It's TREASON not sedition

[4bonhoffer]

We are at war. The guy who has putin’s photo on the White House wall is working with putin . putin is providing Iran with satellite data that’s enabling Iran to kill our troops. Jesus H Motherf*,+king Christ. THAT, democratic representatives is something you should all be screaming about. For god’s sake. If we can’t call out obvious treason ….

[stopdiggin]

1. the 'obvious treason' - would be the picture on the wall .. ?

the prosecution of war against ..... ?

not discounting out of hand - but, if there is a specific charge you would like to lay ... ?

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Treason is narrowly defined

There is no nation the US has declared war on, so there is no legal “Enemy” to aid and abet which would be considered treason.

But despite that, it�s all impeachable, if we elect a house and senate with the courage to do it.

Reminder: the Rosenbergs gave nuclear secrets to Russia, but couldn�t be charged with treason. They were executed for espionage.

[Cirsium]

7. Really?

So treason (aiding people in killing US troops) is OK if the war is illegal (undeclared)?

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. Did Jane Fonda get charged with treason? How about the Rosenbergs?

Think about how attempting to charge Trump with treason would unfold…

US attorney: “but your honor, the defendant had a photo of Putin on his wall, and spoke to him frequently”

Judge: “charges dismissed, and I’m referring you for disbarment”.

Like I said, launching an illegal war is certainly impeachable, but not prosecutable as treason.

[Cirsium]

14. lol

Did Jane Fonda have a a photo of Putin on her wall, and did she speak to him frequently?

You moved the goalposts.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. She went to Hanoi and had photo ops with various NVA officials

The Rosenbergs gave nuclear secrets to Russia.

No goalposts moved, just an insistence on consistent, accurate use of legal terms.

Any member of the reality-based community knows how narrow the crime of treason is defined, and it doesn’t include photos and phone calls.

[Cirsium]

16. I know what she did

I also know about the Rosenbergs.

When Fonda was president did she give classified information to an adversary?

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. You don't know the difference between adversary and enemy, do you?

It’s the reason no one has been charged with treason since WWII.

[Cirsium]

19. Sure

Do you know the difference between a coal company and an enemy?

Walter Allen was convicted of treason on September 16, 1922 for taking part in the 1921 Miner's March against the coal companies and the U.S. Army at Blair Mountain, West Virginia.

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. Was he convicted of "aiding and abetting an enemy"?

Or was he convicted of waging war against the US? (the other half of the definition of the crime of treason)

I think you’re quite confused.

Crimes aren’t defined by how we “feel”, they actually have defined parameters that must stand up in court.

BTW, Allen was convicted of treason against the state of West Virginia; he was not convicted of the breaking the federal statute on treason.

[Cirsium]

22. Goalposts moved again

I don't have any feelings about this, so I am not going on how I “feel.” Nor am I in the least bit confused.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. The goalposts remain the same

The topic of conversation is:

Does Trump’s conduct meet the legal definition of treason? And secondarily, what is the legal definition of the federal crime of treason?

You say yes for “reasons” (definitely not feelings ) that are not connected to or supported by any definition of treason in federal law that has ever been successfully charged and a conviction obtained .

And I disagree with your position because of facts and reality, as described in my prior posts.

[Cirsium]

24. I didn't say that

I didn't say that Trump’s conduct meets the legal definition of treason. I simply asked you: "Really? So treason (aiding people in killing US troops) is OK if the war is illegal (undeclared)?"

[Fiendish Thingy]

29. Oh brother

Really? So treason (aiding people in killing US troops) is OK if the war is illegal (undeclared)?"

If you weren’t accusing Trump of treason in that sentence, then what WTF are you talking about?

Reminder: whether Trump has committed treason is the topic of this thread.

[Cirsium]

30. It was a serious question

My original post was sincere and innocent. Do you think that if a war is undeclared that treason cannot occur?

My subsequent tongue-in-cheek responses should have been more than sufficient to demonstrate to anyone that I was not looking for a fight, perhaps at least demonstrate that to anyone who was not themselves looking for a fight.

I think the history of treason charges and convictions shows that there is no hard and fast "legal definition" in practice.

So, when Jane Fonda was president, did she or did she not have a picture of Putin on the wall? Was Viet Nam a war, or was it not a war? What role might G. Gordon Liddy play now in the Iran/Epstein affair, were he around? So many questions.

