Directly? Or even indirectly from the Russian leadership? Sure. But you’d have to have direct evidence that Putin et al are, indeed giving the US president marching orders, instead of the evident fact that we have an idiot for a president. Being an idiot, sadly, isn’t sufficient evidence for treason or even a disqualification for being president, though it should be the latter at least.
However, if there is any actual evidence that Putin or the Russians are telling Trump what to do and he is following those orders then, yes, IMHO that would be evidence of treason. I’d say that Russia would qualify as ‘enemies’, and doing what they tell you too, as US president would be ‘giving them Aid and Comfort’, as that has been interpreted as including betrayal of US alliances (such as, oh, say NATO).
The trouble is going to be giving real evidence that this is the case. At a guess, even if Trump isn’t the sharpest tool in the dull tool shed, Putin et al aren’t going to actually be giving him direct marching orders that can be presented as evidence. And nothing I’ve seen points to Trump doing anything contrary to what he has talked about and nattered on about for years…in some cases decades. He really believes in most of the stupidity he spouts…and he’s made no secret about most of it either, so the folks who voted for him shouldn’t really be surprised. And that’s the rub…even if some of the things he’s doing are things Putin et al would agree with, hell, would want him to do, he campaigned on this shit. Folks elected him as president knowing he felt this way and would do dippy shit like this. And as president, he is empowered to do what he thinks he should wrt the electorate as long as he stays within the bounds of the Constitution.
I would bet a lot of money that Trump is under sway of Putin because Putin has some real dirt on Trump. Likely both sexual and financial but with an emphasis on financial.
Putin is former KGB. The KGB were masters at co-opting people. People a helluva lot smarter than Trump. For Putin and the KGB co-opting Trump was barely a morning’s work. They almost certainly have a psychological profile on Trump and know how to manipulate him which I doubt is too difficult being the narcissist Trump is.
Consider the numerous shady financial dealings we are aware of and his refusal to release tax returns (that he promised to release) and his dealings in eastern Europe. They probably have a lot of hooks into Trump by now. The sex stuff, if it exists, is probably secondary.
So they use a carrot and stick method and can make Trump do as they will same as they have done with countless numbers of people before him.
If Mueller uncovers unshakable evidence that Trump himself (not just Junior or Kushner) knowingly and willingly accepted help in winning the election, wouldn’t that be enough?
For a treason charge? No. For impeachment? Absolutely, IMHO at least (I’m no lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one). Now, if you say that the Russians then used this as leverage to get Trump to deliberately undermine NATO…THEN you are talking the realm of treason, at least as it seems to be defined in the Constitution.
So, yeah…get all that and I will be more than happy to say that the ‘plain and simple’ answer is ‘yes’. But right now, at this time and based on what I know of where things stand? Nope, not seeing it. I think folks saying that are jumping the gun and allowing their hate and emotions to rule. JMHO and all, and I can certainly see how Trump pushes folks buttons.
I don’t think he’s really a traitor. I don’t think he’s helping the other side to try to get them to win.
I think what people are seeing that makes them say “traitor” is that he is definitely not “on our side”. He isn’t interested at all in advancing the interests of the US or its people. His only goal is his personal image. To look “Winning”, Charlie Sheen style.
I don’t really care about his motive. Trump lied, discredited America, damaged our institutions, and helped Russia. Like the craven little Soviet bitch that he is. End of story.
A person doesn’t have to be loyal to the enemy to be a traitor. Benedict Arnold wasn’t a Tory; he did it for prestige. Betraying your country for money is also a fairly standard thing.
I disagree. “Traitor” is a strong word. It has the connotations we want: a person who has done something unforgivably evil and deserves the harshest punishment imaginable.
The hyperliteral legalistic defense is so obviously BS that those trying to use it only make themselves look more like craven fools (this thread is my cite).
It’s like if you go to a school board meeting and announce you have just discovered that the gym teacher is a pedophile who has done time for child rape. The gym teacher laughs and calls you an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, because “pedophiles, by the DSM-V definition, are attracted to prepubescent children, and the kid I did time for was 14 and had pubic hair! I’m an epebophile! Also, the conviction was for aggravated sexual assault, not rape! Boy, don’t you look foolish now!” Who would you say is going to be perceived as winning that argument?
I didn’t say a traitor had to be loyal to the enemy; I said a traitor has to do things aimed at an enemy victory. Benedict Arnold did aim for an enemy victory. Trump is only aiming for a Trump victory. He believes he is bigger and more important than America and Russia put together.
I do not believe this is the case. I think that Trump does things that overtly aim for Russian victory. (Well, Russian benefit - it’s hard to have “victory” without a declared war or something.)
With several of his pro-Russia actions it’s difficult to see what personal benefit he could see in them, aside from benefits that come one way or another from Putin’s approval.
So accepting all that you have said as true, here’s the part I don’t yet see strong evidence for: “…in exchange for agreeing to allow those agents to dictate foreign policy once you are elected…”
But, again, there’s also clearly a US interest in NATO partners contributing more to their defense than they have been. Is that a fair statement?
I mean, you may personally believe that the benefit from attempting that is not worth the risk of alienating those partners, but I can’t imagine you’d argue that this weighing is absolutely required for every reasonable person. Can you?
This isn’t “amicable relations.” This is Russia raping us and destroying our democracy while their spineless coward puppet sits there and takes it like a bitch.
You can’t have “amicable relations” with a bank robber while he is in the process of robbing you.
Ah the Humpty Dumpty linguistic model. If you have to rely on words that can have any meaning to win an argument than you don’t really have an argument.
Listen, if you are suggesting that “Traitor Trump,” is justified by the same logic and debate tactics that brought us “Lyin’ Ted,” and “Crooked Hillary,” then I certainly agree. There’s more inferential evidence for the Trump accusation than there ever was for Clinton’s supposed felonies or wholesale Benghazi slaughter plan.
I had simply hoped that GD would not, collectively, support that kind of tenuous logical inference. But if indeed you can rest comfortably on being as skilled a logician as Trump is, I won’t demand more from you.