Just remembering how many here ATTACKED me for calling rump a traitor 2 years ago

[grantcart]

100. Sorry but not even close for 3 reasons

1) Treason is an explicitly defined crime in the Constitution

Unlike murder, rape, theft, etc Treason is not defined by statute but is specifically enumerated in the constitution. For that reason the meaning is explicitly defined and isn't evolved by public "perspective" or individual claims. Its meaning cannot change or evolve except by an amendment to article 3.

Article 3 Section 3

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 Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

War in this article reflects war that is defined by Article 1

So the term "Treason" is a very explicit constitutional term in the same way that "Inauguration" or "Impeachment" or "Senate" is well defined and not determined by popular use. It is exactly what the constitution says it is and anything else really gives a false interpretation. It would be like using the term "Senate" to mean "House of Representatives". People can do it, but it doesn't reflect a term that is specifically codified in the Constitution.

To equate what Russia did to "war" is to radically dilute the meaning of the word "war" and in so doing reduce the horror we should have at real war.

2) What Russia did doesn't approach any definition of war except for the highly diluted term as used in casual references like "War of words".

Wars involve the physical destruction of people. It is true that Vietnam was an undeclared war and while I was fortunate enough not to have to be involved in the conflict I spent 10 years in the refugee camps working with the hundreds of thousands of refugees. Russia's attack on our system was not an undeclared war. It was very similar to the types of attacks on other nations systems that we have done on a regular basis. How great is our outrage when we are the victim and how quiet are our voices when we attack.

To give you an example in 1953 the US, at the request of the British, engineered a coup to take out the elected President, Mosaddeq, from office. Mosaddeq had run on a platform to renegotiate the unfair oil leases which gave British Petroleum Oil 100% control of all of Iran's oil production while giving Iran a token royalty. When Mosaddeq insisted on renegotiating the leases on a fairer basis Britain instituted a blockade

Shortly thereafter on August 19 a successful coup was headed by retired army general Fazlollah Zahedi, organized by the United States (CIA)[173] with the active support of the British (MI6) (known as Operation Ajax and Operation Boot to the respective agencies).[174] The coup—with a black propaganda campaign designed to turn the population against Mosaddeq—forced Mosaddeq from office. Mosaddeq was arrested and tried for treason. Found guilty, his sentence reduced to house arrest on his family estate while his foreign minister, Hossein Fatemi, was executed. Zahedi succeeded him as prime minister, and suppressed opposition to the Shah, specifically the National Front and Communist Tudeh Party.

What we did was unacceptable, criminal and violates our own code of how countries should respect other countries sovereignty, but it wasn't war, or close to war.

It, and many other things we have done, are much worse than what the Russians have done. We should have the same level of accountability against our own actions as we have against the Russians which really don't reach the level of the way that we have attacked the democratic institutions of other countries.

3) By focusing on Russian actions you are radically narrowing the real intent and real crime of the Trump administration.

The real crime of the Trump isn't the narrow perspective you infer in using a foreign power to get power. I would argue that the real crime is to undermine Constitutional government and transform the traditional division of power and attack established order to transform it into an autocratic regime that undermines the constitutional separation of power and concentrate it into an individual, and one family.

The attack on our elections by the Russians is only a small part of an attack on our Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of Defense, Federal law enforcement, Scientists in the federal government, the independence of the Judiciary, and so on.

The Russian interference was a very small part of a larger action to undermine our entire constitutional structure in an effort to replace it with one man (and one family) rule.

The foreign part (which is frequently incorrectly called Treason) is a much smaller part of a much larger criminal action which is better captured by the term Sedition:

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.

I think an objective understanding of what Trump is doing shows a much greater affinity to someone who is trying to subvert the constitution and the established authority rather than a narrow (and incorrectly defined charge) use of treason which only applies to accommodating foreign interference. The reason that Treason is the go to term isn't because it fits the very specific term as defined by the constitution but because Sedition has become so rare as to seem as archaic. Of course no one really considered the possibility of the President being a seditionist.