When does tRump's aiding & abetting Putin equal treason?

[RiverStone]

Russia committed an unprecedented cyber attack upon America with Putin's approval, if not direction.

tRump wants to "move on" and blathers some incoherent bullshit about computers. being complicated. How is this different from allowing a known terrorist within our borders to walk scott free, with no consequences?

When does his insistence on non-action equate to a high crime and an impeachable offense? A president is sworn to protect the country yes?

[LonePirate]

1. Not until 2019 when Dems retake Congress because the Repubs in it now will do nothing.

[RiverStone]

3. Seems like John McCain and Lindsay Graham...

...would not go along with the tRump minions?

Many rethuglicans will kiss his ass, but a few actually may oppose climbing into bed with Putin.

[doc03]

7. How are we going to take back Congress when Democrats won't

even vote in the presidential election. The only way we could get Congress back is if there is another economic meltdown.
Some Democrats are already talking about working with Trump on an infrastructure bill that would stimulate the economy.
Obama had an infrastructure bill on the table for 7 years and the Republicans shut everything down and now we have people
talking about working with that traitor SOB.

[volstork]

10. This assumes we will

actually have any more elections in this country.

[shraby]

2. Yes. And uphold the constitution. It appears he won't do either.

He won't divest.
He won't support the sitting president in his actions against Russia.
He is appointing objectionable characters to his cabinet.
He has Russian sympathizers in his advisory staff.
What else?

[roamer65]

4. Many years ago.

He should be tried and convicted NOW.

[Greybnk48]

5. Apparently never.

It's a mystery.

[Trust Buster]

6. Republicans have always been in support of apology tours.....don't you know ?

[J_William_Ryan]

8. Well...

“When does tRump's aiding & abetting Putin equal treason?”

Trump can be convicted of treason only on the testimony of two witnesses to the same act of treason, or should Trump confess to treason in open court. See: Article III, Section 3, US Cont.

That Trump has engaged in treason is a fact beyond dispute; proving it absent the Constitutional requirement above would be impossible, however.

[RiverStone]

9. No conviction today, but more than one person has colluded...

...with tRump to pull this off.

His Secretary of State nominee first and foremost. ExxonMobil and Russia have plenty of dealings yet to come to the surface.

It will take some radical and dangerous investigative journalism, but the Putin/tRump corruption runs deep.

[volstork]

11. I'd put Guiliani

on that list, too. He can't keep his mouth shut and seems to know more than he should given his civilian status.

[onenote]

12. When the Constitution is amended to change what is considered Treason.

Last edited Sat Dec 31, 2016, 10:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Sorry, but whatever Trump did, and whatever crimes he committed, he didn't commit treason (which isn't the same thing as saying he didn't commit an impeachable offense).

There's a reason that treason has been so rarely prosecuted in the country' history. There's a reason that the Rosenbergs were not prosecuted for treason (whether they should've been convicted of espionage is another issue), why Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen weren't prosecuted for treason. Why John Walker Lindh wasn't prosecuted for treason. Why Edward Snowden hasn't been and won't be prosecuted for treason.

There are two circumstances in which someone can be charged with treason under the Constitution -- narrow by design of the founding fathers.

First, you can commit treason by "levying war" against the United States and second you can commit treason by giving aid and comfort to an "enemy" of the United States.

The meaning of those terms is well settled. Levying war means taking up arms. And as for whether Trump gave aid and comfort to an "enemy," I refer you to the definition of enemy found in title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense): Section 2204: "the term "enemy" means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States."

The term "hostilities" is not defined in title 50, but it is defined in title 10 (Armed Forces). Section 948a - "The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war."

Our differences with Russia do not amount to a conflict subject to the laws of war and, consequently, Trump won't be and cannot be charged with treason. But there may be other crimes that have been committed and we should not shy away from demanding that there be a full investigation and such charges as are appropriate following that investigation.

[RiverStone]

13. Great reply onenote! If not treason, then perhaps the Emoluments Clause for impeachment?

You certainly parsed out the rules of the road on treason.

The wildcard here is our Founders could not have fathomed the election of tRump with all his corrupt entanglements and conflicts of interest, all over the world. Just as they could not fathom how the EC needs to go the way of the dinosaur.

I have little faith the GOP will press the Emoluments Clause, as many of tRump's cabinet appointments could also be under equal scrutiny. Without seeing his taxes, tRump can lie at will, and to date feels impervious to any prosecution (though freaks out at SNL).

What do you think realistically needs to happen for tRumpt (by his own actions) to be impeached, with participation of his own party?

[onenote]

14. Impeachment is the only plausible route to removing Trump

And one wouldn't have to prove treason to make a case. The problem is that it's unlikely that repubs are going to support an impeachment effort against Trump unless and until they think its safe for them to do so -- that is, it won't trigger primary challenges from Trump supporters.

And given that Trump supporters have turned a blind eye to so much already, I wouldn't hold my breath.