From the apparent facts of the case, it looks like the Trump campaign suborned criminal action from a hostile nation in order to get elected. It also appears that this is perfectly legal.
In my opinion this ought to be a hanging offense, and I hope there will be a constitutional amendment to that effect. But honestly, we live in a nation of laws, and Trump found a loophole. Charging him or his surrogates with treason isn’t an option.
There has been enough rumblings about “treason” on the part of Trump and/or his associates to attract reports explaining what exactly treason means and why it doesn’t apply. So though most people are not making accusations of treason there is a large enough (or is it loud enough?) minority doing so to make it a point of discussion.
CNN interview, anchor Erin Burnett asks “…That would be treason, right?” Michael Mukasey, Former US Attorney General under Bush replies emphatically “No.”
The Guardian: Don’t call it treason: Trump advisers’ legal jeopardy is deep, but not that deep
Newsweek: WHAT IS TREASON, HOW DOES IT WORK AND WILL DONALD TRUMP JR. BE GUILTY?
Real Clear Politics: Columbia Law Professor Richard Briffault Explains To MSNBC Why Donald Trump Jr. Can Not Be Guilty Of “Treason,” “Perjury,” Or “Collusion”
Treason has been a theme in media reports for months. There have been reports accusing Trump and/or his family or campaign members have been bandied about as serious reports by a few media pundits and outlets. But in recent days more of the reporting has been explaining why treason does not apply.
There is a common meaning of the word “treason,” and a meaning defined in the Constitution for legal purposes in the US. As far as I’m aware, no one has said that Team Trump’s actions qualify for the Constitutional definition.
However, they do meet the common definition of the word.
Another thread a couple of months ago was discussing what it would take to impeach Trump, and the conclusion seemed to be that it would take an actual crime to get him out. But if it can be shown that his campaign, with his knowledge, colluded with the Russian government to betray his country, and it’s not technically “treason” nor violates any election laws that we’ve put in place so far, would that be enough?
Can you be more specific about what the “betrayal,” consists of?
Why does it even matter if it’s treason? There are plenty of other crimes not defined in the US Constitution-- Call what he did one of those, instead. Heck, since the only court he could face over this would be impeachment, you don’t even need an already-defined crime. Just say “He sold us out to the Russians, and that’s bad”.
Nonetheless some sort of court acceptable evidence would be a nice change.
Anyway, to some extent the moment has passed. If they had determined to do this dark and bloody deed they should have done it a few months back, I doubt if the Dems or whoever wants impeachment for any or no cause held back from professional courtesy nor even mercy. Maybe they then approached Repubs to assemble a hanging jury, but the longer they delay the less stomach they will have for this fight. By the time they get around to it he’ll have left office after his only term anyway. And people will be thinking of other issues than Russia.
The most creative case I saw tried to connect Russia to Syria, Syria to terrorists, and terrorists to the AUMF, which would make Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. It was a good try, anyway.
The Orange Orangutan in an orange jump suit? Then he’d be more like The Invisible Indri.
The US maintains a list of countries considered to be state sponsors of terrorism. Russia isn’t on that list. So, the first move would be to amend the list, and then you still have a long row to hoe and only applicable to actions taken after the list is amended. Remember, John Lindh who actually fought on the side of the Taliban in Afghanistan was not charged with treason.
The more that leaks out, the more it looks as though good old-fashioned bribery, corruption and money-laundering will get you there.
Our democratic process wasn’t disrupted. The election went off without an issue, no voter was turned away, nor was the count tampered with by any Russian influence.
If the House is really willing it can impeach the President for treason regardless the Constitutional definition of treason is met or if 2 witness are available for the same overt act. Likewise it can also impeach the President for something which isn’t even an actual criminal office. Likewise the Senate makes up it’s rules on the spot, can set the standard of proof at whatever it wants, and can even skip the trial or any evidentiary hearings and go straight to voting on removal from office. Impeachment is basically just a political process that superficially has a lot of the same trappings as a judicial process.
Treason schmeason. Its gonna be the money. The hounds have got the scent and they are baying.
Then the Orange Fox will outbay them. When will people learn he cannot be defeated by conventional means, and that his opponents are even dumber than he is ?
Srsly. The Fourth Estate is run to make money by very stupid establishment people with a very high opinion of themselves: and they are failing even at making money.
What will it take? Garlic? A crucifix? We already invited him in the White House.
Donald K. Mooney?
The OP is asking where the goalposts were in the first place.
Conspiring with Russia to toss an election would be a hideously amoral act and would break many laws and be totally deserving of impeachment, but I also doubt it’s treason as defined by the Constitution. There is no evidence Trump has engaged in warfare against the United States or assisted anyone in doing so.
I happen to think Trump is a monstrous, hideous, evil buffoon who is doubtless as corrupt as all get out, and I believe he’s in the pocket of the Russians, but in what war against the United States has Trump fought against the USA, or assisted those who do?