General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA very serious question: Is this treason?
I am open to opinions.
It seems to me that this may be much more serious than any of us ever thought? If it is, the effort was much greater to overthrow our democracy than we may have first thought? Think about that.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)No. Because we aren't at war with Russia. They are not officially the "enemy" :
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.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
But it is certainly an impeachable offense and if the Pukes don't impeach him they will pay at the ballot box.
uponit7771
(90,363 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)uponit7771
(90,363 posts)LisaM
(27,830 posts)Especially if It's state sponsored.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)There are lay terms and legal terms.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Phoenix61
(17,019 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Any way , if Trump and/or his fellow gang members colluded with the Russians he's done , whether at the ballot box or impeachment.
LOL Lib
(1,462 posts)This was during the comey/rogers questioning. I wondered if Dems were trying to setup a circumstance where trump could be accused of treason?
Russia is absolutely an enemy to our people, our Constitution,
and the democratic voting process.
So Yes, 45 and co. are traitors in every sense of the word.
LOL Lib
(1,462 posts)I don't like to read tea leaves but I couldn't help but think there was something much bigger being laid out during that hearing.
Sculpin Beauregard
(1,046 posts)I think it's correct to call interference in an election by a hostile foreign power an act of war. Ergo, treason stands as a possible charge. I am sure an extremely strong message needs to be sent.
bdamomma
(63,922 posts)45, Manafort and the rest of the cabal were working on this for 10 years???? Yes they are traitors. And whoever else is involved in the repig party need to be held accountable too, namely Ryan and McConnell.
rogue emissary
(3,148 posts)Chris Hayes thought the description of the Russian hacking as an attack was a little hyperbolic. His security expert he was interviewing yesterday disagreed. Causing Chris to back down. It's clear Dems and many anti-Donny people are the only ones pushing the hacking/Russian interference as an act of warfare.
If not treason, at least charge under the Espionage Act. As many in this thread have brought up.
LOL Lib
(1,462 posts)triron
(22,020 posts)We can continue to bury our heads in the sand if we want.
gibraltar72
(7,511 posts)are broad. I think they apply.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Are we at war with Russia?
BTW, China has spied on us too.
Are we at war with China?
Look, what the Russians did is messed up, and collusion with them is an impeachable offense, but we aren't at war with them. I hope we aren't.
Here is case law:
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)Nothing you posted negates that.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Aiding Russia is treason against the United States.
Stephen Colberts recent segment Michael Flynns White House Tenure: Its Funny Cause Its Treason was but one of many accusations of treason hurled against Flynn and other White House associates because of their proven or alleged ties to Russia. Consider the evidence that Trump is a traitor, exhorted an essay in Salon. It is, in fact, treasonable to aid the enemies of the United States.
But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies.(Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.
This was true even in the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War. When Julius and Ethel Rosenberg handed over nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, they were tried and executed for espionage, not treason. Indeed, Trump could give the U.S. nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin or bug the Oval Office with a direct line to the Kremlin and it would not be treason, as a legal matter. Of course, such conduct would violate various laws and would constitute grounds for impeachment as a high crime and misdemeanor the framers fully understood that there could be cases of reprehensible disloyalty that might escape the narrow confines of the treason clause.
So who are the current enemies of the United States? North Korea is a possible enemy, since the Korean War was never formally concluded. Certain nonstate actors can also count as enemies, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State probably fit the definition.
-Carlton F.W. Larson is a professor of law at the University of California at Davis and is writing a book about treason and the American Revolution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.6e0ec8716b43
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)By trying to impose some sort of "official declaration of enemy".
Good luck with that.
Palestine wasn't our declared enemy either, but they still went after Clinton for providing material comfort to the enemy while Yassir Arafat was on hold.
Fuck that. This. is. TREASON.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Treason
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Why would we join cretins who maliciously and fallaciously accused Presidents Obama and Clinton of treason, based on nothing more than their fevered imaginations and fundamental misunderstandings of the law?
If Trump and his fellow gang members colluded with the Russians they likely violated a host of laws and there will be hell to pay but treason is not one of them.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Either we are at war with Russia or we aren't.