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. I answered your serious, "innocent" question several times

Using facts, which you simply refused to accept.

I think the history of treason charges and convictions shows that there is no hard and fast "legal definition" in practice.

Do you have any facts to support that assertion, specifically facts relevant to the present day Justice system that could be applied to the assertion that Trump has committed the federal crime of treason, and could/should be prosecuted for it?

P.S. Jane Fonda, and numerous anti-war baby boomers, waved North Viet Nam/Viet Cong flags, and had pictures/posters of Ho Chi Minh on their walls.

None were prosecuted for treason, not even by Nixon’s DOJ. (Although some had their rights violated by being surveilled by Hoover’s FBI)

[Cirsium]

40. Facts

Philip Vigil and John Mitchell were convicted of treason for their involvement in the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.

John Fries, the leader of Fries' Rebellion, was convicted of treason in 1800 along with two accomplices.

Governor Thomas Dorr, 1844, was convicted of treason for leading the Dorr Rebellion.

Hipolito Salazar, hanged on April 9, 1847. Convicted of treason for rebelling against the military occupation of New Mexico in the Taos Revolt during the Mexican-American War.

Abolitionist John Brown was convicted in 1859 of treason and executed.

Aaron Dwight Stevens took part in John Brown's raid and was executed in 1860 for treason.

William Bruce Mumford was convicted of treason and hanged in 1862. He tore down a United States flag.

Walter Allen was convicted of treason on September 16, 1922 for taking part in the 1921 Miner's March against the coal companies.

Max Stephan, a German-born Detroit tavern keeper, was convicted of treason on July 2, 1942. He took in a Luftwaffe pilot who had escaped from a Canadian POW camp.

Hans Max Haupt, Walter Otto Froehling, Otto Richard Wergin, Erna Emma Haupt, Lucille Froehling and Kate Martha Wergin were convicted of treason on November 24, 1942 for giving aid and comfort to German saboteur Herbert Hans Haupt.

Martin James Monti, United States Army Air Forces pilot, convicted of treason for defecting to the Waffen-SS in 1944.

Douglas Chandler was convicted of treason in 1947 for defecting to Germany during World War II.

Nazi propagandist Robert Henry Best was convicted of treason on April 16, 1948.

Iva Toguri D'Aquino - "Tokyo Rose" - was convicted of treason in 1949. She was a disc jockey and radio personality on English-language radio broadcasts transmitted by Radio Tokyo during WWII.

Mildred Gillars, also known as "Axis Sally", convicted of treason on March 8, 1949. She was an announcer with the Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft, German State Radio during the war.

Herbert John Burgman was convicted in 1949 of treason during WWII for spreading Nazi propaganda.

Tomoya Kawakita was convicted of treason in 1952 for alleged abuse of American POWs in Japan during WWII.

[Fiendish Thingy]

42. Facts are good

But those facts don’t prove your point.

Some of your examples are convictions for treason against one of the states, not against the US.

Most, if not all of the 18th and 19th century convictions are for violating the “waging war against the US” part of the treason statute, not the aid and comfort to enemies part.

All of the convictions in the last 100 years were related to WWII, the last declared war the US was involved in, with legally defined enemies.

Thanks for sharing facts that proved my original point.

[Cirsium]

45. The last 100 years?

OK, that is true. But again, that is a new argument, that is to say you are "moving the goal posts."

My question was can someone be guilty of treason if there is no declared war. I showed that there have been convictions for treason when there was no declared war. Those are old, as you point out. So, do treason charges depend upon there being a declared war? Your answer may well be "yes" and you may well be right.

You said: "There is no nation the US has declared war on, so there is no legal 'Enemy' to aid and abet which would be considered treason."

I replied: "Really? So treason (aiding people in killing US troops) is OK if the war is illegal (undeclared)?"

[Fiendish Thingy]

47. *sigh* go reread my post

The convictions in the 18th/19th century were for the other half of the statute regarding waging war against the United States.

In the case of waging war against the US, there is no “aiding and abetting the enemy” (the other half of the statute requiring a declaration of war to define the enemy), it is violent actions against the nation (I.e. the Whiskey Rebellion).

So to summarize, the treason statue has two sections, violating one is enough to be convicted.

Part one: waging war against the United States

Part two: giving aid and comfort to an Enemy (capitalized in the Constitution- why is that?) of the United States (this is the part requiring a declaration of war to legally define and establish who an Enemy is) There have been no convictions of treason for giving aid and comfort to an Enemy without a declaration of war.

