General Discussion

mrsadm

(1,198 posts) Thu Mar 2, 2017, 09:36 AM Mar 2017

Sessions - isn't this treason? [View all]

Sessions lied about talking to the Russians - this seems to me to be treasonous? Am I off base here?

Front page, today's Washington Post:
"Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose"

96 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sessions - isn't this treason? [View all] mrsadm Mar 2017 OP

No, because we aren't at war with Russia. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #1

Remember, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed ElementaryPenguin Mar 2017 #9

I was but a small kid at the time madokie Mar 2017 #12

Weren't they electrocuted? n/t JenniferJuniper Mar 2017 #22

I remember hanged madokie Mar 2017 #23

Ethel Rosenberg was the second woman to be executed by JenniferJuniper Mar 2017 #25

You may be thinking of Mussolini flyingfysh Mar 2017 #53

Thats who it was, thanks madokie Mar 2017 #54

Damn I wasn't born...I had no idea it was the brutal. Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #34

They were charged with espionage, not treason. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #13

Yes. And Flynn...and Trump & Co. ElementaryPenguin Mar 2017 #19

Makes sense... Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #35

Espionage. Not treason. onenote Mar 2017 #48

Excuse me? After the Russian-backed coup, we are not at war? lagomorph777 Mar 2017 #14

cyber war *IS* an act of War...don't let *anyone* gaslight you on that. nt LaydeeBug Mar 2017 #18

that's not the relevant definition. treason is defined in the constitution, article iii, section 3: unblock Mar 2017 #28

"...or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" lagomorph777 Mar 2017 #31

We are not at war with Russia! longship Mar 2017 #33

The commander in chief can still target short notice retaliatory strikes against enemy nations. gordianot Mar 2017 #55

That has nothing to do with treason which is Art III, Sec 3 of the Constitution. longship Mar 2017 #57

My point is your statement we are not at war with Russia gordianot Mar 2017 #58

Sorry, but not according to the US Constitution. longship Mar 2017 #59

Well the solid fuel ICBM's changed all of that 50 years ago. gordianot Mar 2017 #60

The Constitution has not been amended in those parts. longship Mar 2017 #61

True enough but the POTUS can send orders to kill pirates. gordianot Mar 2017 #62

Still not treason!!! longship Mar 2017 #63

Russia is an enemy nation. gordianot Mar 2017 #64

Not by the definitions in the constitution, it isn't!!!! longship Mar 2017 #65

The framers of the Constitution never envisioned the world in which we live. gordianot Mar 2017 #67

Totally irrelevant to the topic of treason. longship Mar 2017 #69

Whatever your origin you are entitled to your line or opinions. gordianot Mar 2017 #70

Why would anybody want to go down that path? longship Mar 2017 #71

Thanks for standing up for the Constitution onenote Mar 2017 #76

Thank you. longship Mar 2017 #80

since when are they our "enemy"? unblock Mar 2017 #37

...Since the coup? Have you been reading any news in the past year? lagomorph777 Mar 2017 #38

If that makes an enemy, then the world is in flames unblock Mar 2017 #40

OMG throwing another country's election does make an enemy. lagomorph777 Mar 2017 #41

well then i guess we're at war with most of latin america, much of europe, unblock Mar 2017 #42

I would cite Iran as a pretty good example. lagomorph777 Mar 2017 #43

the fact that enemies might disrupt each others' elections doesn't mean there reverse is true. unblock Mar 2017 #45

OK look at this for the bigger picture lagomorph777 Mar 2017 #46

feel free to draw the wrong conclusion any time. unblock Mar 2017 #47

The only thing beyond debate is that this isn't "treason" onenote Mar 2017 #56

Rivals do not rely mutual assured destruction. gordianot Mar 2017 #75

there are american businesses who trade directly with russia unblock Mar 2017 #81

Neither can afford another Cold War. gordianot Mar 2017 #84

agreed unblock Mar 2017 #89

The Constitution, not the dictionary, defines what is treason in the US onenote Mar 2017 #49

"adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" lagomorph777 Mar 2017 #68

Again. Legal definitions aren't the same as dictionary definitions. onenote Mar 2017 #72

Thanks for the RT view lagomorph777 Mar 2017 #73

And I'll take that as an admission on your part that you would have sided with those calling Vietnam onenote Mar 2017 #74

Legal view... Baconator Mar 2017 #86

Why does one lie cilla4progress Mar 2017 #26

Bingo. He didn't have to lie unless lagomorph777 Mar 2017 #44

And that is a BIG deal especially to congress. triron Mar 2017 #27

As a Committee Chairman jehop61 Mar 2017 #2

Would he not have to inform the committee of his meeting? PRETZEL Mar 2017 #6

+1 uponit7771 Mar 2017 #8

He is a lawyer and knows it could have been perfectly legal to meet with Russian diplomat/spies. lagomorph777 Mar 2017 #39

Perjury at the minimum Louis1895 Mar 2017 #3

And perjury can get you jailtime C_U_L8R Mar 2017 #4

The constitution defines treason as... nycbos Mar 2017 #5

But you forgot BumRushDaShow Mar 2017 #7

I think the Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage not treason. nycbos Mar 2017 #10

Yes - my post explictly said "not the same issue" but... BumRushDaShow Mar 2017 #11

No doubt nycbos Mar 2017 #15

I normally don't cite Wikipedia but BumRushDaShow Mar 2017 #21

The reason not to cite Wikipedia: you end up looking foolish onenote Mar 2017 #78

Not sure if your post BumRushDaShow Mar 2017 #82

To the extent you're referencing John Brown's conviction for treason onenote Mar 2017 #83

It was only referenced in terms of it BumRushDaShow Mar 2017 #85

It was associated with an armed insurrection. Which the state viewed as waging war against it. onenote Mar 2017 #88

That was also my point BumRushDaShow Mar 2017 #90

You can't ignore it the giving aid part, but it still has to be in support of an enemy as that term onenote Mar 2017 #92

I'm pretty sure BumRushDaShow Mar 2017 #93

And I'm certain that for purposes of the treason clause, Russia has never been our "enemy" onenote Mar 2017 #94

Given what you wrote includes a lot of opinon BumRushDaShow Mar 2017 #95

What I wrote includes a lot of fact onenote Mar 2017 #96

I think the definition of treason lies in the eyes of the public. world wide wally Mar 2017 #16

Nope. It rests in the words of the Constitution and related laws. onenote Mar 2017 #50

So... mob rule? Baconator Mar 2017 #87

It doesn't matter what you call it. world wide wally Mar 2017 #91

No - this is NOT Treason...it is perjury. brooklynite Mar 2017 #17

Ok so it's not treason but definitely perjury, AND... mrsadm Mar 2017 #20

Not according to the Intercept bros, LOL Blue_Tires Mar 2017 #24

Many in the GOP involved in the conspiracy to steal the election. Fact. Kingofalldems Mar 2017 #29

I initially doubted that BainsBane Mar 2017 #32

And I heard on the radio that Europe concerned about their own Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #36

Agree CountAllVotes Mar 2017 #51

Treason: 18 U.S. Code 2381 discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2017 #30

Pretty much. Bonx Mar 2017 #52

working with Russia to throw the election Skittles Mar 2017 #66

ESPIONAGE of Trump & Co. is severe enough to ElementaryPenguin Mar 2017 #77

I agree worthy of the death penalty. gordianot Mar 2017 #79