-Carlton Lawson
Here is his e-mail:
clarson@ucdavis.edu
You can tell the distinguished law professor and Yale Law graduate he is ignorant of the law.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)Cyber war is still an act of war...and no formal declaration of "enemy" is necessary. It's really that simple.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Abraham Lincoln had it right - He who represents himself has a fool for a client
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)Cyber war is *still* an ACT of War.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)now we have a "war" on terrorism. We never declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan. We also have the War Powers Act, since nuclear war is a threat, one the founders never envisioned. So how would a court interpret "war?" What if someone gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda? They aren't a country with which we could be at war, yet Dumbya did have us at war with them.
treestar
(82,383 posts)if there were case law about it - as to what constitutes levying war in this day and age.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)he isnt at war with us. We are being attacked. Russia has committed an act of aggression against us.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Putin is a deplorable tyrant who persecutes glbtq folks, scoffs at the rule of law, demands tributes to do business in his country, bullies his weaker neighbors, and tries to subtly undermine his stronger ones.
But he doesn't think he is at war with us as legally understood and we don't think we are at war with him, thank God.
BTW, if we get our shit together Russia will fall like its predecessor the Soviet Union did, without us firing a shot.
pnwmom
(108,992 posts)If so, then anyone who helped with that is guilty of treason.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)but I am not sure that we have enough statesmen to rise to the occasion to prosecute it as such. In fact, I am pretty sure that we don't.
dchill
(38,532 posts)A HERETIC I AM
(24,376 posts)roamer65
(36,747 posts)Remember how they got Capone...tax evasion.
Phoenix61
(17,019 posts)Russia is not our enemy.
OliverQ
(3,363 posts)Russia was called our adversary in the Comey hearing and they conducted hybrid warfare against us.
Will be interesting to see if Supreme Court has to rule on if that qualifies as war under Constitution. By modern standards, it definitely is.
Phoenix61
(17,019 posts)We can call it cyberwar but it's still espionage. High tech but espionage.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)desire war with Russia?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I just want them to respect the sovereignty of their neighbors and to stop undermining liberal democracies.
orangecrush
(19,617 posts)By interfering in our election.
They started it.
We will finish it
Fuck Russia.
onenote
(42,759 posts)Are you demanding that the NATO alliance announce that they are at war with Russia too under our mutual defense agreement?
If we're at "war" - legally speaking - why do we still have diplomatic relations with Russia, why are Americans free to travel to Russia for tourism and business (and why do we allow Russian tourists and businesspeople to come to the US), why is there billions in bilateral trade between the two countries, why hasn't Russia been designated as an enemy under the "Trading with the Enemies Act"-- in other words, why aren't any of the regular indicia of a state of war, as that term is defined in US law (not the dictionary) evident?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)To put it colloquially Putin is a bad guy who needs to be monitored and peacefully resisted. We aren't at the point of going to war with his country, thank God.
orangecrush
(19,617 posts)Do you consider interfering in our elections an act of,war?
onenote
(42,759 posts)If a country invades the US and prevents elections from taking place -- act of war.
If a country hacks email accounts and releases private communications with the intent of influencing the outcome of the election -- no.
Put another way, if Russia interferes with the elections in Latvia, I don't believe it would trigger the mutual defense obligations of the US and other NATO members, which it would if it was an act of war.
treestar
(82,383 posts)defining it.
It is strange, but acting in favor of any other country over the US, even an ally, might allow that term to operate.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)former9thward
(32,077 posts)The U.S. openly interfered in the Russia election in support of Boris Yeltsin in 1996. Forget that? Nobody said we were at war then.
onenote
(42,759 posts)Words used in criminal law have legal meanings.
As defined in section 2204 of title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense) -- a law enacted by Congress -- "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."
As defined in title 10 (Armed Forces), Section 948a - "The term 'hostilities' means any conflict subject to the laws of war."
Moreover, there are other indicia of when the US is at war: termination of diplomatic relations, suspension of travel and trade, designation of the "enemy" as such under the "Trading with the Enemies Act."