[Cirsium]

58. Exactly

So, in your opinion, if a war is not officially declared, does that mean that committing treason is not possible?

Here are a few of the words capitalized in the Constitution despite not being proper nouns and despite occurring in the middle of a sentence: Powers, Members, Year, Qualifications, Age, Citizen, Least, Vacancies... why is that? (I am still in the first article, ther are many, many more examples.)

[Fiendish Thingy]

61. This is my opinion:

Supported by the historical record.

At any time, a US person can commit treason by waging war against the United States.

AND

To be charged and convicted of treason for providing aid and comfort to an Enemy , the foreign country involved must be a nation the congress has declared war upon.

I can’t be any clearer than that- if you don’t understand my position by now, you are either being deliberately obtuse or are just trolling.

[Cirsium]

62. Very good

Thanks. In your opinion, then, Congress must have declared war before anyone could be (legitimately?) charged with treason.

Being charged with a crime and committing a crime are not necessarily the same anything. Not all crimes result in arrests and charges. In addition, a rogue prosecutor could charge a person with anything, regardless of the letter of the law or the facts.

Merriam-Webster says treason is "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family." Clearly a person could commit treason regardless of what the Constitution says or Congress does. Therefore I think that scolding and lecturing people here for accusing Trump of treason is unnecessary and provocative.

At the same time, I don't think Trump would or should be charged with treason, and it is unlikely that treason charges will ever be brought against anyone again in the absence of an officially declared war. It is also unlikely, in my opinion, that there will ever be a declared war. Of course, war will go on despite that technicality. So I guess technically no one will be killed or injured in these not wars. That is some comfort. (sarcasm there)

[Fiendish Thingy]

63. When it comes to criminal prosecution, the US Code overrules Merriam-Webster

Are you using AI to write your posts?

In your opinion, then, Congress must have declared war before anyone could be (legitimately?) charged with treason.

That’s not what I said.

You have repeatedly ignored the two separate parts of the treason statute.

I’m not going waste anymore time with you.

[Cirsium]

64. Why the insults?

No, I am not using AI to write my posts lol. They would probably be a lot better. (that's an attempt at humor)

I am actually amazed by how much time you have already wasted on this. All I did was ask you a question, which you have yet to answer. I suspect that your goal here was to scold and lecture people - "well actually, you are all wrong, and I have arrived to set you straight, because technically...'" - and I inadvertently got in your way. (that's a guess, and I could be wrong)

You might want to lighten up. Or not.

[ShazzieB]

48. I've read all your posts in this thread, and I didn't know any of them were "tongue in cheek" until I came to this one.

From what I can see, I'm not the only one. I understand that may not be what you meant, but please remember that this is the internet, where it's extremely easy to misconstrue each other's intentions. I would venture to say that most of us here have been at one end or the other of such a misunderstanding at least once, if not multiple times. Welcome to the club.

Your question about whether treason can occur if a war is undeclared (or determining
whether any specific act can be prosecuted as treason under federal law), that is not something I am qualified to answer, as I have no training in constitutional law.

[Cirsium]

49. When Jane Fonda was president?

That seems pretty obvious to me.

[ShazzieB]

51. Oh, I forgot about that one.

Yeah, that one was obvious, lol. There were some others where I got the satire when I went back and reread them, but it didn't come through to me the first time. It's wild how nuances can get lost on the internet sometimes.

[Cirsium]

57. Thanks

[ShazzieB]

65. You're welcome.

Last edited Sat Mar 14, 2026, 02:49 AM - Edit history (1)

[wnylib]

54. Waging war against the US -- Does that have to be

an officially declared war against the US? How is that different from sedition?

Thinking of J6 attack on Congress. Sedition? Treason?

[Fiendish Thingy]

56. Technically, the ringleaders of J6 were convicted of seditous conspiracy

Which has different evidentiary requirements for a conviction than either sedition or treason or insurrection.

I’ll let you research the differences in statutory language yourself,

[Cirsium]

67. Am I doing it right now?

18 USC 2384: Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

§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.

03 DU 2026: Mansplaining

Talking to someone and suddenly feeling like you're back in a fifth-grade classroom with the know-it-all kid explaining how a caterpillar becomes a butterfly? Except now, it's not about insects; it's about literally anything you already know, and the "explainer" just happens to be a dude who thinks he's on stage at 'Mansplainapalooza.' Welcome to mansplaining: where condescension is king, and yes, it often wears a gendered crown.

