# Is Trump, plain and simple, a traitor to his country? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 18, 2018, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154 "2018-07-18T16:37:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/201 "2018-07-20T15:14:41Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m glad to see you admit the criminal case against Trump is as serious as the ones against Manning or Snowden. I look forward to Trump ending up in prison or being forced to take refuge in some dumpy embassy where he isn’t allowed to gold-plate the fixtures. There is a difference. The President has the ultimate authority to declassify documents. So information, shared by Private Smith (or Private Manning) with a non-cleared person would be illegal, but the President can choose (on his own) to declassify and share with whoever he likes. That makes the criminal case against Trump much less serious than the cases against Manning or Snowden. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/202 "2018-07-20T15:18:12Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > I just saw [this in the Chicago Trib](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-trump-treason-oath-of-office-0720-20180719-story.html). Kinda took the air out of my balloon. > > “Under the current circumstances, a charge of treason could not lead to prosecution of this president. The charge has only been applied to betrayal of the United States during a time of war.” > > “Thus to be valid, charges of treason against President Trump would have to overcome a very high legal bar — with evidence involving aid and comfort to a battlefield enemy — a very unlikely outcome.” If only someone in this thread had offered a similar analysis! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/203 "2018-07-20T15:21:02Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Does being a dope insulate him from accusations of treason? > > Or rather, if you commit a treasonous act out of stupidity are you off the hook for treason? Most likely not. What insulates him from accusations of treason in the criminal sense is the words of the criminal statute and the caselaw construing it. Nothing insulates him from accusations of _treason_ in the sense of, “He’s betraying the ideals I believe this country should uphold!” ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/204 "2018-07-20T15:49:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Most likely not. What insulates him from accusations of treason in the criminal sense is the words of the criminal statute and the caselaw construing it. > > Nothing insulates him from accusations of _treason_ in the sense of, “He’s betraying the ideals I believe this country should uphold!” Amen to that. Going back a few pages in the thread, I think a “Trump the Traitor” concept would make a strong messaging core for unseating him in 2020. (Assuming he lasts that long.) Not in the idiotic way of referring to him by those terms in every speech and tweet, but as a way to make his shortcomings palpable to people who may not be seeing the change they hoped he’d bring about. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/205 "2018-07-20T15:56:21Z")
There was an article by some guy at the Washington Post that says the Constitution defines treason as aiding or providing comfort to enemies in time of war. Since we are not “at war” with Russia, there can be no treason here, the writer stated. Me? Just more proof that the Cheeto Bandito is the world’s biggest fuck-up. But we knew that going in. Goddammit, we got rid of Nixon for way less. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/206 "2018-07-20T16:14:04Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > “Under the current circumstances, a charge of treason could not lead to prosecution of this president. The charge has only been applied to betrayal of the United States during a time of war.” > > “Thus to be valid, charges of treason against President Trump would have to overcome a very high legal bar — with evidence involving aid and comfort to a battlefield enemy — a very unlikely outcome.” Well, in other areas the law is exceedingly generous in interpreting what constitutes “a time of war”. > [@](#): > > Trump could invoke the “Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917” to hit a nation with tariffs as high as he wants. Under the law, the president can restrict all types of trade “during time of war.” That definition is very loose though. > > America doesn’t have to be at war with a particular nation – it just has to be “at war” somewhere in the world in order to apply tariffs against other countries. > > Experts believe U.S. special forces in Syria and Libya would suffice to meet that requirement for Trump to hit countries such as China and Mexico with tariffs. > > In 1971, President Richard Nixon used this act to impose a 10% import tariff (not directed at any particular nation) citing the Korean War, which had ended nearly two decades prior. Technically, America was still in a state of emergency which had not lifted. > > SOURCE: [President Trump can levy tariffs without Congress](https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/23/news/economy/trump-tariff-power/index.html) If the law can be so loose for this then why not for a charge of treason? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/207 "2018-07-20T16:14:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Was one of the ideas this country was founded on the concept that we elect representative leaders **and grant them** the power to makes laws and policies? I think the more precise and accurate formulation of this is **and entrust them with**. I’m also less than comfortable about characterizing these public servants as “leaders.” btw, thank you for responding to my question in Post 134. In retrospect, I note that the phrasing was, if not presumptuous, at least cheeky. In the future, I’ll endeavor to be less personal. I’ll also work on phrasing my questions in such a way as to make them less susceptible to sophist and/or tautological evasion. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/208 "2018-07-20T16:20:39Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > “Under the current circumstances, a charge of treason could not lead to prosecution of this president. The charge has only been applied to betrayal of the United States during a time of war.” > > “Thus to be valid, charges of treason against President Trump would have to overcome a very high legal bar — with evidence involving aid and comfort to a battlefield enemy — a very unlikely outcome.” > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Well, in other areas the law is exceedingly generous in interpreting what constitutes “a time of war”. > > > [@](#): > > > > Trump could invoke the “Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917” to hit a nation with tariffs as high as he wants. Under the law, the president can restrict all types of trade “during time of war.” That definition is very loose though. > > > > America doesn’t have to be at war with a particular nation – it just has to be “at war” somewhere in the world in order to apply tariffs against other countries. > > > > Experts believe U.S. special forces in Syria and Libya would suffice to meet that requirement for Trump to hit countries such as China and Mexico with tariffs. > > > > In 1971, President Richard Nixon used this act to impose a 10% import tariff (not directed at any particular nation) citing the Korean War, which had ended nearly two decades prior. Technically, America was still in a state of emergency which had not lifted. > > > > SOURCE: [https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/23/new...wer/index.html](https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/23/new...wer/index.html) > > If the law can be so loose for this then why not for a charge of treason? One could consider that the statutory nature of “in time of war” allows for more leeway than the constitutional nature of the definition of “treason.” ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/209 "2018-07-20T16:56:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What would be your reaction to someone who called FDR a traitor for violating the Neutrality Acts in the 1930s by illegally assisting the United Kingdom in the hostilities against Germany? > > I assume you’d disagree, but would you say that he had a point, just one you didn’t share? Or would you say he was absolutely without justification? I would respond that I don’t know enough about history to assess the situation, but if the judging party determines that FDR really did covertly collude with the UK with the intent of harming the US, then that would count as treason. It’s worth noting that for his own judgement Mr. Someone was the judging party, but when it comes to me agreeing with him, _I_ am. So either Mr. Someone makes a compelling argument defending his rather controversial opinion, or he waits for me to do the research. Which will probably be a pretty long wait, because it seems like a pretty dumb thing for me to worry about at this point in history. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/210 "2018-07-20T16:57:45Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Well, in other areas the law is exceedingly generous in interpreting what constitutes “a time of war”. > > If the law can be so loose for this then why not for a charge of treason? I will assume for the purposes of this question only that your article’s analysis about “war,” for the purposes of tariff law is correct. There are three independent reasons that the same loose definition would not apply: (1) Courts have already ruled that the definition of “treason,” is narrowly construed, and (2) In criminal law, that kind of potential ambiguity is always resolved against the government. The criminal code has to specifically give fair, clear, and specific notice of what conduct is prohibited. That rule does not apply to the tariff law the article mentions. (3) Even if we were “at war” somewhere in the world with some country under that generous interpretation . . . we are not “at war” with Russia. That said, I am skeptical of the author’s analysis but can’t say I have researched it. I simply suspect, as a hunch, that his assumption is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/211 "2018-07-20T17:03:24Z")
I missed the edit window on my above post - I should have said “traitorousness” rather than “treason” - lest I get drawn back into the legal argument. ---
**Author:** ![Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/channing_idaho_banks/32/250_2.png) [@Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Channing_Idaho_Banks)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/212 "2018-07-20T17:32:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I will assume for the purposes of this question only that your article’s analysis about “war,” for the purposes of tariff law is correct. > > There are three independent reasons that the same loose definition would not apply: > > (1) Courts have already ruled that the definition of “treason,” is narrowly construed, and > > (2) In criminal law, that kind of potential ambiguity is always resolved against the government. The criminal code has to specifically give fair, clear, and specific notice of what conduct is prohibited. That rule does not apply to the tariff law the article mentions. > > (3) Even if we were “at war” somewhere in the world with some country under that generous interpretation . . . we are not “at war” with Russia. > > That said, I am skeptical of the author’s analysis but can’t say I have researched it. I simply suspect, as a hunch, that his assumption is wrong. But what if they are at war with us? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/213 "2018-07-20T17:44:18Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I missed the edit window on my above post - I should have said “traitorousness” rather than “treason” - lest I get drawn back into the legal argument. I think the word we use for that is “treachery.” ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/214 "2018-07-20T17:49:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > . . . we are not “at war” with Russia. So without a formally declared war by congress a charge of treason cannot be brought (that or armed rebellion against the US)? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/215 "2018-07-20T18:13:36Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So without a formally declared war by congress a charge of treason cannot be brought (that or armed rebellion against the US)? That is exactly correct. Note (again) the Rosenbergs, who delivered the atomic bomb secrets to the (then) Soviet Union. No war, no treason. They were, of course, convicted of espionage, which does not require “war,” or “enemy.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/216 "2018-07-20T18:15:49Z")
> [@Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](#): > > But what if they are at war with us? Again for the purposes of criminal law, I’d say that a formal declaration of war is necessary from at least one side. If the Duchy of Grand Fenwick formally declared war on us, aid and comfort to them could result in a treason conviction even if Congress did not pass a resolution in kind. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/217 "2018-07-20T18:19:59Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I would respond that I don’t know enough about history to assess the situation, but if the judging party determines that FDR really did covertly collude with the UK with the intent of harming the US, then that would count as treason. > > It’s worth noting that for his own judgement Mr. Someone was the judging party, but when it comes to me agreeing with him, _I_ am. So either Mr. Someone makes a compelling argument defending his rather controversial opinion, or he waits for me to do the research. Which will probably be a pretty long wait, because it seems like a pretty dumb thing for me to worry about at this point in history. Here’s the problem you run into: both Congress and the President have legitimate roles in deciding what is in the United States’ “best interests,” and, conversely, what would result in harm to those interests. Now, if your intent is to remain squarely in the realm of reaching your own, independent conclusions on what changes in policy “harm,” the United States, and from that base reach further conclusions, have at it. I’m just trying to highlight the distinction between a determination arising from your own ideas concerning what the United States SHOULD regard as its interests, and what the President and Congress decide they are. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/218 "2018-07-20T18:31:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s the problem you run into: both Congress and the President have legitimate roles in deciding what is in the United States’ “best interests,” and, conversely, what would result in harm to those interests. > > Now, if your intent is to remain squarely in the realm of reaching your own, independent conclusions on what changes in policy “harm,” the United States, and from that base reach further conclusions, have at it. > > I’m just trying to highlight the distinction between a determination arising from your own ideas concerning what the United States SHOULD regard as its interests, and what the President and Congress decide they are. So, in order to accuse the president of being a traitor, I first have to get his agreement? :dubious: It’s pretty damn clear that both the president and a controlling portion of congress thinks that the president’s obviously traitorous behavior is OK. The immediate and obvious result of this is that the president will face no consequences for his traitorous behavior as long as these people are in power - this is a simple fact that I am not disputing. What effect it does have is that I’m not going to take their word on whether even they think these actions are good for the country. It’s pretty damn clear to me that they don’t give a flying fuck about what’s good for the country so they’ll clearly lie and say everything is kosher regardless of whether it is. TL;DR: No thanks, I’m not going to ask the foxes to tell me whether the henhouse is being raided. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/219 "2018-07-20T18:55:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Note (again) the Rosenbergs, who delivered the atomic bomb secrets to the (then) Soviet Union. No war, no treason. When the Rosenbergs stole the information the Soviet Union was formally a US ally. There is no way to make the case of giving aid or comfort to the “enemy” since the Soviets were, at least officially, not the enemy at that time. You cannot make the case today that Russia is a US ally. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/220 "2018-07-20T20:03:49Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > When the Rosenbergs stole the information the Soviet Union was formally a US ally. There is no way to make the case of giving aid or comfort to the “enemy” since the Soviets were, at least officially, not the enemy at that time. > > You cannot make the case today that Russia is a US ally. Don’t need to. I mentioned the Rosenbergs only as an illustration, but if you feel that the “ally,” thing makes some sort of legal difference, I’ll withdraw it. What makes a legal difference is the requirement for a formal designation as an enemy. And Russia, today, is not an “enemy,” within the meaning of 18 USC § 2381 and the caselaw that has applied it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154.md?page=12)