We have diplomatic relations with Russia. Hundreds of thousands of Americans travel to Russia each year for tourism and business (and Russians enter the US for the same purposes). There is billions of dollars in bilateral trade between the countries. All without Congress doing anything to stop it. The fact that some members of Congress call Russia our adversary doesn't create a state of war between the countries or cause Russia to be an enemy as that term is understood in law any more than the right wingers calling Russia our adversary during the "Cold War" made them enemies then. Most people have heard of the Rosenbergs,who were charged with espionage,not treason. But they're not the only ones -- remember Aldrich Ames? Robert Hanssen? Also spied for Russia. Also charged with espionage. Also not charged with treason even though they did so at a time when Reagan and many in Congress were referring to the Soviet Union as "the evil empire."
treestar
(82,383 posts)the word "enemy" - what does it mean exactly?
A nation with adverse interests?
drray23
(7,637 posts)As people said before many times treason has a very specific meaning that is only applicable in wartime.
The espionnage act however is broader and very likely applies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
kentuck
(111,110 posts)trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
noun
noun: treason; noun: high treason; plural noun: high treasons
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
"they were convicted of treason"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion;
high treason, lèse-majesté;
apostasy;
literaryperfidy
"the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
the action of betraying someone or something.
plural noun: treasons
"doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion;
high treason, lèse-majesté;
apostasy;
literaryperfidy
"the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
historical
the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.
noun: petty treason; plural noun: petty treasons
drray23
(7,637 posts)What matters is how it is defined in the constitution.
onenote
(42,759 posts)TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)Why else would they be trying so hard to cover-up their Russian meetings?
I think the republican leadership, by not exposing what we now know they knew about Trump and the Russians, have stepped over the line - the republican leadership has become the domestic enemy that military members take an oath to defend against!
Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)By Pamela Brown, Evan Perez and Shimon Prokupecz, CNN
Updated 8:40 PM ET, Wed March 22, 2017
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/us-officials-info-suggests-trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians/
Washington (CNN)The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, US officials told CNN.
This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, according to one source.
The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S. officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may have taken place, though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.
In his statement on Monday Comey said the FBI began looking into possible coordination between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives because the bureau had gathered "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power."
Codeine
(25,586 posts)It was an abused term when the Pukes were throwing it around and it's an abused term now.
I think there's a real case to be made that this falls under the purview of espionage.
2naSalit
(86,775 posts)and with that, it might do us all well to brush up on that law and particulars as well as the RICO Act:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
Because there's a whole lot of that going on in this web of cases.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Espionage+Act+of+1917
These could be better options regarding charges that are more suited to the circumstances.
still_one
(92,387 posts)power, and a subversion of our democracy
H2O Man
(73,605 posts)In recent days, I've come to believe that it is.
The Constitution's definition is important. But equally important is how the USSC has defined it.
elfin
(6,262 posts)However, there simply must be some charges other than playing political dirty tricks, which are usually dismissed as bad behavior, but not technically illegal.
This is in a category yet to be defined to my satisfaction. Whatever it is, it needs to be punished severely. Just a monetary fine, no matter how hefty, doesn't cut it for these guys.
If it can be treason, the cyberWAR definition might be the path.
None Dare Call it Treason...... yet.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)High crimes and misdemeanors, but not treason IMO.
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)But when you have a Secretary of State that is an agent of Russia, I think many need to go to jail for life.
Skittles
(153,193 posts)GP6971
(31,205 posts)maybe espionage though, but I think that's also a stretch.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Did the report the contributions by the hackers?
Recordkeeping
The treasurer of a political committee shall keep an account of-
(1) all contributions received by or on behalf of such political committee;
(2) the name and address of any person who makes any contribution in excess of $50, together with the date and amount of such contribution by any person;
(3) the identification of any person who makes a contribution or contributions aggregating more than $200 during a calendar year, together with the date and amount of any such contribution;
(4) the identification of any political committee which makes a contribution, together with the date and amount of any such contribution; and
(5) the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, the date, amount, and purpose of the disbursement, and the name of the candidate and the office sought by the candidate, if any, for whom the disbursement was made, including a receipt, invoice, or canceled check for each disbursement in excess of $200.
musicblind
(4,484 posts)But this is awful.