[Fiendish Thingy]

68. If you ALREADY KNEW all of this, then why play dumb?

Time waster…

[Cirsium]

69. You didn't understand, apparently

As I said early in the exchange, I fully understand the things you were lecturing us about. My question was about declared versus undeclared war. If a war is not declared, is treason therefore not possible?

I dunno, maybe you are saying that Iran is not an enemy - oops, I mean "Enemy," as you so helpfully pointed out - or perhaps you are saying that Trump has not given them aid and comfort?

[Fiendish Thingy]

70. You are the one who doesn't understand

And you posted the text of the law, as well as the entire history of treason cases in the United States, that showed that no one has ever been prosecuted under the “aid and comfort” section of the statute for giving aid to a nation that Congress had not declared war on.

YOU posted all of that yourself, did you read what you posted?

I have answered your question numerous times, and you yourself have answered your own question, you just refuse to acknowledge the answer.

[Cirsium]

71. OK

I think we have lost our audience. Can you blame them?

[EdmondDantes_]

18. That doesn't change the legal definition of treason

[Cirsium]

20. What??

Jane Fonda admiring Putin doesn't matter???

"Legal definitions" are so 20th Century. Get with the program!

[EdmondDantes_]

44. No

Why would I want to change the definition when it was just as poor form for Republicans to accuse Democrats of treasonous behavior over opposition to the Iraq folly? The word treason isn't a panacea that would suddenly make his supporters recoil from him.

[Cirsium]

50. The "definition"

Reality doesn't follow the definitions of words, the definitions of words follow reality. The word is not the thing that the word denotes.

Apparently the definition of "war" changes depending upon what our dear leader says it is. So much for "definitions."

The Republicans' accusations against Democrats of treasonous behavior were false. That isn't changing the definition of a word, that is lying. They do that a lot.

What difference does any of this make? People here are accusing Trump of betraying the country - which is true, in my opinion. Of course he won't be tried for treason no matter what he dies, but that has nothing to do with any definitions. So why the debate about "definitions?" Is that just to scold and lecture people here? Why?

[EdmondDantes_]

53. So it's lying when others change definitions, but not when you do?

Not particularly a convincing argument.

[Cirsium]

59. OK

I can go with that!



I didn't change definitions of anything, and I am not making any particular argument, nor am I trying to convince anyone of anything. But don't let that stop you.

[markpkessinger]

72. Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution defines Treason for all purposes under U.S. law . . .

The text of Article III, Sect. 3 states:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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.

The text is clear and unambiguous.

[PATRICK]

31. Execute Trump for sharing state secrets then

but the nicer points of the law would point out we have no higher authority at this point that is not badly corrupted or impotent. The future Democratic majority is presently much more at risk than the clear and present traitor/felon/rapist/child abuser and killer.

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. I would be in favor of rendering him to The Hague once his term is over

But I don’t think we could elect a Democratic president courageous enough to order such a thing.

[Cirsium]

60. Now we're talking

[lame54]

3. It's not what can see and call out...

Trump owns the enforcers
Nobody to bring these charges

[calimary]

25. But only for awhile.

He DOES NOT own ANY of ‘em for life.

He does NOT have lifetime guarantees on this.

True, as a FORMER president, he’ll still have guards that the rest of us will be billed for. But he won’t have the phalanxes of protection as a FORMER President that he has, now, as President.

Thank God!

[mr715]

4. "Low treason"

It isn't treason in sensu stricto but I get the point.

Treason is very explicitly defined, however.

[debsy]

5. Everything he does benefits Vlad in a big way!

[erronis]

6. Of course the "experts" on what is treason wlll be out in force. Maybe add quotes around it "treason"

and they'll understand it is a term for actions against this country.

Of course "traitorous" works but doesn't seem to have an entry in the Constitution that involves legal remedies.

[BattleRow]

8. Confederacy of conspirators aiding and abetting traitorous destabilization.

Sounds pretty high falutin.

If you cant blind them with your brilliance,baffle them with your bullshit.

Back at ya,MAGATs.

[stopdiggin]

9. and of course if you're just doing a 'rant' ....

and aren't really all that concerned about definition or meaning ...
then, go ahead - and fire away !

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. Impeachment is always an option

No statutory crime need be committed, charged or convicted for congress to remove a president.

Just courage.

