The substance of that article suggests some avenues that the existing law might be stretched, but concludes - correctly - that this would be a stretch, and not likely to succeed if tried.
(Fun fact: the Kelley case, which I quoted in my immediately prior post, and your link did as well, was a 1993 case involving bribery and fraud. The attorney for the United States was . . . drum roll . . . Merrick Garland!)
Yes, and yes! Trump is absolutely subject to impeachment proceedings, and for that proceeding, Congress is legally free to decide that his conduct is obstructive of justice, regardless of what the law might say.
Right. Because he’s a dope, and not in the good “Straight,” way.
I’m just pushing back on the assertion that “Trump = traitor,” is a statement of provable objective fact somehow, as well as the tendency to toss the word around without defining its specifics.
But as a matter of personal reckoning, his foreign policy has trended between “disaster,” and “merely horrible screwup.” I just recognize it’s personal reckoning, and not immutable fact.
For Congress to impeach Trump, the House has to pass, by simple majority, one or more articles of impeachment. And they must lay out the specific accusation. As a matter of tradition, they would cite violations of law, but they don’t have to. But they do have to define what, specifically, they’re alleging.
Which is exactly what I asked above: when you say Trump is a traitor, can you define, specifically, what you believe it means to be a traitor? You’re certainly free to abandon the legal realm to do so.
Generally speaking, to be a traitor (to our country) is to collude with an enemy country to engage in acts which are intended to be detrimental to our country or to be beneficial to the enemy country at the expense of our country. The fact that the enemy country is colluding to make these detrimental acts happen is itself sufficient to define it as an enemy country for the purposes of this definition. Note that the acts don’t have to be successfully carried out; colluding with intent to betray alone is sufficient.
Note that the ‘collude’ part is important, legal aboveboard negotiations do not suggest traitorous behavior, even if they involve concessions on the part of our country. Legal actions taken based on covert backroom deals with enemies, on the other hand, do risk this categorization.
Note that I said “risk”. The actual assignation of this label is subject to the judgment of the judging party, based on an analysis of both intent and consequences. And yes, a sufficiently biased/bribed judging party could judge the supposed traitor as innocent regardless of the facts. But isn’t that always the way?
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?
For that matter, are we seriously equating the domestic laws of an isolationist USA, which did not treat the UK in specific as adversarial, to the obligations of the USA to NATO now?
OK, you know, let’s say we do. Fine. I will stipulate that FDR was guilty of treason, by offering aid and comfort to our adversary, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He subverted our democracy and put our forces under the Windsor king. Hang him in effigy, then.
Let’s say that Trump is the new FDR, a People’s Hero who is reinventing the USA. Let’s say that he is remaking the world order, with a new axis of America and Russia, and the old alliances will fall away. The USA will become as tight with the Kremlin as it is with Westminster now.
As the old isolationists saw their order betrayed and replaced with a *new *patriotic order, so too will the old believers in Western democracy see our order betrayed and replaced with a new patriotic order around kleptocracy and the raw exercise of power. Presumably the free press will be decimated and de facto one party rule instituted to protect the new regime.
This new postwar order will be the new reality for up to three future generations. The American people will be propagandized that “Russia is our friend!” And presumably Europe will pay tribute on a grand scale to Putin and to…to Trump? He’s not going to be around to profit from it.
Is this smart? Is this sustainable? Is Trump even equipped to do it?
It is sometimes said that the Central Intelligence Agency became a tool of UK foreign policy. See the coup in Iran in 1953.
How much of the USA will an old fool turn into a tool of Kremlin? Trump is not as savvy as Roosevelt, Truman, or Eisenhower.
If you are having difficulty understanding how Trump thinks, read the following. If you believe this article, he’s actually acting in his own best interests, due to loans from Russia, that were funneled/laundered through Deutsche Bank. Is Donald Trump's Dark Russian Secret Hiding in Deutsche Bank's Vaults?
It was a point alright, but reckless, if it had succeeded America would likely gone to war with no strong allies, it has to be noted that Trump follows the example of those isolationists. Too close, I have to say.
When Chelsea Manning leaked classified information to the Russians, she was arrested, tried, and convicted. When Edward Snowden leaked classified information to the Russians, he had to flee to Russia to avoid being arrested. I don’t see any evidence that the Obama administration was soft on treason or espionage.
Do you really want to invite comparisons with how Trump is handling Russia? Hell, do you really want to invite comparisons with how the Bush administration handled the Plame investigation or how the Reagan administration handled the Walker investigation?
This is the way I see it. I’ve said before that I feel the main reason why the Russians assisted Trump was because they felt Russia would benefit if the United States was weakened by incompetent leadership. Trump being dumb was all they expected. Any direct assistance from Trump would just be a bonus.
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.
Obama did not pardon Manning, he granted clemency. A pardon absolves the person of the crime, but clemency means that he just commuted her sentence after seven years. Her sentence was 35 years, unprecedented for anyone else who had been convicted of a comparable crime.
The difference between what Snowden did and what Trump did is that Snowden was exposing actions of the U.S. government against its own people, violating the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. This is why he received some liberal support. However, Snowden would certainly face criminal charges if he returned home, and he was not pardoned.
This would be a terrifying scenario if Trump weren’t such an idiot. If he actually has something like this in mind (doubtful, because he never thinks more than one tweet ahead), his clumsiness would expose his intentions long before he could bring anything to fruition.
Then again, you could argue he’s already setting these wheels in motion – even accidentally – and the people whom we elect to prevent such a thing are sitting on their hands.
Well, perhaps, but you should be drummed out of office anyway just for teh stupid. The 25th amendment would serve nicely but I’m not holding my breath that’s gonna happen with the current cabinet.
