"Treason"

[Cardinal]

I just wanted to remind people on my side of the political spectrum that there are effectively two definitions for treason: a legal one and a common one.

Under the common definition, treason means, in the simplest terms, the betrayal of one's country. However, under the legal definition in the United States, it is more specific:

"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."

In practice and in precedent, the legal definition of treason only applies when we are at war with the enemy in question. Since WWII, literally zero Americans have been convicted of treason. The last Americans convicted of treason betrayed the United States in the interests of varying Axis powers. There have been 47 Americans convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, none for "treason." In other words, cold wars don't count.

This is somewhat confusing, because one can absolutely betray one's country in the interests of a foreign adversary, yet not be guilty under the legal definition. It's confusing because for all practical purposes, it's the legal definition that will actually result in any consequences within the bureaucracy (fines, imprisonment, death, barred from running for office, etc.), therefore it's that definition we tend to work with the most often. But that, of course, does not bar someone from being a traitor under the common definition, which can result in other forms of retribution, such as social and political ostracization.

So do I believe that Trump is a traitor in the common sense of the word? Yes, I absolutely do. In fact, that there is any question remaining on this fact is baffling to me. However, we're not at war with Russia, so he will never be convicted of it in a court of law.

 

[Ikari]

I think the traitor card is a little overplayed. I get that Trump has attacked our traditional allies, attacked long standing organizations like the UN and NATO, and has cozied up to our traditional enemies, the tyrannical communists and Russia. I can see why people are wary and some are feeling betrayed by Trump. I think that it is perhaps a little tougher to go all out and actually call it treason. I mean, it is fun to see the reactions of the Trumpeteers to it, and his Russia First policies are disconcerting. I think it would take something a bit more intentional on the part of Trump and I don't know if he's actively working to destabilize our alliances and weaken NATO while bolstering Russia, or if he's just being trolled and tricked by Putin into it.

 

[Fledermaus]

I just wanted to remind people on my side of the political spectrum that there are effectively two definitions for treason: a legal one and a common one.

Under the common definition, treason means, in the simplest terms, the betrayal of one's country. However, under the legal definition in the United States, it is more specific:

"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."

In practice and in precedent, the legal definition of treason only applies when we are at war with the enemy in question. Since WWII, literally zero Americans have been convicted of treason. The last Americans convicted of treason betrayed the United States in the interests of varying Axis powers. There have been 47 Americans convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, none for "treason." In other words, cold wars don't count.

This is somewhat confusing, because one can absolutely betray one's country in the interests of a foreign adversary, yet not be guilty under the legal definition. It's confusing because for all practical purposes, it's the legal definition that will actually result in any consequences within the bureaucracy (fines, imprisonment, death, barred from running for office, etc.), therefore it's that definition we tend to work with the most often. But that, of course, does not bar someone from being a traitor under the common definition, which can result in other forms of retribution, such as social and political ostracization.

So do I believe that Trump is a traitor in the common sense of the word? Yes, I absolutely do. In fact, that there is any question remaining on this fact is baffling to me. However, we're not at war with Russia, so he will never be convicted of it in a court of law.

Thank you for laying this out better that I could.

 

[Cardinal]

I think the traitor card is a little overplayed. I get that Trump has attacked our traditional allies, attacked long standing organizations like the UN and NATO, and has cozied up to our traditional enemies, the tyrannical communists and Russia. I can see why people are wary and some are feeling betrayed by Trump. I think that it is perhaps a little tougher to go all out and actually call it treason. I mean, it is fun to see the reactions of the Trumpeteers to it, and his Russia First policies are disconcerting. I think it would take something a bit more intentional on the part of Trump and I don't know if he's actively working to destabilize our alliances and weaken NATO while bolstering Russia, or if he's just being trolled and tricked by Putin into it.

If his actions were isolated to singular aspects of domestic and foreign policy then I could see your point. However, when fracturing our country domestically and our position internationally is executed across the board in so many policies, then it would take the greatest act of credulousness to deny a specific pattern.

 

[Felis Leo]

I just wanted to remind people on my side of the political spectrum that there are effectively two definitions for treason: a legal one and a common one.

Under the common definition, treason means, in the simplest terms, the betrayal of one's country. However, under the legal definition in the United States, it is more specific:

"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."

In practice and in precedent, the legal definition of treason only applies when we are at war with the enemy in question. Since WWII, literally zero Americans have been convicted of treason. The last Americans convicted of treason betrayed the United States in the interests of varying Axis powers. There have been 47 Americans convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, none for "treason." In other words, cold wars don't count.