[PATRICK]

34. That remedy

has been divided and conquered. Our system is at war with itself and the good guys can't win this one and we defy history with expectation of a just election.

[Fiendish Thingy]

36. I wasn't suggesting impeachment was likely, only possible.

BTW, nothing can stop the Blue Tsunami in November.

We may never get the votes to remove Trump, or even any of his cabinet, but we WILL retake the house, and, with each passing day, our odds of retaking the senate improve.

[PATRICK]

39. True in one thing at present

We do have the votes and vote surge, which we are either too modest about or let the media not rate it. They do have the absolute power though they be all non-military cowards relying on presidential pardons. We wait, they can act. There is some hope for some future. A future like sands in an hourglass.

[Fiendish Thingy]

41. They do NOT have "absolute" power

That is a dangerous myth.

They have control over the executive branch, and very little else, including the states.

They have the power to sow chaos and destruction, but that doesn’t mean they have control over the outcome or results.

[PATRICK]

52. They don't until they do

Many of the most egregious vote suppression tactics have already been legislated and the SAVE Act is teetering away. Unknown when Trump will or can go beyond his bluff to interfere a lot more. The Iranians may give him the Reichstag fire moment or simply trash his stupid war. If he goes down the GOP might be spared(illogically) becoming a completely unconstitutional party. We rely on what honest judges and state legislatures can do. The rest is behind the Trump curtain.

[Fiendish Thingy]

55. Nothing can stop the Blue Tsunami in November

Certainly not this evil clown car full of incompetent goat rodeo rejects.

As I said, they are capable of much chaos and destruction, but they have very little actual control over anything.

[ShazzieB]

66. I like the way you think.

I've often thought impeaching Trump a third time would be worth it, even if the Senate voted not to remove him office (again). With 2 impeachments under his belt, he's already the most impeached president in history. A third would would be delicious. Perhaps the stress would shorten his life, if nothing else.

[PATRICK]

33. That Bush ancestry

of selling weapons to Germany(WWI, the public wanted to hang him) and money(from that war profiteering?) in WWII provided to Germany for the death camps(albeit that could have pre-dated Pearl Harbor as did the sale of iron ore and technology to Japan by other wonderful capitalists), the plot to overthrow FDR. Prescott Bush, you sly dog!

Then all the outside interference and use of foreign policy chicanery to delay the Iranian hostage release(OK, not at war). Dealing for Putin's influence to subvert our elections. Creating wars with non-justification to change elections. Partnering in aggression with another state(israel designated friendly) costing USA in lives and resources.

George Washington and in the Constitution should have better defined foreign entanglements because such entanglements due to party and personal presidential ambitions and highly treasonous if not High Treason, Or is only the Nazis who get to criticize our legal system?

[erronis]

38. Excellent. Food for thought.

[Six117]

10. ... kinda reminds me of that scene in the movie Nuremberg

Where Justice Jackson gets tripped up in semantics about Nazi verbage...

What a world.

[Denvermosaic]

11. The Democratic party is timid. Plays nice too often. Democrats who can hid hard are marginalize by the leadership.

[calimary]

28. That's what we have to fix.

And if we need to hit hard, for Pete’s sake, we hit hard.

NO timidity will be permitted, welcomed, or considered acceptable.

[leftstreet]

26. Trump let Israel influence his decision

Influence by a foreign government should be covered somewhere in the Constitution

You'd think

[vapor2]

27. 100% a traitor to this country

[PATRICK]

37. Number One guys deposed, executed

Louis of France and his wife
Charles I
Maximilen, Emperor of Mexico
Amin
Ceaucescu
Khadaffi
Mussolini
(not an exhaustive list and not counting suicides, assassination or inner circle plotting)

Lots of good precedents and popular at the time, some even with due process by the winners.

Not many many "good" examples of despotic heritages. Eventually this will turn out badly for the bad, but should the people's institutions meekly suffer these interim satans?

[Kid Berwyn]

43. Trump and Putin are on the same side.

So's MAGA GOP and the NAZIs.

Fortunately for democracy, they're up against We the People.

[ultralite001]

46. What did Krasnov do w/ all that purloined classified material he moved to Merde-A-Loco???

Did Jack Smith have evidence that supported a charge of treason???

If so -- Expose the facts + charge the Mango Mofo + his administration
before someone or something decides America is an enemy worth
removing from the face of the earth...

America's former greatness is not going to protect us...