Trump has committed treason, in my view

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that Little_Nemo asked three binary questions: ‘Did Trump take an oath?’, ‘Did an insurrection occur’?, and ‘Did Trump give aid or comfort to the insurrectionists?’ Atamasama replied, ‘It’s the law.’ His answer was non sequitur; by definition, ‘a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said.’

The allowable answers to such binary questions are ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Little_Nemo answered ‘Yes’ to the questions he posed. Does Atamasama concede the answers are correct? If not, which of the posed questions would he answer ‘No’?

In a trial, evidence is presented. Evidence is either true or false. It is only after the evidence is vetted that the question can be asked whether it indicates a law has been broken.

Not really. The truth is binary - legally at least.

But the answers to the questions aren’t necessarily. Did Trump give aid or comfort to the insurrectionists? Maybe. Therein lies the problem.

Yes, either he did or he didn’t. One person asserts he did. The other didn’t answer. Once the question is factually answered in the minds of the parties, then it can be debated which party has the correct answer.

Far be it from be to take the side of the orange fascist on anything, but even if we all know that Donnie gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists, it has to be proven in a court of law. Witnesses, documents, whatever. It isn’t enough that we know that he did it, we have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom. Since that has not been done, he’s free to run again and if our fellow citizens had any sense, he wouldn’t receive a single electoral vote.

How about, “I don’t know?” Neither does Little_Nemo. Neither do you.

I’ve said repeatedly that there isn’t enough evidence to show he did. Giving a speech in front of people with loaded violent language doesn’t even come close to it. So if he did, there has to be some proof of ways in which he helped make it happen. Or that he knew exactly what they were going to do from his speech. Because he didn’t say, “Go to the Capitol and physically stop them from certifying votes, kill them if necessary.” I think what he did was reckless and despicable and worthy of censure. I think he should be ineligible to run again. I think anyone who would vote for him in 2024 is an America-hating radical.

But I don’t see anything that seems close to giving aid or comfort to an enemy.

Those who said I’ve avoided the question aren’t paying attention; I answered it already in this thread in my statements. It was redundant to repeat the question. I’ve made it damn clear. :roll_eyes:

And I wasn’t quibbling. It might be true that Trump is guilty. In the law what’s true doesn’t matter. If I committed the perfect murder, made the body and method of killing disappear, left no trace, had a solid alibi for myself when the person disappeared, had no obvious motive, and so on, I can’t be found guilty.

This is the problem the election fraud folks have. They are convinced that fraud occurred. They see the lack of evidence as proof of how deep the conspiracy is. What matters to them is “the truth” as they believe it. I say don’t go down that rabbit hole.

You don’t know if Trump took an oath?
You don’t know if an insurrection occurred on January 6th of last year?

Little_Nemo asserts that Trump gave aid and/or comfort to the insurrectinists. Since the answers to the first two questions are ‘Yes’, that leaves the ‘aid and comfort’ question. Little_Nemo asks, ‘Tell me which of those things you think isn’t true and we can discuss it.’ You have now indicated that your problem is with the last question, so now the question can be discussed, which you have started to do in your last post.

I’ve been saying that over multiple posts already. This discussion is getting tedious.

For crying out loud, I brought up cites discussing the problem with the idea that he clearly violated Section 3. Good grief.

Stay tuned.

I doubt a case for treason can be made. But I believe sedition is within grasp.

I still think Trump is a traitor to this nation, but I’ve thought that since it was proved back in 2016 that he had signed a letter of intent with Russian officials to build Trump Tower Moscow, all the while lying to the American people that he had no ties to Russia.

I think it’s possible too, and if it happens I think I’d finally feel like Justice has been done.

Can treason be retroactive? Let’s declare war on Russia, then nail Trump for his past treasons.

If it works, sure.

Ex Post Cheeto

Isn’t this issue similar to the whole emoluments thing? It’s in the Constitution, seems plenty clear, but the Magat-in-Chief ignored that and no one knew who had the authority to charge him with violating the law. So no one did.

See Post #42 above.

I think the big takeaway from the Trump years is that so much of our governance has been conducted under an illusion of noblesse oblige, or at least within a basic honor system that those with whom We the People™ task with overseeing our welfare will act within a certain principled code as outlined in the Constitution. Few of these constitutional issues have ever been put to the test. Now, virtually all of them have been, all at once.

Trump’s only talent is to see how many locks he can break to either a) enrich himself; or b) save his own skin before someone actually objects and does something about it. Turns out he could break quite a few with help from a craven Republican Party and the Russians.

The People™ were expected to elect honest, responsible persons to high office. We failed. Now we have learned where that leaves us, and more particularly, where it leaves us when virtually an entire political party abdicates its responsibility to the country in order to serve their lust for power.

The primary purpose for the January 6th House Committee is to learn what happened, where government failed and to make recommendations about how to strengthen our system to prevent such a thing from ever happening again.

I hope there will be laws that include such things as mandatory submission of tax returns; clarification on conflict-of-interest situations with mandatory divestment of assets and/or laws governing blind trusts; laws preventing casual nepotism; laws outlining minimum qualifications for certain high offices in the land… these and so much more.

Much better would be an educated populace that understands the importance of selecting honorable, educated, decent people to hold high office. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. We are a nation of ignorants who prefer to be entertained and who are easily bamboozled by the latest P. T. Barnum.

For these reasons, together with the willingness of the Republican Party to lie, cheat and steal their way to “victory” together with their hand-picked Federalist Society judges and help from adverse foreign interests, I am not confident it will be enough.

I believe Trump will be charged with something, if not treason. There are too many obvious signs this is where things are heading. Where Mueller failed, I believe lessons were learned about the degree of rot within the Republican Party.

I do not expect the House Committee to make the same mistakes. Nor am I worried about the DOJ failing to act once they have specific recommendations for criminal indictments from the Committee. If warranted, that will include Trump. The Committee has let drop too many clues about where they are heading with respect to Trump. They would not do it without express support from the DOJ.

I guess we’ll see soon.

Not at all. You made the simple declaration that Trump is unable to be elected president in 2024 just like Arnold is ineligible. First, the idea that it was an “insurrection” and that Trump provided “aid and comfort” to those individuals are very debatable points, and I don’t wish to rehash them. But even if they are true, there must be a finding of that by someone and during that finding Trump gets to present a defense that he didn’t actually do those things.

Until all of that happens, Trump remains eligible to be elected president. Therefore your assertion that he is ineligible is incorrect. That’s not legal bullshit, it is a simple fact. You cannot take your argument–one that is capable of rebuttal–and assume its correctness.

Unfortunately, that’s all too common here. Posters stating their opinions as if they were facts, in FQ/GD/PE.

This isn’t MPSIMS.

“Mandatory” … that’s so cute.

many agree with you, including me

it is what it is, now they have become the republicon party

Equally unfortunate is when somebody is presented with the facts and dismisses them as just being opinions.

I quoted the law and I presented the facts. If you think one of those facts is just an opinion, point of which one and explain why it’s just an opinion.