If they get away with this, simply because they are in power, this will be one of our country's greatest shames.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)When cavemen were fighting with rocks, they were defeated by tribes with bows and arrows. When those men with bows and arrows were defeated with rifles, there was a new way to fight wars.
Then there were cannons and aircrafts and missiles.
And then we had the Cold War, a war of propaganda and threats.
Now, I would say we are in cyber war. Nations battle to control the minds and actions of their enemies through cyber means.
War means different things to different people.
onenote
(42,759 posts)Which is why not only the Rosenbergs, but spies like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were charged with espionage not treason even though they were aiding and abetting the "evil empire" during the Reagan years.
(The War on Drugs also isn't a war either....)
kentuck
(111,110 posts)From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of espionage
: the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company industrial espionage
treestar
(82,383 posts)prohibiting acts favoring some other country over our own, even an ally.
I mean we aren't at war with Russia but surely it is illegal to say give them the nuclear codes or other acts.
randr
(12,414 posts)No different than accepting aid and being abetted by an enemy.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)per the Constitution and US law. We are not at war with Russia! ergo they are not our "enemy" in legal terms.
randr
(12,414 posts)Election systems would qualify one as an enemy of the state.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Let me know how it goes. Common parlance or definitions are not legal definitions: walking like a duck and quacking like a duck doesn't make a cretin into a duck in a court of law.
randr
(12,414 posts)I just think it would be a wonderful experience for all American to see the arguments aired in public before the SCOTUS.
Recent cases involved people who were broadcasting propoganda against us during war time conflicts.
I could imagine, given the nature of our new electronic world, the the SCOTUS may interpret our treason laws more liberally.
Also, if this current situation becomes a fire storm, Congress could create new laws regarding the use of the electronic media that may expand the nature of "treason".
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)which Trump would have to sign, and which could not be retroactive. Also any reversals of precedent (and iirc this is about the oldest one there is) would not be retroactive either.
So yes, laws may change, but not in a way to resolve the current problem and--I would argue--not in a good way.
There is a reason I object so strongly to the use of the word Treason: RWers have so often applied it to any form of dissent from the left: most prominently but not exclusively it was applied to the anti-war movement during Vietnam. Love it or Leave! That's a door we do not want to open, particularly with DFT and his malevolent minions with their stubby fingers on the reins.
There are plenty of other charges to investigate and no doubt some that will stick, without changing our foundational law.
panader0
(25,816 posts)mopinko
(70,208 posts)imho, for a foreign power to manipulate our political system is as much an act of war as any invasion of soldiers, maybe more so.
perhaps we have not declared war on russia, but they most certainly have committed an act of war on us. and traitors in this country abound.
considering the tortured definition of war and war powers throughout our foreign entanglements of the last 50 years +, i will say that if it is good enough for the merchants of death who sell us war at every turn, it is good enough for me. and likely for the courts.
onenote
(42,759 posts)These terms aren't defined in a court of law by looking at a dictionary. They're defined by looking at a statute. The term "enemy" is defined in section 2204 of title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense) as "any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States." And as defined in title 10 (Armed Forces), Section 948a - "The term 'hostilities' means any conflict subject to the laws of war."
The laws of war do not currently treat cyber attacks as acts of war. For example, a cyber attack on the US does not require members of NATO to declare war on the country that cause that cyber attack, etc.
mopinko
(70,208 posts)isnt an act of war.
whether or not we declare war on them, they have clearly declared war on us.
onenote
(42,759 posts)Should we suspend all diplomatic relations with Russia? Terminate all travel and business relationships between the two nations?
How does it work if they're at war with us, but we're not at war with them?
mopinko
(70,208 posts)the nato nations are already looking at this, and seeing it as a threat to nato itself. i wouldnt be surprised if they took concerted efforts.
but i dont think every skirmish requires invoking nato. perhaps we should have when putin marched into ukraine. but we didnt really.
in the 21st century, i dont think dropping bombs are rolling in troops is the only kind of war.
and i guess it works about the same as when we enter shooting wars on other nations and dont bother to declare it.
our nato allies tend to be right there w us when we do.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)if/when we get past this, laws concerning this type of activity may need to be revisted and modified by Congress.
matt819
(10,749 posts)Jonathan pollard was convicted of one count of passing classified information to an ally and was sentenced to life in prison.
