• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

THIS is what treason looks like

During his meeting with Russian ambassadors at the Oval Office, Donald Trump gave them information that was classified top secret, and put the lives of at least 2 Israeli agents at risk.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/trump-intel-slip?google_editors_picks=true



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.


Who are we at war with?
 
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.


Who are we at war with?

Did you miss that word "or" in your first sentence?
 
you are totally wrong. He must consult with intel. community.
let me restate my possition. What I assert that you are incorrect about is that Trump didn't declassify anything, he shared classified information concerning an arrangement we had with an ally regarding the infiltratration of our mutual enemy. If he had declassified this intel. it would be available under a Foia request which it is not. Secondly, Trump was bragging about what he has access to. It wasn't sharred intel for mutual purposes. We got nothing in exchange. It was just Trump patting himself on the back at our nation's expense.
 
Really?:

[emoji38] https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2017/10/03/mattis-reveals-new-rules-of-engagement/

I very much know what I am talking about, how much you know I dont know but it is not looking good for you at the moment.

Yeah - except I'm not the guy who just cited a change to ROE's in Afghanistan to try to claim that Trump hadn't kept the previous administration's campaign plan in Syria/Iraq.

We kept the plan we had. It worked about as well as we thought it would.
 
Did you miss that word "or" in your first sentence?

And???

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

How does intelligence about a common enemy fit that "or" for you?
 
Recommend reading through E.O.12333. Note the whose authority under which information is classified to begin with.

(Hint: it's not Congress)


I said nothing about Congress and you are the first to introduce Congress to a thread topic of treason (or not treason).

You need to cite precedent which is my request (to another poster). While you yourself cite precedent I'll read the EO as my bedtime reading tonight. You might care to cite or to paraphrase the relevant elements of the EO you present.

Neither am I questioning the authority to classify or declassify or to modify etc. Distribution of classified information and knowledge is the issue, to include relevant and material precedent focused on Potus HimSelf.

Nor do I necessarily question Potus decisions in respect to intelligence etc either strategic or tactical during a Congressional declared time of war, in respect of official allies. In WW II for instance the allies by official treaty were USA, UK, France, Soviet Union. All other partner nations of the four official allies associated themselves with the four allied nations who operated as a unitary group (more or less and for better or for worse).

Precedent(s) for what Trump did as presented in the OP plse thx.
 
Last edited:
Yeah - except I'm not the guy who just cited a change to ROE's in Afghanistan to try to claim that Trump hadn't kept the previous administration's campaign plan in Syria/Iraq.

We kept the plan we had. It worked about as well as we thought it would.

Ya, I got a bad link....Look, the command structure was totally changed by Trump, the rules of engagement have changed, the approach to Assad and Russia has changed, and under Trump we have success where we had little under Obama, so I am going to say that this is different, and I am not going to let Ash Carter trying to take credit for success after he was gone stop me.
 
If you can keep bringing up Hillary's emails that had no effect on national security of course we are going to bring up Trump's feeding top secret info to the Russians. Not to mention that stooge Trump appointed as NSA director. No American has ever compromised national security as much as Trump. He's a full-fledged double agent compared to Hillary.

Except, Clinton broke the law and President Trump, didn't. See how that works?
 
I said nothing about Congress and you are the first to introduce Congress to a thread topic of treason (or not treason).

You need to cite precedent which is my request (to another poster). While you yourself cite precedent I'll read the EO as my bedtime reading tonight. You might care to cite or to paraphrase the relevant elements of the EO you present.

Neither am I questioning the authority to classify or declassify or to modify etc. Distribution of classified information and knowledge is the issue, to include relevant and material precedent focused on Potus HimSelf.

Nor do I necessarily question Potus decisions in respect to intelligence etc either strategic or tactical during a Congressional declared time of war, in respect of official allies. In WW II for instance the allies by official treaty were USA, UK, France, Soviet Union. All other partner nations of the four official allies associated themselves with the four allied nations who operated as a unitary group (more or less and for better or for worse).

Precedent(s) plse thx.

Asked and answered.
 
Last edited:
I said nothing about Congress and you are the first to introduce Congress to a thread topic of treason (or not treason).

