Can it even be argued POTUS commited treason?

Great Debates
1

If it is conclusively demonstrated that the Trump administration colluded with the Russian government or agents thereof with the express intent of reducing sanctions against said government/agents in exchange for assistance during the election, would that constitute Treason?

Definitions used:

Definition of Treason, as I understand it:
Source: 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

OR, functionally identical (From US constitution)

Aid and comfort is further detailed as meaning:

As reducing sanctions certainly achieves both, it would qualify. But the question is, is Russia an enemy of the United States?

“Enemy of the United States” is defined as:

And, unraveling it further, Hostilities is defined as:
(U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part II › Chapter 47A › Subchapter I › § 948a)

Now, so far as I’m aware, the Laws of War don’t actually cover “cyber warfare,” so it would be very hard to make a case that Russia’s actions directly against the United States constitute a conflict subject to the laws of war. Please correct me if I’m wrong, as that simplifies things greatly. Russia has, however, committed a treaty violation by way of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. This is arguably casus belli whether or not it would be wise to respond as such and is arguably conduct subject to the laws of war. “Conflict” as used in the US code does not require an ongoing war.

The sanctions, meanwhile, are directly associated with this act and would arguably be a part of this “conflict.”

Another thought occurs to me as I go over all of this. Certainly many perfectly legitimate acts might appear to “give aid and comfort” to enemies of the United States, as all rational negotiations require a give and take approach. Acts such as appeasement can be viewed as such, but we give the executive branch a fairly broad license (I know plenty who would accuse the Iran Deal of being aid and comfort, for instance). With this broad license, would Trump’s reduction/elimination of sanctions actually be illegal at that point? Even if it’s for the express, personal gain of the president - or rather, remuneration for past personal gains?

Conflict of interest? Clearly so… but a crime? So far as I’m aware, it’s neither a crime nor a conspiracy to commit one if at the time of the act it would be legal.

tldr
[ul]
[li]Is Russia an “enemy of the United States?”[/li][li]Are we in any form of “hostilities” with them (vis-a-vis treaty violations and/or cyberwarfare)?[/li][li]Is Trump using the office of the president to repay Russia for election tampering “giving aid and comfort” to Russia?[/li][li]If Yes to all of the above, didn’t Trump/admin commit treason?[/li][/ul]

(Note: Most of this is matter of fact, but legal interpretations invite opinion even when they shouldn’t and this is a highly political topic - so, I’m asking in GD even though it’s a GQ)

2

Maybe not, but I look forward to the appropriate authorities charging him with treason, then plea-bargaining him down to a lesser charge that nevertheless gets him out of office. I base this on my vast legal experience of watching lots of TV.

3

No need for a dictionary definition of treason. The US Constitution spells it out:

That is a pretty difficult case to make.

IIRC in colonial days the British would levy treason charges pretty casually and the founding fathers had had enough of that so put the definition of treason in the constitution and made it a high bar to cross.

I seriously doubt a charge of treason will be able to be made (serious enough to have them in court over it) against Trump or any of his family.

4

While I tend to agree, I don’t see what in the definition makes this clear. Do you care to elaborate at which step it becomes definitively clear treason was not committed?

5

Is the “well, it’s not technically treason” the latest place the goalposts have moved to?

At first they told us that there were no meetings with the Russians, then they told us that the meetings had nothing to do with the Russian meddling in the election, now they’re saying that although the Trump team wanted to collude with the Russians, there’s no proof that these particular Russians were able to deliver the goods.

I guess “it’s technically not treason!” is the next place for the goalposts to sit.

6

I do not see how Russia is labeled an “enemy”. Certainly we are not friends but there is no declaration of war. If Russia is an enemy then really any foreign government is an enemy since they will look out for their own self interests.

Further, you need two people to testify to the same overt act. Good luck with that.

Or you need a confession. I would say that would never happen but Trump weirdly seems to cop to things he shouldn’t so who knows.

7

Heck, it’ll be Trump’s 2020 campaign slogan.

8

It seems to me that the OP is trying to establish his own goalposts AT TREASON. Not seeing what this has to do with anything Trump is saying about the issue.

As for “enemy”, here’s a thread I started about that particular issue wrt the “T” word a few months ago. Keep in mind that if Russia is “an enemy”, anyone doing any kind of business with them would be in jeopardy of being charged with treason. Remember the Rosenbergs? Not charged with treason. Anyone seeking to throw out the charge of treason needs to point to some case law where similar actions were deemed to be that. There have been precious few cases in the entire history of the US, so it’s not a charge that is easily made to stick.

9

What goalpost moving? The US constitution is 226 years old. The definition of treason has been there the whole time. No one has changed it.

If you want to say their actions are shitty and harm the country and would probably be treason most places fine. Does not change the legal definition though.

10

I think answering this question in the context of Trump is far too difficult, because there is so much we do not know about the case and the state of the investigation.

But as a general matter, let’s say the US is in open hostilities with someone. Maybe the President is carrying out the war, as directed by a congressional authorization of the use of force, but also pursuing some agenda to subvert the war effort for the benefit of the enemy. I would say that qualifies as treason.

