Trump eased sanctions on 140 million barrels of Iranian oil. At ~$100 a barrel, that’s a lot of aid and comfort.
That still wouldn’t be treason, because the US is not in a state of war with Russia or Iran. The Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, Aldrich Ames - they were alll convicted of espionage and perjury, not treason. Even John Walker Lindh, who actually fought alongside the Taliban, was only charged with supplying services to them and carrying explosives
No American has been successfully charged with treason for any act committed since WWII.
I consider a nation and enemy if we both have nuclear missles aimed and ready to be launched at a moments notice. Who have we been justifying spending trillions of dollars over the last 80 years because of the threat. And don’t claim that ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.
China is such an enemy as well.
I’m curious how Congress can force the Attorney General to investigate and charge herself.
Well let’s see: we’re at war with Iran, and Russia is closely allied with Iran in this war, providing them with weaponry and intel to guide their use of it.
And Trump paused the sanctions on Iranian and Russian oil both, so that in the middle of this war with them, they can sell their oil at the current sky-high market prices, helping to finance their side of this war.
How is this not providing aid and comfort to an enemy? He’s making Milo Minderbinder look like an amateur.
Indeed, and Vlad is raking in the rubles, too.
Donald may be vulnerable on the “perjury” front. “Supplying services” seems like a possibility, too. As for “espionage”—there does not appear to be any question that Donald illegally kept classified material, and that he has illegally shared that material.
Put it this way: Suppose that, in 1941, an American had helped guide the Japanese fleet to Pearl Harbor, and provided them intel on which battleships were docked at which pier, and so on. Would that not be treason? After all, at the time, we had not yet declared war on Japan.
My head is spinning.
Trump, directly or through Hegseth, issued illegal orders to attack foreign nations.
Putting aside Iran, what about, as mentioned in my link, Nigeria? The U.S. bombed there without a declaration of war or invocation of the War Powers Act. So if a country that is is friendly to Nigeria is under U.S. sanctions, and I give that third country some aid and comfort (tourist visit?), did I, by your standard, commit treason?
I realize that Nigeria’s government did not regard being bombed the way Iran’s does. But as I’ve said before, it is the U.S. congress that decides if a foreign country is an enemy. Nigeria is not a legal enemy, and neither is Iran or Russia.
Sounds plausible to me. If we ever got to the point where there were 67 votes against Trump in the Senate, some such financial impropriety, even greater than what we have have now seen, would likely be at the heart of the articles of impeachment.
Ideally, I think the heart of the articles of impeachment should concern ruling by decree in defiance of the law and constitution. Dictators should be instantly impeached. But Republicans are OK with rule by decree.
Really? When did Congress pass a declaration of war?
“Enemy” has a specific legally defined meaning in the context of treason that requires a declared state of war to exist. It’s not a colloquialism.
Treason does NOT include being sympathetic to the enemies without taking action, aiding “enemies” during peacetime, or advocating governmental overthrow without assembling a force capable of doing so.
Where in the Constitution is this specified?
Perjury requires lying under oath. He hasn’t been under oath recently, as far as I know. Some depositions in his civil cases before he was elected the second time. Probably lots of lies in there, but I think we have a big enough list of things he’s done while in office.
The word “enemy,” as used herein, shall be deemed to mean, for the purposes of such trading and of this chapter—
(a)Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality, resident within the territory (including that occupied by the military and naval forces) of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside the United States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation incorporated within such territory of any nation with which the United States is at war or incorporated within any country other than the United States and doing business within such territory.
(b)The government of any nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.
(c)Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term “enemy.”
I.e., not for purposes of the definition of treason.
Treason, like high crimes and misdemeanors is not clearly defined in the constitution. The founding fathers didn’t think it neccesary to spell out the obvious.
If someone is your enemy you know it because you put up defenses against them. Like build up armies (or nuclear missiles) to deter them.
It’s specified in US Code. Not all aspects of law are in the US Constitution. Here is where it is defined:
Now, it does not say that you have to be in a formal declared war for them to be an enemy, and in fact it seems to explicitly say you don’t have to be. And this is a general definition, unlike the one Smapti gave previously.
the term “enemy” means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;
But “hostilities” does mean an armed conflict. If you remember the debate about whether or not killing people who were clinging to a destroyed boat constituted a war crime, in the actions the US took against supposed Venezuelan drug smugglers, and it was pointed out that once the US fired on those boats, that was an act of war, even if no war was ongoing. It doesn’t mean someone like, for example, China, who spies on the US and works to undermine the US economically, but hasn’t engaged in combat against the US.
If you want to see who has been convicted of treason in the US, and why, this article is a good summary.
I don’t think what Trump has done compares to previous convictions. Usually, when people claim he’s guilty of treason, it’s a conflation of the general term “being a traitor” as someone who has generally “betrayed” his country, rather than the actual crime of treason as it has been prosecuted in the US in the past.
If you have a counter-cite that “enemies of the United States” has some other meaning or that peacetime acts are chargeable as treason, I’d like to see it. The Founders definied it so specifically so as to make what could be charged as treason as NARROW as possible because of the way the British crown had abused it for centuries. It would be very odd if “enemy” had a broader definition in a treason charge than it does for a lesser offense.
The senate can convict on the basis of any evidence it likes or none. It is not a criminal matter, purely political. As far as criminal proceedings following impeachment, that is subject to the usual rules of evidence, except SCOTUS seems to think there can be no federal charges, but that does not stop a state.
As for what do you impeach him for? High crimes and misdemeanors.
Three minutes before your post.
Even if, per Atamasama’s post, a declared war isn’t necessary, Russia still isn’t “engaged in hostilies” with the US, it’s still a no-go.
I’ll also point out the second clause about treason in the Constitution;
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
So you’d need two people to testify that they saw Trump provide material assistance to people engaged in hostilities with the US and did so with the intent of betraying his loyalty to the US. It’s a non-starter.
Didn’t Trump’s lawyers argue in one of his impeachments that the proper venue for his actions was a criminal trial, not impeachment; then argue before a court that the proper venue was impeachment by the Senate, and not a criminal trial?