since WWII
Since WWII, DOJ has prosecuted numerous persons, and obtained convictions, for espionage.
Numerous legal experts share the perspective that Trump’s crimes do not meet the definition of treason.
No serious person is making the argument that Trump is at risk of being charged with treason.
You can continue your angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument, but it’s not a “factual discussion of hypothetical aspects”, it’s a parlor game that exists merely to fuel the fantasies of those who will be satisfied with nothing less than to see Trump executed for treason.
moniss
(9,056 posts)that your intimation that I am not a serious person is rubbish and that all of the supposed "heads" you get your information from on MSM are serious is rubbish also. I have not attacked you in a personal way in this discussion but you have gone after me as well as others. I think discussion is better served if you back way off that crap.
I have not said the statute, as quoted by the OP, applied to the documents case. I spoke about the statute itself, the words it uses, a need for the case law citations if any etc. and that these things may give much for legal beagles to be about. The OP put up something and asked about applicability and in a reasonable way I looked at the question in an analytical way in order to show the framework of how to begin to look at applicability in a general way about what the OP specifically asked about.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,236 posts)I know from discussions here and elsewhere what the TV lawyers are blathering about.
Most, (but not all) of them bashed Garland, but many of them also have been adamant that Trump’s crimes don’t meet the criteria for treason.
That doesn’t prove anything with certainty, but I have not seen any serious (meaning not a fringe CT person) voice out there in the legal world making the argument that treason can be charged for aiding a foreign nation against the US, if the US hasn’t declared war on that nation.
There’s a reason the DOJ hasn’t prosecuted treason since WWII. Occam’s razor, seeking the simplest path to an answer, would suggest it is because the US hasn’t been legally at war (that is, declared by congress) with another nation since then. Numerous individuals, from the Rosenbergs to Jane Fonda, have aided and abetted America’s adversaries, yet none have been charged with treason, and many have been charged with espionage, seditious conspiracy, and other crimes.
Your point seems to be that the lack of prosecutions for treason since WWII doesn’t prove the definition of the statute; my point is, the few prosecutions of treason in the past century do indeed prove the widely accepted definition of the statute.
moniss
(9,056 posts)my point is that those other things don't enter into the strict question of applicability of the statute, as quoted by the OP, to anything and that the OP seemed to be asking for a strict black letter applicability of the statute. That's when I began to answer that question by looking at the words in the statute but divorced from any particular case. Simply looking at the language and asking about case law in order to analyze applicability to cases in a general sense. My approach is fairly narrow and is focused only on the question I felt the OP was asking which I took to be a question of black letter application of a particular statute. So pretty much as I concluded in the original response that I had to the OP I don't currently have any case law citations to review and for the reasons I stated it would appear that the application/penalties are broadly drawn and therefore the legal beagles could earn big bucks chewing on the aspects of any case of anyone charged under this statute.
If the statute there may be definitions etc. further in the text and sub-paragraphs etc. that give more clarity on the subject of applicability but that's why I keep including the phrase "as quoted by the OP". A full analysis would mean looking at the legislative history, the full text of the statute and any case law available. A cautionary note about relying on a court decision, that talks about having reviewed the legislative history of a statute, would be that a person should not rely upon the court's representation of that legislative history but rather review it yourself. We all know that sometimes justices attribute to the history what fits their "understanding" as opposed to the actual written and oral record.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,236 posts)You should be researching all the treason prosecutions since, say, 1900, don’t you think?
That would give you all the arguments, interpretations, and rulings you would need to determine the “black letter” definition of the statute, don’t you think?
If you don’t agree, then I don’t see how it could ever be definitively established what the legal definition of treason is (despite its clear and narrow description in the constitution).
It would have to be considered a discussion rendered moot by the fact that the crime has not been charged in over 70 years.
Your queries would seem to render the statute legally undefinable, and unenforceable…unless it’s simply because the US hasn’t declared war on another nation since 1941.
moniss
(9,056 posts)rolled into one here that bear examination. Those cases you reference are precisely what I mean when saying there is a need to look at case law. But they are not about black letter as usually discussed with reference to legal statutes. Black letter usually is meant to mean "as written" whereas the case law will render decisions that give added direction to the use/reading of the statute by using other case law, Constitutional decisions etc.
The question of legal definitions for certain words gets more to the heart of the matter and as I stated previously there may well be(I would be surprised if not) sections in the statute dealing with definitions of terms used. That is very typical and I could have referenced(probably should have) to the OP to do further reading in the actual US Code for this statute to see if some of the answers sought were there. Like I said I just tried to give a general framework of how to investigate the idea of whether the literal words (black letter) could be applicable. Not that it is applicable to any particular case but in other words does a literal reading of it allow a broad application. If someone wanted to take that further to a particular case then you have other factors to consider.
Not charging a crime for a long period of time doesn't really moot a discussion of the statute or any statute for that matter as we have statutes at the state level for example prohibiting abortion that were more or less dormant even prior to Roe in 1973. We now have states pushing to have their state attorney generals prosecute people under laws that have laid dormant for many decades before Roe. On the Federal level you get some Maritime/Commerce/Transportation statutes that are still on the books but haven't been charged in decades because the modes of transportation/commerce have changed and the likelihood of someone violating a particular provision goes way down but the government doesn't necessarily remove things from the "books" when they become outdated more or less. Some towns and cities still have had/still have discriminatory items on the books that were never per se repealed. They just ignore them.
But as I stated, on first blush reading of the statute as posted by the OP, the language seems broad rather than narrow in many respects that affect applicability and the wide range in severity of penalties would seem to me to contemplate a broad range of conduct. If it were not so I would expect both of those things to be more narrowly drawn. Keeping in mind that in the full text of the statute there may be more direction about definition of terms, applicability, prohibitions and conditions for applying certain penalties.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,236 posts)So, where does that leave things for you?
moniss
(9,056 posts)and when you click the link it takes you to a legal site for Cornell Law School. If you click on the links under the brief quote it takes you to a page that asks you to open an account to view anything further. That one paragraph is not the full statute. Just a quick perusal of things readily available to me lead to the 60th Congress in 1909 with several pages of text under various chapters like 321 and also some things from chapter 115 that go on for awhile. As I suspected this goes on and gets very involved as it cross references sections and definitions in other chapters of law. I'll include a copy of just one page of things to have to be checked and you can see what I mean about being very involved and lengthy. Just a quick scan of a little of it shows me that in 1948 they also talked about falsifying securities and financial instruments and so as I had mentioned the possibility of there is much more here about what qualifies and likely also about the punishments and other definitions of terms. Also a bit from the 1909 stuff.
https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=108&page=2147
https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=35&page=1088#
Ray Bruns
(6,362 posts)Give them a moment.
Escurumbele
(4,094 posts)
Warpy
(114,615 posts)I also know he won't stop until he is stopped.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)That clearly makes what Trump did illegal. Much like the laws on the books that make it illegal to torture people.... remember when W got away with torture?
Anyway, the Espionage Act has a death penalty and Trump clearly violated this law seven ways to Sunday. The Espionage Act is a very tough law to get around. I actually think it is much tougher than the treason law in the US Constitution.
Plus, everyone looks on people who have violated the Espionage Act as traitors to the US anyway.