El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:59 am
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:40 am
Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:54 am
The T word is being thrown around a lot, and certainly Trump's a traitor in the colloquial sense that he is betraying his country on an epic scale. However, the Constitution is clear that treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. It would take some legal gymnastics to define Russia as such. There are legitimate reasons for impeachment, but treason isn't one.
US Constitution wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The Constitution is decidedly unclear on whether treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. The "or" is key here, because you could argue that the US has "Enemies" (whatever that is supposed to mean) that we are not at open war with. In such a case "adhering" to them or "giving them Aid and Comfort" would constitute treason. In fact, that might be a more logical reading, as it seems dubious that the founders intended to give someone a pass on giving aid and comfort to a hostile country right up until a formal declaration of war.
I would say that says nothing to indicate that treason is only applicable to countries with which the United States is at war. The "war" is only there as saying that levying war against the United States (e.g., rebelling or joining up with foreign adversaries) is clearly treasons. Specifically, what that clause is doing is limiting the *types of acts* that can be labeled treason. That is, you can only be charged with treason if you:
(1) