General Discussion

BumRushDaShow

(170,007 posts)

82. Not sure if your post

Fri Mar 3, 2017, 12:41 PM

Mar 2017

is somehow indicating my approval of a historical injustice or what?

If so, then I suggest you think again.

The issue here is what (at least in the past) was supposedly considered "treason". Obviously court decisions over the years narrowed the definition depending on the arguments given, but it is interesting to see nonetheless...

Also interesting that you didn't cite the fact that people rebelling against their own enslavement shouldn't have been charged with "treason" either.

Again maybe I am misinterpreting your post and if so, no problem.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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