It should come as no surprise that bullies fold like a house of cards in the face of someone they cannot bully and Trump is a bully through-and-through.
What easy defense do his supporters have? That because we’re not technically at war with Russia, he can’t technically be a traitor?
I think “Trump the Traitor” has a nice ring to it.
He and his followers have no trouble saying “Crooked Hillary” and “Failing New York Times” over and over and over again, so why not?
Ladies and gents, we have our 2020 campaign theme.
Really? Our dictionary would beg to differ:
“Traitor” - 1 : a person who is not loyal or true to a friend, duty, cause, or belief or is false to a personal duty. 2 : a person who betrays his or her country : a person who commits treason.
*“Treason” - the crime of betraying one’s country.
“they were convicted of treason”
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; sedition, subversion
*
Working with the leader of a hostile nation for personal gain against the interests of your own country is treason. Trying to cover up the fact that a hostile nation plotted and succeeded in subverting our democracy for political gain is treason.
His die hard supporters might want to take note of this:
*§2382. “Misprision of Treason”
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both*
Are we at war with Russia? No.
Is being a traitor helping a foreign country at our own expense? That’s a very broad definition that would apply to many politicians, presidents, corporations, and private citizens.
Because his followers are idiots and imitating idiots is unwise?
Under your first restriction, treason has been impossible since February 10th, 1947(the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty, ending WWII).
Do you know what else is unwise?
Playing touch football during an Australian Rules football game.
How would you define treason?
Letting China steal vast amounts of intellectual property? Trade with China so it becomes our strongest international competitor? Arming the taliban or drug cartels?
There’d be a lot of executed politicians if it’s merely helping a very strong foreign competitor.
I want a long-term win on a whole host of issues, not to further degrade thought and information so that it is really the equivalent of a game. Governing by tantrum is a bad idea, no matter who does it.
I thought we were discussing your definition of treason. Do you actually believe that since we haven’t declared war against Russia it is impossible for Trump to be a traitor if he works in their best interests and sides with their government against ours? If you do not believe this, why did you post what you did?
Plain and simple…no, he’s not a traitor by any definition I’ve ever seen. Stupid, vain and arrogant? Self serving and glory seeking? Self aggrandizing? Ignorant? Yeah, all of that. But a literal traitor? No…he’s not a literal traitor.
What type of silly question is this? What’s your goal?
My belief is that you need precision in law especially if the penalty is death. Mob violence and summary executions for political expediency is not my thing. Even if the targets are the so-called dehumanized deplorables.
Now if you have a useful alternative definition of treason please offer it. Otherwise what’s your point in posting? To contribute to an atmosphere of hyperbole and hysteria?
If the question is silly, then so is your definition. Leave aside your hysterical hand-waving and answer the question, please: Do you stand by your definition that we have to declare war before someone can be accused of treason?
A: I’m not your monkey.
B: it’s not my definition. How about you read the Constitution? And btw, it doesn’t say declared, it says at war.
C: what’s your definition so we can parse it exceedingly pedantically to see if there is any contradiction?
D: people can be accused, obviously, without any criteria. It’s happening in this very thread…
Did I pass your test? 
If Trump was taking marching orders from Putin would that suffice?
I think this nails it. He isn’t working on Russia’s behalf because he is loyal to Russia or even because Russia is paying him to do it. He’s working on Russia’s behalf because he is so stupid and arrogant he thinks it will benefit him to do so. Putin is so much his puppeteer it would make me cry if I had any tears left.
I’m of the opinion that the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of the fact that Trump is taking orders from Putin to engage in actions that are detrimental the US and beneficial to Russia. Even he is not stupid enough to fail to realize that he’s selling the US out to Russia. (Probably literally - his behavior is very likely driven by financial pressure, among other things.) So to put it succinctly, Trump is a Russian asset. Which specific moral failings allow him to be a willing asset are immaterial - greed, narcissism, whichever - he’s still a Russian asset.
Whether or not that qualifies him as a traitor depends on your definition of the term. I use the colloquial definition and consider Russia to currently be an enemy state so of course he’s a traitor. Persons who are using a different definition of traitor (and Russians) would of course disagree.
The United States isn’t Trump’s country, it’s just where he keeps most of his stuff.