This is somewhat confusing, because one can absolutely betray one's country in the interests of a foreign adversary, yet not be guilty under the legal definition. It's confusing because for all practical purposes, it's the legal definition that will actually result in any consequences within the bureaucracy (fines, imprisonment, death, barred from running for office, etc.), therefore it's that definition we tend to work with the most often. But that, of course, does not bar someone from being a traitor under the common definition, which can result in other forms of retribution, such as social and political ostracization.

So do I believe that Trump is a traitor in the common sense of the word? Yes, I absolutely do. In fact, that there is any question remaining on this fact is baffling to me. However, we're not at war with Russia, so he will never be convicted of it in a court of law.

That is a perfectly legitimate feeling to have. I have the same feelings with regard to President Obama vis-a-vis trying to engage in an abortive hard reset of Russian-American relations, scrapping our country's plans for a missile defense shield over Poland and the Czech Republic, and pursuing a policy of empowerment of the Iranian regime through the Iran nuclear deal.

However, I would like to ask: Other than pouring disconcerting amounts of praise upon Putin and scorn and dismissiveness upon our allies and trading partners, what concrete actions has Trump and his administration actually taken that have damaged U.S. interests and benefited Russia?

 

[late]

Mueller is still just warming up.

I expect Trump will be charged with a min of several crimes. Dozens is not out of the question. That's more a case of what is practicable, what can be accomplished in a finite amount of time, than on the merits of the individual cases.

 

[Cardinal]

Mueller is still just warming up.

I expect Trump will be charged with a min of several crimes. Dozens is not out of the question. That's more a case of what is practicable, what can be accomplished in a finite amount of time, than on the merits of the individual cases.

It's not inconceivable that trump may actually be charged with crimes at some point in the future (though that would be tricky at best so long as he's in office). It's just that treason will not be one of those crimes.

 

[cuban smokes]

Mueller is still just warming up.

I expect Trump will be charged with a min of several crimes. Dozens is not out of the question. That's more a case of what is practicable, what can be accomplished in a finite amount of time, than on the merits of the individual cases.

I personally hope to high Hell that Mueller gets enuff dirt to impeach Trump but if that were to occur would the 'GOP cult' have the cajones to actually dump tyrant Trump ?

 

[MrWonka]

I get that Trump has attacked our traditional allies

No, he attacked us. He attacked our own intelligence community and said that they were all full of **** because he trusted the word of an opposing ruler over the word of every intelligence agency that we have. The evidence that Russia messed with our elections is incontrovertible. Yet, he denied this obvious reality based entirely on Putin saying, "no we didn't."

Trump supported an enemy over our own country. That's treason. That's exactly what it is.

 

[cuban smokes]

It's not inconceivable that trump may actually be charged with crimes at some point in the future (though that would be tricky at best so long as he's in office). It's just that treason will not be one of those crimes.

well, that is a shame .......

 

[fishnthec]

The last person in America convicted of treason was Tomoya Kawakita.

We gave him the death penalty!

Well, Eisenhower then commuted the sentence to life in prison!

So Trump, you've got nothing to worry about, unless you don't like bunking with ole' Manafart! LOL!

 

[MrWonka]

That is a perfectly legitimate feeling to have. I have the same feelings with regard to President Obama vis-a-vis trying to engage in an abortive hard reset of Russian-American relations, scrapping our country's plans for a missile defense shield over Poland and the Czech Republic, and pursuing a policy of empowerment of the Iranian regime through the Iran nuclear deal.

Delusional nuttery. Disagreeing with policy decisions is nothing close to this.

what has concrete actions Trump and his administration actually taken that have damaged U.S. interests and benefited Russia?

He outright accused our own intelligence community of lying, while trusting the word of our enemy and known liar Putin.

 

[Bullseye]

I just wanted to remind people on my side of the political spectrum that there are effectively two definitions for treason: a legal one and a common one.

Under the common definition, treason means, in the simplest terms, the betrayal of one's country. However, under the legal definition in the United States, it is more specific:

"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."

In practice and in precedent, the legal definition of treason only applies when we are at war with the enemy in question. Since WWII, literally zero Americans have been convicted of treason. The last Americans convicted of treason betrayed the United States in the interests of varying Axis powers. There have been 47 Americans convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, none for "treason." In other words, cold wars don't count.

This is somewhat confusing, because one can absolutely betray one's country in the interests of a foreign adversary, yet not be guilty under the legal definition. It's confusing because for all practical purposes, it's the legal definition that will actually result in any consequences within the bureaucracy (fines, imprisonment, death, barred from running for office, etc.), therefore it's that definition we tend to work with the most often. But that, of course, does not bar someone from being a traitor under the common definition, which can result in other forms of retribution, such as social and political ostracization.