Or maybe the US is attacked by a foreign power, like we have angry Luxembourgers storming our shores. I’m not sure by the plain text of the law what would happen if the President simply refused to repel the invasion. Would not lifting a finger to defend Americans constitute “aid and comfort?” Maybe not in a strict sense, but maybe given the implicit duties of the President, most would think it could?

But if a President is simply helping another country with espionage efforts, I’m rather doubtful that the other country qualifies as an enemy simply because they are conducting covert operations on us. I’m more inclined to say that such conduct probably ought to be captured by espionage or other laws, as opposed to treason.

And, just to be clear, my comments here are intended for the question of criminal liability, as opposed to the political process of Congress removing a President from office.

11

[ul]
[li]No[/li][li]No. Treaty violations and cyberwarfare are not hostilities, just business. O/W America would be fighting all the countries who have broken a treaty, or with whom it has broken a treaty; or whom it cyber spies on.[/li][li]If so, he seems singularly unsuccessful at it.[/li][li]Trump will be in his grave before sanctions on Russia are lifted.[/li][/ul]

It’s not something in the president’s power to remove sanctions by himself, and Congress is trying very very hard to increase sanctions on Russia, even if it hurts America more than it hurts you.

12

Depends how the sanction was put in place and Trump certainly seems to have tried almost from the outset of his presidency:

Congress has been working to stop him from lifting sanctions which I am surprised at but happy about.

13

That was when they were trying to reverse all that Barack hath wrought. Just out of spite. And I personally suspect President Trump immediately was uncertain of what his precise powers were.

14

Goalpost moving meaning most people were never accusing him of treason. They are accusing him of colluding with a foreign power to disrupt our democratic process. Just because the campaign and POTUS didn’t commit treason does not excuse them from other crimes and/or ethical violations.

15

The short answer is that no, any of the dealings Trump has had with Russia do not come anywhere close to treason even if we assume every single allegation is true. Espionage, maybe? Violation of some sanctions law, maybe? But not treason. Not even close. And it lessens the credibility or proclaimed objectivity of any critics who keep saying treason. We are not at war with Russia, ergo not treason.

On a different level, I’m not sure that certain actions carried out by a sitting president could possibly be considered espionage even if the same actions were carried out by a random member of the public would be espionage. The President (whoever holds the office, not just Trump) has the ability to shape foreign policy and foreign relations. That could include sharing sensitive intelligence or other information with a foreign government.

So Joe Blow cannot legally tell the Russian government the precise locations and capabilities of US deployment of anti-missile technology in Eastern Europe, but the President could if he believes it would further US interests. That does not mean the President elect nor a candidate for president can legally exert the prerogative to share classified information, but the sitting president can chose to do so.

16

Nope, it doesn’t. I think treason is just a fantasy, regardless of what Trump et al did or didn’t do. OTHER crimes, however…yeah, I think this is a distinct possibility.

Much as I’d love to see Trump with a blindfold on posing for gun fire (do they still do that for treason?), I think seeing him in an orange jump suit with handcuffs being escorted to his cell would actually be a lot sweeter…and more realistic.

17

Don’t much care where he goes, so long as he goes.

18

The Rosenbergs were a sticking point. I almost want to say that the USSR was closer to “an enemy” then than Russia is today, but I’m unclear as to how cyber warfare would qualify. Upon re-reading the terms of the Budapest Memorandum, it’s laughable (seek Security Council aid against a state with permanent Security Council Veto???) and doesn’t constitute anything approximating mutual defense agreement and therefore wouldn’t fall anywhere near the US laws of war.

Certainly cyber war would have been taken as such back in the Cold War era, if such a thing could have been done before the invention of computers of course, but it appears that in this day and age it’s easier if we don’t (doing so allows us to do likewise, a huge advantage in asymmetric quasi-wars such as with Iran’s nuclear program).

I think I’m conclusively swayed, however. Unless someone can establish - easily done by demonstrating conduct subject to the laws of war conducted by Russia against the United States, should such conduct even exist - that Russia is an “enemy” as defined by US law.

Treason has been bandied about both here in the forums, in my personal discussions, and in significant political circuits (wasn’t it Time Kaine who mentioned it in Congress?). Emotionally speaking, it would be quite satisfying to throw around such a term given the flagrant nature of POTUS’s other conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, I prefer to be accurate more than emotionally sated, so I’m more concerned with ascertaining if such an accusation can even be made (sensibly) given the - as mentioned - very high hurdle to clear.

19

The Trump administration and Fox News (et al.) are moving the goalposts wrt their Russian interactions. At first there was none, then there was some although not about manipulating our election, then it was not being able to manipulate the election even though they tried, and next it’s going to be that it’s not technically treason.

Did you read my post?

I had the opposite impression, but mainly he’s asking if a case could be made. I was just predicting that “not actually treason” will be next place for the goalposts.

20

I think that “enemy” is where any argument is going to run into trouble. Obviously, we are not in a conventional war with Russia. Both the United States and other countries routinely engage in cyber espionage. If I recall correctly, there were a number of stories regarding Germany and the US engaging in cyber espionage against each other. We probably don’t want that to be considered hostilities with an enemy.