You need to cite precedent which is my request (to another poster). While you yourself cite precedent I'll read the EO as my bedtime reading tonight. You might care to cite or to paraphrase the relevant elements of the EO you present.

Neither am I questioning the authority to classify or declassify or to modify etc. Distribution of classified information and knowledge is the issue, to include relevant and material precedent focused on Potus HimSelf.

Nor do I necessarily question Potus decisions in respect to intelligence etc either strategic or tactical during a Congressional declared time of war, in respect of official allies. In WW II for instance the allies by official treaty were USA, UK, France, Soviet Union. All other partner nations of the four official allies associated themselves with the four allied nations who operated as a unitary group (more or less and for better or for worse).

Precedent(s) plse thx.

You asked if there was a precedent for POTUS being immune to the Espionage Act. If you will read E.O.12333, you will see that - since the authority to classify or declassify information flows from him, and is part and parcel of his Article 2 responsibilities, he cannot violate the Espionage Act, as that is his information.

For example, during the Cuban Missile Crises, Kennedy gave US intelligence to the UN, because he deemed that doing so was appropriate. That decision by the POTUS is all that is or was legally required.

For another; the Obama administration decided to declassify and release classified information on the Joint effort against the Natanz Nuclear facility (specifically the Stuxnet attack) in order to make him look tough going into the 2012 election. We can say that was unwise, but it was fully within his authority.

For a third, the Obama administration decided to declassify information regarding the Israeli nuclear program in response to an election in Israel going contrary to their preferences. That was childish, and, like the example above, contrary to an information sharing agreement we have with the Israelis, but it, too, was totally within his purview.
 
Last edited:
Ya, I got a bad link....Look, the command structure was totally changed by Trump

This is incorrect.

For example, I did the introductory welcome-to-the-AO brief to the incoming CJSOTF-I CG prior to his taking command. Then Trump won. Guess what? He took command, just as already scheduled. Everyone else continued in their assigned billets just as before, and continued their scheduled rotations, just as before.

Trump, as far as I'm aware, wasn't even aware of what the command structure was for that campaign, outside of probably one key guy, who was also there before he took over.

The rules of engagement have changed

As far as I'm aware, in the D-ISIS campaign, this is incorrect; and we only just recently got expanded authorities Afghanistan.

the approach to Assad and Russia has changed

Also incorrect. We had coordination with the Russians before and after Trump too over, though that coordination has been somewhat degraded at points under Trump.

and under Trump we have success where we had little under Obama

:shrug: if you want to give him credit for not screwing up the plan developed by the Obama administration, okay.
 
You asked if there was a precedent for POTUS being immune to the Espionage Act. If you will read E.O.12333, you will see that - since the authority to classify or declassify information flows from him, and is part and parcel of his Article 2 responsibilities, he cannot violate the Espionage Act, as that is his information.

For example, during the Cuban Missile Crises, Kennedy gave US intelligence to the UN, because he deemed that doing so was appropriate. That decision by the POTUS is all that is or was legally required.

For another; the Obama administration decided to declassify and release classified information on the Joint effort against the Natanz Nuclear facility (specifically the Stuxnet attack) in order to make him look tough going into the 2012 election. We can say that was unwise, but it was fully within his authority.

For a third, the Obama administration decided to declassify information regarding the Israeli nuclear program in response to an election in Israel going contrary to their preferences. That was childish, and, like the example above, contrary to an information sharing agreement we have with the Israelis, but it, too, was totally within his purview.


That doesn't cut it.

Let's start out with Politifact....


The Special Operations OPSEC group said the administration "willfully leaked the existence of STUXNET, allowing our enemies to learn more of our secrets and of our operations."

There are big holes in this argument. As the time line shows, public knowledge of STUXNET long preceded any comment from any Obama administration official. There was extensive coverage and speculation about possible U.S. involvement months before June 2012. Our enemies didn't need the Obama administration to tell them this -- there was plenty of coverage before there was any attribution to Obama's team.

Still, it's clear that the Obama administration provided details -- including a quote from Obama himself in a meeting -- to the New York Times. So the administration -- broadly defined -- confirmed its operational role in the creation of the worm.

We rate the claim Half True
.

Group says Obama administration 'willfully leaked' existence of computer worm used against Iran | PolitiFact


The statement in the OP is still under discussion thx.

In the Iran negotiations and agreement the U.S. was a part of the P-5 + 1. That is, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany: USA, UK, France, Russia, China. Putin got no special treatment by Potus and as far as we know Putin got no privileges or exclusive intelligence information as shared with our treaty allies. Same is true btw of China.

As to Stuxnet, the information was not presented by Obama initially, nor was Stuxnet presented to the Russians only and without prior public notice.

Concerning the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran, your motive assigned to then Potus Obama is your motive.

Going back to JFK, the information provided to the UN was in the known interest of public knowledge which itself and in turn was knowingly presented in the national security interest of the United States. Conversely, the American people do not know what the classified information is that Trump gifted to Putin during a meeting in the Oval office of Putin's principal operatives and closed to the American public to include media.

I continue to be equally patient meanwhile for anyone to cite instances of when a Potus had a meeting in the Oval Office with the Russian ambassador to include the Russian Foreign Minister and to which U.S. media were excluded while only Russian media only were admitted only and exclusively. It was during this closed to Americans meeting that Trump delivered the classified information to the Russians, ne c'est pas. This was also the closed meeting to Americans that Americans got photos of from the Russian media which was the only media there, exclusively and singularly. The American public.

Short of sending off your peculiar take on things to Politifact this post will need to suffice.
 
So let's look at acts of war in 2016....


There are those who do consider the Russian cyberattacks related to the election an act of war. Russian military doctrine expert Alexander Velez-Green thinks the Russian leaders themselves are seeing things that way, taking advantage of the fact that U.S. policymakers are used to only viewing war as something “limited to the military arena”. Thus the Russians are using non-military efforts (hacking) to “devastating effect”.

What is their goal? According to Velez-Green, it would be “to cripple the United States, shatter NATO, and fill the void left by America’s absence.”

Interestingly, such Republican icons (and known warhawks) as Dick Cheney and John McCain have also publicly come out to say that the cyber attacks could be regarded acts of war.

The Harvard law professor John Shattuck argues that even if Trump and his team didn’t knowingly coordinate the cyberattacks on the DNC with any party, their actions after the intelligence team’s conclusions were made could rise to the level of treason. He says that denying the cyberattacks, which is something Trump continues to do, and working to hamper their investigations is like “giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States”.

Another Harvard professor Lawrence Tribe also previously called into question Trump’s statements during the campaign where he seemed to openly advocate for Russia to share Hillary Clinton’s emails.


Can the Trump-Russia Scandal Really End in Treason Charges? | Big Think


Russia was identified by the Pentagon in 2014 as the principal global adversary of the United States. Putin and his government are KGB and GRU (military intelligence) and their successors from the Cold War Soviet Union. For those who might not know it, or who may choose to deny it, it remains true: Russia are the bad guyz and we are the good guys.
 
That's not what I hear, I hear that the military rules of engagement changed a lot with Trump, and we know that our willingness to stop getting in the way of Assad and the Russians has changed.

BTW the Obama plan included Mosul, which was a brutal fight that got Iran more into Iraq, and chewed up the Iraq forces, which is why we are dealing with the Kurd problem now....which could turn out very bad.....sorta looks like yet another OBAMA MISCALCULATION, of which there were so many, especially in foreign policy.


EDIT: what was gained by chewing up the Iraq forces is yet to be seen, as it appears the Mosul will continue to be a problem, this time with the abuse of the people by outsiders being instead of coming from Daesh it is now coming from affiliates of the Iraq government in Baghdad...... probably an improvement but maybe not by much.

Obama was well warned that this was a likely outcome.

He said to go for it.

So you believe getting ISIS out of Iraq and their 2nd largest city was a "miscalculation"? How would you plan to defeat ISIS without Mosul? The Sunni's and Shiites have been at war for 700 years or more so it is no surprise that there is conflict in the Sunni city of Mosul with Shiite Govt. Forces. This does not mean it won't be resolved.

The Kurds are our most loyal allies and have a modernized Muslim religion that is much more compatible with our values. They also have fought valiantly against ISIS and do not deserve to be thrown under the bus like Trump is. They won't give up their hard fought dream of an independent or at least semi-independent State easily and if we support Turkey against them it will be genocide against staunch allies who favor Democracy in support of the ruthless dictator of Turkey who is under Putin's influence..
 
