General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump is in violation of the 14th Amendment, Section 3
Trump (Republican) has given aid and comfort to Russia.
He should be impeached on this basis as soon as Mueller presents evidence or sooner if incontrovertible evidence is otherwise presented.
rogerashton
(3,936 posts)that clause was pretty clearly meant to exclude Confederate officials. If there were a declared war with Russia, then it might apply. But it wouldn't fly in peacetime.
Bernardo de La Paz
(50,303 posts)Russia has attacked the US with cyber warfare and subverted its electoral system which includes the news and social media necessary to free elections.
Further, the right loves to say that we are in wartime because of 9/11 and Afghanistan and "islam".
Wartime is not a necessary requirement for having enemies.
hedda_foil
(16,466 posts)MrsCoffee
(5,812 posts)onenote
(43,981 posts)There are a variety of indicia of when nations are enemies. Being named as an enemy pursuant to the Trading With the Enemies Act, is one. Severing diplomatic relations is another. Cutting off trade and travel with the country are further indicia.
Russia hasn't been named an enemy under the Trading with the Enemies Act. Diplomatic relations, while strained, continue to exist between the US and Russia. Trade between the two countries continues as does travel.
malaise
(275,650 posts)samnsara
(18,115 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And it would set a dangerous precedent if it did, because if a state of war is not needed to declare a state or group an enemy you could conceivably pretty much declare any nation or group an "enemy".
That would become a horrendously abused power.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)A war on terror against "enemy combatants."
ewagner
(18,967 posts)the person had to be an elected or executive officer who 1. took an oath of allegiance to the U.S.; and 2. Violated that by performing an act of insurrection.
Ford_Prefect
(8,167 posts)Igel
(35,895 posts)But hey, it's a living document. Let's redefine "insurrection" as "doing things we don't like."
So far his "treason" in office has been sharing classified information that was classified under his authority--with far more and more damaging information about that particular information's source going straight from the NYT to Putin's ear.
"We have somebody in ISIS." Ouch. But nobody knew this except the US, the Israelis, and Putin, Lavrov and their intelligence service. None of them are friends with ISIS. Perhaps he told Assad's crew. Again, not friends with ISIS. Maybe Assad's agencies got the information and they're infiltrated. But the maybes are stacking up here.
"We have somebody in ISIS," the NYT announced to ISIS. No maybe. The only out would be if ISIS had moles in the US intelligence service or the WH.
Which is closer to treason, to helping an enemy we're actually exchanging live fire with?
"We got that information from the Israelis, and instead of it being a man on the ground--let them look for that sucker all they want--it's actually because of a vulnerability in their computers that the Israelis hacked"--the NYT told both Putin and ISIS. Apparently the WH didn't know this. The NYT told Trump the information the same time it told ISIS.
Quick: Who did more damage to the espionage against ISIS?
And, no, it's not a done deal, the information given to Russia didn't lead, as a force of nature might, to the NYT's publishing information not given to Russia.
Ford_Prefect
(8,167 posts)I refer to the actions taken before and since the election which were done in aid of a foreign power and to subvert our national government and the Constitution. No state of war is required. The NYT and other media of record have no part in that conspiracy.
NightWatcher
(39,353 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)That's a legal question. Define an enemy of the United States.
Bernardo de La Paz
(50,303 posts)Russia engaged in cyber warfare and interfered with the 2016 Presidential election and possibly state and Congressional elections too.
TomSlick
(11,621 posts)This section pretty clearly applied only to confederate officers, etc. It only applied to persons who "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States. Since the last "insurrection or rebellion against" the United States was the civil war, It's a dead letter unless there is another "insurrection or rebellion."
There are plenty of sound valid reasons Trump will (I hope) be impeached one day. There is no reason to get creative. KISS - Keep it simple, Sir.
Bernardo de La Paz
(50,303 posts)I agree that there are other valid reason for impeachment and that keeping things simple is generally better.