So do I believe that Trump is a traitor in the common sense of the word? Yes, I absolutely do. In fact, that there is any question remaining on this fact is baffling to me. However, we're not at war with Russia, so he will never be convicted of it in a court of law.

How, then would you interpret Obama's open mic comment to Medelev "Tell Vlad I'll have more flexibility after the election"?

And. no I don't think Trump committed treason under any definition. The more I think and read about it I begin to wonder if it was a ploy for public consumption. We can still use Putin's help in Syria amongst other places and publically dressing him down would probably destroy whatever cooperation we have know. Trump very well could have reamed him a new one during the private meeting.

I also find somewhat humorous that many of the same folks who attacked Trump for his bellicose and threatening treatment of North Korea now go after him for using a little diplomacy. But he's Trump, right?

 

[late]

I personally hope to high Hell that Mueller gets enuff dirt to impeach Trump but if that were to occur would the 'GOP cult' have the cajones to actually dump tyrant Trump?

No, but when his bull in a china shop routine threatens their political survival, then they will act.

That appearance he did with Putin is a big step towards making that happen.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I just wanted to remind people on my side of the political spectrum that there are effectively two definitions for treason: a legal one and a common one.

Under the common definition, treason means, in the simplest terms, the betrayal of one's country. However, under the legal definition in the United States, it is more specific:

"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."

In practice and in precedent, the legal definition of treason only applies when we are at war with the enemy in question. Since WWII, literally zero Americans have been convicted of treason. The last Americans convicted of treason betrayed the United States in the interests of varying Axis powers. There have been 47 Americans convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, none for "treason." In other words, cold wars don't count.

This is somewhat confusing, because one can absolutely betray one's country in the interests of a foreign adversary, yet not be guilty under the legal definition. It's confusing because for all practical purposes, it's the legal definition that will actually result in any consequences within the bureaucracy (fines, imprisonment, death, barred from running for office, etc.), therefore it's that definition we tend to work with the most often. But that, of course, does not bar someone from being a traitor under the common definition, which can result in other forms of retribution, such as social and political ostracization.

So do I believe that Trump is a traitor in the common sense of the word? Yes, I absolutely do. In fact, that there is any question remaining on this fact is baffling to me. However, we're not at war with Russia, so he will never be convicted of it in a court of law.

Not of treason, perhaps, but various financial crimes? I beg to differ.

 

[haymarket]

I just wanted to remind people on my side of the political spectrum that there are effectively two definitions for treason: a legal one and a common one.

Under the common definition, treason means, in the simplest terms, the betrayal of one's country. However, under the legal definition in the United States, it is more specific:

"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."

In practice and in precedent, the legal definition of treason only applies when we are at war with the enemy in question. Since WWII, literally zero Americans have been convicted of treason. The last Americans convicted of treason betrayed the United States in the interests of varying Axis powers. There have been 47 Americans convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, none for "treason." In other words, cold wars don't count.

This is somewhat confusing, because one can absolutely betray one's country in the interests of a foreign adversary, yet not be guilty under the legal definition. It's confusing because for all practical purposes, it's the legal definition that will actually result in any consequences within the bureaucracy (fines, imprisonment, death, barred from running for office, etc.), therefore it's that definition we tend to work with the most often. But that, of course, does not bar someone from being a traitor under the common definition, which can result in other forms of retribution, such as social and political ostracization.

So do I believe that Trump is a traitor in the common sense of the word? Yes, I absolutely do. In fact, that there is any question remaining on this fact is baffling to me. However, we're not at war with Russia, so he will never be convicted of it in a court of law.

Congress needs to hold immediate hearings to explore all the ties between Trump and Russia and that includes past financial ties that are only available through his tax returns.

And i agree with you - YES, Trump is a traitor in the common usage of the term as in betraying his country and its people to a foreign adversary.

 

[PLizzy]

That is a perfectly legitimate feeling to have. I have the same feelings with regard to President Obama vis-a-vis trying to engage in an abortive hard reset of Russian-American relations, scrapping our country's plans for a missile defense shield over Poland and the Czech Republic, and pursuing a policy of empowerment of the Iranian regime through the Iran nuclear deal.

However, I would like to ask: Other than pouring disconcerting amounts of praise upon Putin and scorn and dismissiveness upon our allies and trading partners, what concrete actions has Trump and his administration actually taken that have damaged U.S. interests and benefited Russia?

 

[Felis Leo]

Delusional nuttery. Disagreeing with policy decisions is nothing close to this.