One count. An ally. Life.
Sure, there's more to the story. But it suggests that these co-conspirators do not necessarily have to have committed treason to go to jail for a very long time.
I'm fine with the al capone approach. Sure, he was a gangster and murderer. But I would call 11 years for tax evasion a success.
As others have suggested, what we gave here is a very complex example of the prisoners dilemma.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)catbyte
(34,447 posts)but people thought I was "overreacting." It's looking like I might have been right after all. I've been on the planet since Eisenhower was President and this felt different--darker and much more dangerous. I've never been frightened by an election before--pissed off, yes--but never frightened. I didn't turn on my television for a month after the election, and even then I didn't start watching the news until the last couple of weeks when this whole Russian thing began to heat up.
I absolutely believe that this was treason and I'm starting to think it doesn't stop with the Administration. The way that Nunes, Chaffetz, and now Gowdy are freaking out, I think they are either in cahoots with them or are being blackmailed by them. Wikileaks/Russia hacked both the RNC & the DNC, but only leaked DNC. Why? Developing Republican assets?
I could be all wet & am turning into a conspiracy theory nut, but I don't think so. Al Franken didn't call it hinky for nothing.
MFM008
(19,818 posts)says" treason is a citizens actions to help a foreign government overthrow,
make war against,or seriously injure the parent nature.
also attempt to conspire to overthrow even if no foreign country is aiding or involved or aiding the endeavor."
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Definition of espionage
: the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company industrial espionage
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)Bannon, Gulianni, Manford, Gowdy, Comway...who else?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Aiding Russia is treason against the United States.
Stephen Colberts recent segment Michael Flynns White House Tenure: Its Funny Cause Its Treason was but one of many accusations of treason hurled against Flynn and other White House associates because of their proven or alleged ties to Russia. Consider the evidence that Trump is a traitor, exhorted an essay in Salon. It is, in fact, treasonable to aid the enemies of the United States.
But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.
This was true even in the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War. When Julius and Ethel Rosenberg handed over nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, they were tried and executed for espionage, not treason. Indeed, Trump could give the U.S. nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin or bug the Oval Office with a direct line to the Kremlin and it would not be treason, as a legal matter. Of course, such conduct would violate various laws and would constitute grounds for impeachment as a high crime and misdemeanor the framers fully understood that there could be cases of reprehensible disloyalty that might escape the narrow confines of the treason clause.
So who are the current enemies of the United States? North Korea is a possible enemy, since the Korean War was never formally concluded. Certain nonstate actors can also count as enemies, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State probably fit the definition.
-Carlton F.W. Larson is a professor of law at the University of California at Davis and is writing a book about treason and the American Revolution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.6e0ec8716b43
onenote
(42,759 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)No sentient person is disputing that, but words have meaning. We are not at war with Russia, thank God.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Or just a simple betrayal?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)It is probably espionage, but more like corporate espionage than government espionage because the espionage was done against a political party and not the government. OTOH, the espionage was in the service of a foreign government to affect our government.
Ask Former9th Ward. He's a constitutional lawyer.
Laws were definitely broken. Which specific one(s)? A lawyer would know.
At the end of the day if a case can be made to the satisfaction of a reasonable person that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the Russians him and/or they are done.
shraby
(21,946 posts)gate was to ban a religion from coming into this country.
Even before that, they refused to let the last president fill a Supreme Court seat.
Now they are trying to take our health care away from us. I don't want to see what they have planned for next week.
onenote
(42,759 posts)Most likely charge would be conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Depending on the evidence as it comes out, there might be charges for being an accessory before or after the fact to CFAA violations. There might be charges under other, related laws concerning the unauthorized access to and disclosure of electronic communications.
The criminal activity here appears, at this stage, to be related to the Russians gaining unauthorized access to private electronic communications and releasing them in an attempt to influence the outcome of the election. It is the first part of that activity that is criminally prosecutable, not the second. It is, like it or not, not a crime for a foreign government to try to influence the outcome of a US election. If it was, then statements by high government officials of foreign governments that they preferred one candidate over another (and such statements were made in 2016) would have been unlawful and any attempt by a campaign to solicit or coordinate such endorsements would be criminal.
