Absolutely right. And it will be replaced by a committee to impeach the president. Which will recommend impeachment, the house will pass it and the senate will spend two years debating it in order to avoid doing anything else.
Ted Cruz has already been running his mealy mouth about it:
Most Republicans would say no, because they still believe in the Nixonian “It’s not a crime if the president (R) does it.”
That’s the precise Republican strategy at this point.
It appears all those being subpoenaed for the committee are publicly stating they will not cooperate, and seem to just be brushing-off these proceedings with cavalier attitude - at least outwardly. Would seeing one of their own perp-walked, El Chapo-style, get them to take this thing more seriously? I was hoping that would be the case with Bannon, but he just seemed to give everyone the finger and then disappeared.
I’m guessing your book isn’t the US Constitution. Treason specifically involves aiding the enemy of the US in a time of war. And I mean an actual war that has been declared. Nobody has been convicted of treason since WWII, and those convictions involved aiding Germany or Japan.
The Rosenbergs are often erroneously considered to have been executed for treason, but they weren’t. They were convicted of espionage against the US. The US and Russia weren’t at war, so treason wouldn’t apply.
Treason is often assumed to be any betrayal of the United States but it’s much narrower than that. That’s why only 23 people have been convicted of treason in the entire history of the United States. And many of those people had their convictions overturned later, or were pardoned. Arguably some shouldn’t have even been charged (John Brown and Aaron Dwight Stevens in particular were executed for political reasons and certainly weren’t acting on the part of a hostile foreign power).
But bottom line, he didn’t commit treason any more than he committed assault with a loaded tuna.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
IANACS, but it seems to me that we don’t have to be at war. That “or” clause also defines treason as giving aid and comfort to enemies.
Now, I admit it’s a stretch, but I see people storming the Capitol as enemies of the US. (Imagine Al Qaeda operatives instead of right wing loonies and it’s not so far-fetched.) So if they’re enemies, wouldn’t anyone aiding them be guilty of treason?
(I know it’s never going to happen.)
In US v. Greathouse et al. in 1863 it was established:
The term “enemies,” as used in the constitutional clause defining treason (Const, art. 3, § 3), applies only to subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us; it does not embrace
rebels in insurrection against their own government.
You can read the whole thing in this PDF.
But basically, no, your definition of “enemies” does not follow US law.
Well, damn. What would you suggest is the most severe crime with which the people who hatched this travesty can plausibly be charged?
I am not a lawyer but I would think Seditious Conspiracy is plausible.
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
That seems pretty close to what happened on January 6, 2021.
“Not more than 20 years,” eh? So probably 15 or less. Not nearly enough of a deterrent, AFAIC.
Yeah, it’s a far cry from the death penalty of treason.