Those were policy decisions that strengthened Russia's and Iran's hand in their regions, respectively. If making deliberate decisions designed to weaken America's standing in a region while simultaneously strengthening its adversaries in turn is what we can define as "common treason" then I call Obama and his coterie common traitors. If you believe I am laboring under a misapprehension these were the correct decisions and Iran or Russia were not in fact strengthened by these decisions and the United States' position was not weakened in these regions, then I welcome your correction.

He outright accused our own intelligence community of lying, while trusting the word of our enemy and known liar Putin.

Again, those are words. Disturbing words that should not be said before an adversary, but words nonetheless. Words alone are mere shadows. What is the substance? Have these words translated in the dissolution of NATO and more countries allying with Russia? Has the Russian economy surged and its sphere of influence grown past its immediate borders? Has the Russian Navy and Merchant Marine been expanded and given new trading and military ports? What, if anything, has Russia concretely gained and what has the United States concretely lost?

 

[Lutherf]

It's more than a little disheartening that so many now view political disagreement as "betrayal" or "an attack" or "treason". Half the country disagreed with Barack Obama's politics yet you never saw anything close to this level of animosity.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

No, he attacked us. He attacked our own intelligence community and said that they were all full of **** because he trusted the word of an opposing ruler over the word of every intelligence agency that we have. The evidence that Russia messed with our elections is incontrovertible. Yet, he denied this obvious reality based entirely on Putin saying, "no we didn't."

Trump supported an enemy over our own country. That's treason. That's exactly what it is.

Russia, Russia, RUSSIA!

 

[cuban smokes]

No, but when his bull in a china shop routine threatens their political survival, then they will act.

That appearance he did with Putin is a big step towards making that happen.

will not happen; Trump grabbed every single one of the GOP by their ***** & Trump aint letting go

these enablers lost all their cajones to Trump .........

 

[Ikari]

If his actions were isolated to singular aspects of domestic and foreign policy then I could see your point. However, when fracturing our country domestically and our position internationally is executed across the board in so many policies, then it would take the greatest act of credulousness to deny a specific pattern.

I can what you say. And as I posted in another thread, there was a CNN article that had

This court filing has an overview of Russian influence efforts similar to that which Trump denied on Monday in Helsinki.
"Moscow seeks to create wedges that reduce trust and confidence in democratic processes, degrade democratization efforts, weaken US partnerships with European allies, undermine Western sanctions, encourage anti-US political views, and counter efforts to bring Ukraine and other former Soviet states into European institutions," the FBI wrote.
Torshin also reflected on their spycraft in a private Twitter exchange with Butina in 2016, according to the FBI. "It is not about winning today's fight (although we are striving for it) but to win the entire battle. This is the battle for the future, it cannot be lost!" he wrote, according to private messages published in court documents.
She responded that "harsh and impetuous moves will ruin everything early."
"Patience and cold blood + faith in yourself. And everything will definitely turn out," he wrote.

So in terms of what Russia wants, it really seems that Trump has accomplished quite a bit. He certainly is the most divisive President of the modern era, he is weakening our partnerships with allies, etc.

But Trump is probably one of the most ignorant, narcissistic, egomaniacal President ever, so I'm not even sure he's aware that he's doing this. I don't think his brain chemistry even allows him to understand that he's doing damage. Everything in his mind is filtered through delusions of grandure. So in that sense, I don't quite label him a "traitor" because I'm not sure if this is something he's doing with full knowledge of his throwing America under the bus or if he cannot even see that that's what he is doing.

 

[Irwin Corey]

I don't know if he's actively working to destabilize our alliances and weaken NATO while bolstering Russia

Yeah, he doesn't seem to be working at it. It's like it just comes naturally to him.

or if he's just being trolled and tricked by Putin into it.

Naw, Putin must have pee-pee tapes, or something on him, it's hard to come up with another explanation for these past two weeks.

Putin is tRumps KGBFF, yesterday he changed his 2020 campaign slogan to: "The Manchurian Candidate".

 

[MrWonka]

It's more than a little disheartening that so many now view political disagreement as "betrayal" or "an attack" or "treason". Half the country disagreed with Barack Obama's politics yet you never saw anything close to this level of animosity.

These are not simply disagreements. These are literal crimes being committed by Trump against his own country. These are daily and blatant lies with a clear effort to subvert our Democracy.

 

[Irwin Corey]

will not happen; Trump grabbed every single one of the GOP by their ***** & Trump aint letting go

these enablers lost all their cajones to Trump .........

They had cajones? I thought they sold those to the Koch Brothers years ago.