Now, if evidence was to come out -- and I've yet to see anyone in government present such evidence -- that voting machines were tampered with or voting counts falsified -- then there would be another level of criminality to address.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Common understanding...
If I hack a corporation's website or e-mails and steal privileged information haven't I committed espionage? And even if I wasn't the hacker, but knowingly disseminated the stolen information aren't I an accessory?
onenote
(42,759 posts)At least not under Federal law based on the information that I've read thus far.
The federal crime of espionage is limited to situations involving information relating to the national defense or information that has been classified by the government. I don't believe the emails disclosed by wikileaks meet those standards, although I don't pretend to know the details of everything that was released.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)onenote
(42,759 posts)The Economic Espionage Act is directed at protecting "trade secrets". The term "trade secrets" is defined in the Act as follows:
the term trade secret means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if
(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and
(B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information;
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)But it wouldn't be applicable against the Trump cabal because of the prohibition on ex post facto laws.
onenote
(42,759 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)If you stipulate that data theft is indistinguishable from physical theft would the mass media have run with the Podesta and DNC correspondence if their offices were burglarized and the correspondence was subsequently leaked?
onenote
(42,759 posts)As a first amendment matter, the press generally has the right to publish information even if that information has been obtained illegally. Indeed, Daniel Ellsworth was charged with theft of government property in connection with the Pentagon Papers (although those charges were later dropped). Some, if not all, elements of the media routinely publish stolen photos and videos, often very embarrassing. One argument is in those instances privacy rights should be given stronger protection than the media's first amendment rights since the information does not relate to matters of important public interest (as opposed to prurient interest). On the other hand, the right of the press to disclose information that concerns matters of public import -- including candidates for election -- generally would be viewed as outweighing the privacy interests of those from whom the information was illegally taken.
(This doesn't mean that the media itself can steal information with impunity, of course. Just means that they can publish information obtained by others, whether legally or illegally).
Finally, apart from the legal issues, there are ethical issues. But in today's world, someone is going to publish just about anything.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)onenote
(42,759 posts)which effectively sealed the defendants' fate with the jury. Even so, there are those who believe the decision was a bad one from a First Amendment perspective. In any event, there is no comparison between a sex tape, even of a celebrity, and information by or about a candidate for public office.
For example, if the "grab their pussies" video tape had been stolen and given to the media, I'm pretty sure we'd have been outraged if the media had sat on it because it was obtained illegally.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Didn't the defense argue that Hulk Hogan was a clown and therefore wasn't damaged by the revelations and the jury rejected that argument?
onenote
(42,759 posts)And I don't think it would be possible to know exactly how the jury came to its conclusion. The argument was made that Hogan's boasting about his sex exploits undercut his claims that the video's publication violated his privacy. Hogan's argument in response was that those boasts were made by his on-air "persona" -- a character he played -- and were distinguishable from his private persona. One can conclude, given the verdict, that the jury agreed with Hogan that his private persona was distinguishable from his public one.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)accordingly, probably.
I dont think it matters what we call it in this one sense, since it requires patriots in GOP to do something...and there arent any
treestar
(82,383 posts)it may just be his opinion, con law professor or no.
Here is a case, though it is about the 2 witness rule and involves Germany, so the question did not come up as it must have been during time of actual war with them.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/325/1/case.html
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)What was in dispute was whether or not Cramer's actions were tantamount to waging of war, or giving material assistance to an enemy.
See Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945)
The case law is so thin, three cases in 228 years, because the definition of enemy is so strict.
He makes a common sense argument... If giving the atomic secrets to the Russians didn't meet the legal definition of treason because we weren't in an open or declared war against them very few acts does.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Google got me that one.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)C
Cramer v. United States
E
Ex parte Bollman
U
United States v. Burr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Treason_Clause_case_law
treestar
(82,383 posts)takes some weeding out of just mentions of the word as opposed to actual cases. Cramer comes up first.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)NAZI Germany was the enemy. We were in a shooting war with them. What was at question was the extent of Cramer's aid and comfort to them.
