It Is Time To Seriously Consider Treason Charges Against Republicans

[meow2u3]

It is becoming increasingly clear that among Republicans holding political office, there are thus far only two senators that can be considered patriots. A loose, but apropos, the definition of a patriot is any person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors in good times and bad. Conversely, there are clear signs that many in the Republican movement are culpable of giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies; what 18 U.S. Code § 2381 considers “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.”

Of course this issue of “treason” is about more than dishonest Donald Trump’s close affiliation with and stated intent to “adhere to America’s enemies and give the Russians aid;” it is also about the Republicans who aided the Russians to interfere with America’s democracy. The aid to an enemy was in not alerting the American public of a hostile foreign power’s involvement in electing an acknowledged “friend” of Russia, one who may be an American citizen, but has absolutely no sense of “allegiance to the United States.”

First, if anyone has any idea that Trump is not intent on “giving aid and comfort” to Russia just look at dirty Don’s proposed selection of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Tillerson has close ties, and owes allegiance, to Russian President Vladimir Putin; a dictator Tillerson considers a friend he has known for over two decades. Tillerson is regarded as such a friend to Russia that Putin awarded him the country’s Order of Friendship in 2013; the year prior to Washington’s relationship breakdown with Moscow over Putin’s aggressive annexation of Crimea and its “shadow war” in Ukraine. An aggression Trump condones and hinted that if he was elected then America would help Putin expedite his conquests by abandoning its European allies.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/12/time-treason-charges.html

[MineralMan]

1. Yes, but there's a problem. Russia is not classified as an "enemy."

Russia is a trading partner, and we are not at war with Russia. Enemy, in the Constitution does not refer to countries that we have differences with. By "enemy," the Constitution refers to nations with which we are at war.

There are not going to be any charges of treason against anyone over this. Russia does not meet the definition of an "enemy."

[shraby]

4. The way I read that, it doesn't say we have to be at war.

It says the person had to have given aid and comfort to the enemy, and with putin's latest stunts, he is fast becoming an enemy. We have sanctions on him to try to keep him in check. You don't put sanctions on your friendly nations.

[MineralMan]

7. Russia is not classified as an enemy, though.

Not officially and not by our government. Identifying what is an enemy under the Constitution would require a Supreme Court ruling, actually. When we are at war, obviously our opponents are the enemy. With Russia, however, we have normal diplomatic relations, trade agreements, and other evidence that we regard them as something other than an enemy.

During WWII, Japan and Germany were officially enemies. During the Civil War, the Confederacy was officially the enemy. Enemies refer to warfare. The word implies warfare. It was intended to mean our opponents in a war. Treason is not a crime that is ever charged against people unless we are at war with someone. We are in a couple of wars. There are enemies in those wars, although they are poorly defined.

When it comes to federal law, and especially Constitutional law, very narrow definitions determine basic words like "enemy." That word is undefined in the Constitution. However, I suspect that being at war would be the principle requirement if a case went to the SCOTUS.

There have been precious few cases of treason tried in this country. It's a very difficult case to prove, and other charges are often easier to prosecute. I can't imagine that any charges of treason will come from any of this stuff.

[onenote]

2. Anyone else remember when progressives were being labelled "Comrade"

for not being sufficiently anti-Russia? When being a progressive and going to Moscow landed you in front of Joe McCarthy? When the John Birch Society called anyone and everyone who didn't view Russia as a mortal threat as a traitor?

I think the Russian hacking needs to be fully investigated, that the results of that investigation need to be made public, and appropriate legal action taken if the findings so warrant.

I've seen DUers here called "comrade" and labelled with a homophobic term just because they question some of the proposals being made in response to the Russian hacking disclosures -- proposals such as declaring martial law, ordering Trump's arrest for treason, etc., or even going after electors for treason if they cast their votes for Trump.

I think we will be more successful in pulling together a bipartisan effort to investigate the Russian hacking (and it has to be bi-partisan to be effective) if we tone down the rhetoric and focus on demanding a full investigation first and legal action second.

[kentuck]

3. Convicted by the Senate?

In other words, charge themselves with treason?

[shraby]

5. Depending on where evidence leads, this could turn into an independent

investigation/hearing, with no congressmen leading it since some are involved apparently.

[bdamomma]

6. too bad we were not part of

ICC Criminal Court. Cause we can use them now.