“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
But what does giving enemies aid and comfort mean? How are enemies defined? Do we have to have declared war against a nation (or a group like ISIL) for them to be considered our enemies?
So, here’s why I’m posting this here instead of another forum:
Suppose <shudder> Trump actually gets elected. Suppose too that he does the bullshit “blind trust” thing he says he’ll do with his business holdings. Suppose his kids are every bit as trustworthy as I think they’ll be in operating the company in the best interest of the United States instead of the best interest of the Trump family. End result: US foreign policy gets perverted in horrible ways to make the Trump family rich.
When would this constitute treason? Or it’s not treason, what is it? I’m thinking it has to be against the law, but then until recently I thought it was required of the POTUS to put all investment and business assets into independent hands.
Very few people have ever been prosecuted for treason. Fewer than 30 convictions in our history and I believe none in the past 50 years. It doesn’t have a good definition in case law.
It’s probably not against any law. It would be an impeachable offense, because anything Congress says is impeachable is impeachable.
How did they make themselves rich through the Clinton Foundation? Be specific. Name times, places, and amounts. Otherwise, publicly retract this.
What specific US foreign policy changes have taken place as a result of contributions to the Clinton Foundation? Take as much time as you need.
Or, to drag this more or less back on topic: what “aid and comfort” has been given to declared enemies of the US through contributions to the Clinton Foundation?
Still, even if it were so, it does not per se constitute giving aid and comfort to the enemy to shape public policy decisions in a way that lines your pockets.
There being no specifics as to what is the form of specific misconduct the OP expects to happen, it would be hard to say what would be the charge. Conspiracy to deprive of honest services? Insider trading? Illicit Use of Office? Unjustified Enrichment?
The Framers did right in giving the definition of “treason” constitutional rank, though. Because they could imagine people calling mere corruption “treason.” Or even mere policies you disagree with.
Anyway, getting back to the OP: I can’t see how treason enters into the issue of conflicts of interests at all. Not one bit.
The general concept of treason involves war and actual enemies. Not poor ethics and trade with countries that we wouldn’t want to be.
There are of course laws regarding sanctions on countries that we don’t approve of - but the term “countries we don’t approve of” should not be considered a synonym for an enemy. If Trump businesses were to start opening hotels in Pyongyang, there would be criminal penalties for any sanctions laws that were broken in doing so.
However, if President Trump decided to end those sanctions, normalize relations, and allow US investment in North Korea, and his kids took advantage of that to build hotels in the DPRK (surely to declare bankruptcy soon after construction completed to avoid paying that outrageously high North Korean slave wages – other countries have better slave wages – sad!) then to the extent the sanctions are eliminated legally… Well, the US elected the guy. And as H.L. Menken said, “Democracy is the concept that the people know what they want and they deserve to get it good and hard.”
I didn’t really see how it could be treason, but that’s why I posted the question.
It’s just that the far-right loonies have thrown the term “treason” about in relation to the faux Clinton Foundation scandal. (I could give a cite or two here, but I won’t. Google it yourself if you want, but I’m not going to promote these sites.)
OK, the Clinton Foundation thing was a pack of lies. But the Newsweek article about the Trump Organization seems to be a reasoned and balanced look at the issues, and concludes that at a minimum a conflict of interest between national security issues and Trump Organization coffers is pretty much guaranteed.
All of which got me wondering exactly what comprises treason. I’m disappointed that the worst that could happen for selling our national security to line one’s own pockets is impeachment.
Or is it? I live in Illinois. Former governor Blagojevich was impeached, and then convicted on corruption charges. He’s currently in prison – a fate he well deserved.
Treason has historically been defined very narrowly and that’s a good thing. Dictatorships use treason as a catch-all for anything they don’t like. The last thing we need is for “treason” to be the next “commerce clause” where government can jail anybody they want for virtually anything because it might give aid or comfort to an enemy.
Treason in practice is directly aiding an enemy we are engaged in armed hostilities with. This can be done by fighting for them, being a spokesman for them, declaring allegiance to their cause, or illegally providing them with aid of any sort, even humanitarian if such aid is illegal.
I don’t even think they charge spies with treason, do they? Spying for a foreign country can bring the death penalty anyway but was a treason conviction ever gained in an espionage case?
There’s no point since, as you say, there are other charges with an equally severe penalty. And those charges don’t require two witnesses to the same overt act.