Reminds me of John Walker Lindh, but he was somewhat sympathetic at least to me, because he was a sap.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I don't know why we need to change the Constitution and its subsequent interpretation to punish the perfidy of Trump and his fellow gang members.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)If you believe relying on the Constitution and its subsequent interpretation is "hovering naysaying" there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Thanks.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)JesterCS
(1,827 posts)Idc who you are, it is illegal, antidemocratic, and selfish
ymetca
(1,182 posts)as it appears more like paid propaganda. The fact that Flynn "retroactively" registered as a foreign agent means Manafort can simply do the same thing. Pay a fine and move on. Maybe a year or two in tennis court prison. It's all pretty disgusting.
Meanwhile the corporate agenda of killing the social safety net for fun and profit continues. The Shock Doctrine marches on...
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)is considered an act of war.
If a US citizen aids a foreign government in an act of war against the USA, they are guilty of treason.
Period.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)not at war with Russia.
However, we need to take a messaging page from our opposition. Treason is a word with power. "Treasonous Trump" is an apt description of the spirit, if not the exact act, of what is happening. And it will get us votes that we need.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)At different times I have compared Trump to Hitler, Benedict Arnold, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, and John Gotti sans a good tailor. I was using hyperbole. I would be hard pressed to demonstrate how he was literally similar to all those men.
If you want to call him a traitor in that vein I'm down with that.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)or an act of war by definition. Take your pick.
If any American aided the Russians in this endeavor, they are guilty of treason..IMO.
18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
As used in this chapter
(1) the term international terrorism means activities that
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term national of the United States has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3) the term person means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term act of war means any act occurring in the course of
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term domestic terrorism means activities that
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
(Added Pub. L. 102572, title X, § 1003(a)(3), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4521; amended Pub. L. 10756, title VIII, § 802(a), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 376.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331
onenote
(42,759 posts)An Act of War is limited to an act occurring a declared war (not the case here) or armed conflict (not the case here).
As for whether Putin's actions vis a vis the election, such as we know them to be, are International Terrorism, there are three elements, each of which must be met. The first is that the activities must
involve "violent acts or acts dangerous to human life" that violate US law or would violate US law if committed in the US (not the case here)
While that essentially ends the need for analysis, the second and third elements also are questionable.
The second element requires that the activities appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or influence the government by intimidation or coercion. Publishing the emails was intended to influence not the government, but the civilian population, and wasn't through intimidation or coercion.
onenote
(42,759 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 2, 2018, 09:14 AM - Edit history (1)
Yes, the repubs get away with all kinds of shit. But dropping standards to their levels concerns me because its so hard to raise them back up.
The Supreme Court has made some interesting observations about the crime of treason and why the Constitution makes it so very very difficult to bring a treason case:
Justice Marshall:
"As there is no crime which can more excite and agitate the passions of men than treason, no charge demands more from the tribunal before which it is made a deliberate and temperate inquiry. Whether this inquiry be directed to the fact or to the law, none can be more solemn, none more important to the citizen or to the government; none can more affect the safety of both. . . . It is therefore more safe, as well as more consonant to the principles of our constitution, that the crime of treason should not be extended by construction to doubtful cases, and that crimes not clearly within the constitutional definition should receive such punishment as the legislature in its wisdom may provide."
Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 8 U. S. 125-127.
Justice Jackson:
"The [treason] provision was adopted not merely in spite of the difficulties it put in the way of prosecution, but because of them. And it was not by whim or by accident, but because one of the most venerated of that venerated group considered that "prosecutions for treason were generally virulent." Time has not made the accusation of treachery less poisonous, nor the task of judging one charged with betraying the country, including his triers, less susceptible to the influence of suspicion and rancor."
Having personally had the epithet "traitor" hurled at me when I protested the Vietnam War and worked with anti-war draft counselors, I am loathe to go down a road where the next time that happens, I stand by my prior statements about what does and doesn't constitute treason.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I wonder if that was in deference to his buddy, the president, who put him there.
My bad. I'm thinking of Cramer.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)been called that.
In my understanding, traitor is simply someone who works against the interests of his country and for the benefit of the country's opposition. I think that does correctly apply.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)They're traitors, but I din't know that it's legaly treason. Like others have mentioned, espionage and other charges would likely apply. Enough to put most of these people away for a long time.