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.
If only someone in this thread had offered a similar analysis!
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.
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.
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 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. 
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.”
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.
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.
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.
But what if they are at war with us?
I think the word we use for that is “treachery.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.