Last edited:
Except, Clinton broke the law and President Trump, didn't. See how that works?

LOL Hillary was never charged with any crime. President's cannot be indicted period. That does not make Trump any less of a leaker of top secret information that (as you are so fond of saying about Hillary) any normal person would be in prison for. No information Hillary had was ever determined to be compromised. Perhaps she was lucky but no secret information from her private server has EVER been found in enemy hands. Trump HANDED the info to the enemy personally.
 
Last edited:
LOL Hillary was never charged with any crime. President's cannot be indicted period. That does not make Trump any less of a leaker of top secret information that (as you are so fond of saying about Hillary) any normal person would be in prison for. No information Hillary had was ever determined to be compromised. Perhaps she was lucky but no secret information from her private server has EVER been found in enemy hands. Trump HANDED the info to the enemy personally.

Clinton broke the law. President Trump didn't. The president (any president) has the authority to declassify anything. You might not like it; it might even be a dumb idea, but it isn't illegal. It sure as hell isn't treason. Clinton, on the other hand, mishandled classified material, a violation of the Espionage Act.
 
Y'all gonna retread this story?


Manafort is charged with "Conspiracy Against the United States." Same for Manafort's gopher gofor Richard Gates.

That does the trick thx.

With investigations ongoing it could yet get worse for 'em all right up to the top.

Conspiracy. Treason. It's six of one and a half dozen of the other.

It's going to be a long cold winter. Followed by a long hot summer. Ending up behind high walls.
 
Clinton broke the law. President Trump didn't. The president (any president) has the authority to declassify anything. You might not like it; it might even be a dumb idea, but it isn't illegal. It sure as hell isn't treason. Clinton, on the other hand, mishandled classified material, a violation of the Espionage Act.

It sure as hell can be treason for anyone even a President to transmit secrets to the enemy. Where you get such balls to make those statements is beyond me. A Manchurian candidate is by definition treasonous. Trump may very well be proven to be beholding to Putin, certainly Flynn will and Trump appointed him director of the NSA. The organization that keeps our most guarded secrets. Trump could be impeached and then charged with treason although I doubt a prosecution that will happen
 
It sure as hell can be treason for anyone even a President to transmit secrets to the enemy. Where you get such balls to make those statements is beyond me. A Manchurian candidate is by definition treasonous. Trump may very well be proven to be beholding to Putin, certainly Flynn will and Trump appointed him director of the NSA. The organization that keeps our most guarded secrets. Trump could be impeached and then charged with treason although I doubt a prosecution that will happen

All that hyperbole... And no actual reasoning...
 
Manafort is charged with "Conspiracy Against the United States." Same for Manafort's gopher gofor Richard Gates.

That does the trick thx.

With investigations ongoing it could yet get worse for 'em all right up to the top.

Conspiracy. Treason. It's six of one and a half dozen of the other.

It's going to be a long cold winter. Followed by a long hot summer. Ending up behind high walls.

Looks like more predictions from the person responsible for those recount threads...
 
Manafort is charged with "Conspiracy Against the United States." Same for Manafort's gopher gofor Richard Gates.

That does the trick thx.

With investigations ongoing it could yet get worse for 'em all right up to the top.

Conspiracy. Treason. It's six of one and a half dozen of the other.

It's going to be a long cold winter. Followed by a long hot summer. Ending up behind high walls.

You don't know what treason is either not that I am surprised.
Hillary in a landslide lol.

Please look up the definition of treason and get back too us.
 
It sure as hell can be treason for anyone even a President to transmit secrets to the enemy. Where you get such balls to make those statements is beyond me. A Manchurian candidate is by definition treasonous. Trump may very well be proven to be beholding to Putin, certainly Flynn will and Trump appointed him director of the NSA. The organization that keeps our most guarded secrets. Trump could be impeached and then charged with treason although I doubt a prosecution that will happen

So you don't know what treason is either. That is 3 people in his thread that does not know what treason is.

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 all of ththe cases of treason most have been dropped. However all the ones that were prosecuted where in the middle of war.
 
Back
Top Bottom