OK, the notion that Judas betrayed Jesus is just an opinion, nothing more.
Got it.
ETA: I’m sure you’ll call out the priest celebrating the Mass next Sunday, when he gets to that part of the liturgy. 
My goodness, there’s a shrill note to your post that we’re not accustomed to seeing. Not to worry. Nothing about you alarms me. I appreciate the concern, all the same.
As for grandiose plans, I think when your side must resort to attacking Robert Mueller as a pedophile, you’ve kind of lost the moral high ground – as well as contact with reality.
I’m not worried about the mid-terms. Since only 27% of Americans identify as Republicans, 88% of 27% equals something less than 24% of the country that agrees with Trump. Most of us identify as independent voters currently leaning Dem, so I think we’re in for a good run in November.
Regarding Dems who are running on impeachment, you’ll have to show where I ever said that was a good idea. I haven’t. I’ve said Dems should run their local races – and that’s what they’re doing. Very successfully. Impeachment is always on the table with this “president,” however. Many voters understand this.
Suppose we define it as “arising from treason, but not including the requirement that it can only happen during a declared war because that’s silly.” In that case is trump a traitor?
I care about what the law and the Constitution actually says, not what random people on the internet “feel” it says. Call me crazy.
Again; if an American citizen had assisted the Japanese Empire in the attack on Pearl Harbor, would they have been immune from a charge of treason? No war was declared at the time of the attack.
Why was Walter Allan convicted of treason regarding a strike? No war was declared.
Why was John Brown convicted of treason? No war was declared.
Why was Adam Gadahn charged with treason? No war was declared.
I guess we don’t need the Supreme Court then, when we’ve got you.
OK, you’re crazy. 
I care about the law and the Constitution too, but we’re discussing a term, “traitor,” that’s not found anywhere in the Constitution, and probably not in the statute books either. And is not synonymous with “someone who has committed treason.”
It’s all well and fine for those of you that wish to do so, to debate whether Trump has committed treason. But that’s not the subject of the thread, per the OP and the thread title. Hope it isn’t too much of an annoyance if some of us continue to have that discussion.
Not at all.
But it is a bit frustrating that you seem perfectly comfortable in having that discussion without first defining what the word “traitor,” means.
Quite a few other actions have resulted in convictions of other crimes, even if they clearly amounted to treason under the Constitution’s definition. The Rosenbergs were executed for espionage, for instance.
“Treason? A mere matter of dates.”
- Talleyrand
That do ya?
There is another aspect to the charge of treason. We’ve been discussing the “aid and comfort to enemies,” aspect, which requires a formal declaration as an enemy – i.e., war.
But there is indeed another way to commit treason:
(emphasis added)
So it’s possible to commit treason by actively levying war against the United States, without needing a formal declaration of war. To the extent I implied otherwise above, it’s because the discussion was centered around “aid and comfort,” and my remarks were limited to that context.
To answer your question: * if an American citizen had assisted the Japanese Empire in the attack on Pearl Harbor, would they have been immune from a charge of treason? * It depends on the nature of the assistance. Providing them information ahead of the attack? No, unlikely. Directly attacking personnel, or directly damaging military equipment or facilities? Yes.
Walter Allen and John Brown both committed acts of war against the United States.
Adam Gadahn was never convicted of treason, and on the facts, he would not have been.
How did it “clearly” amount to treason? There’s a reason they weren’t charged with treason. It’s a very high bar for a prosecutor to meet. The summit in Helsinki is nowhere near that level.
We’ve already been over this ground. Merriam-Webster may not have defined it in a way that meets your exacting and particular standards , but they defined it, and I’ve given that as the definition I’m using here. So please do not say again that I haven’t defined it.
Reminds me of this:
Well, if dictionary definitions aren’t good enough for you, then Humpty-Dumpty is what we’re left with.
Every time I’ve heard this lately I’ve heard this from people who are doing it - they have a definition of a term they prefer and they use the Humpty-Dumpty quote in an attempt to shoot down other legitimate definitions, not realizing they’re being hypocritical as hell.
What is your problem with the definition he provided?
This is perhaps the most persuasive case I’ve seen for the success of the Trump summit: you can’t prove that he committed the most difficult to prove crime in our country.
Next you’ll be crowing about Trump’s success in returning from a golf outing with all twenty fingers and toes intact.
You haven’t defined it – because your proposed definition contains words that you haven’t defined. Specifically, you claim he’s undermined America’s interests, but you haven’t explained either what those interests are, or (to the extent you have explained them) you haven’t explained what OTHER interests are implicated, what the balancing weights assigned to each are, and why your view of those weights is the authority here.
Just a few days ago, in a thread questioning a choice President Obama made, I said:
Does your definition of “traitor,” mean ANY act against America’s interests? Or does it make room for an act that may run counter to some of America’s interests in service of supporting another of America’s interests? If the latter, does Trump have the same authority as Obama did?
See? You haven’t defined ‘traitor,’ except by words that still permit slippery, undefined equivocation.
No, a meeting with Putin does not. Perhaps you should catch up on the news with his collaborations and conspiracy with Russia.
If that’s not proven, then there is plenty of other criminal dealings. Shit, he should be impeached for his fake university and his bribe to Pam Bondi (just took that off the top of the shopping cart). It’s such a coincidence that she dropped the investigation on his ‘University’ after he ‘donated’ 25g to her re-election fund.
I would very much like to know where that 25g came from. Though, this shit is a drop in the bucket.
We have a criminal in the White House. Oh. Well apparently lots of them.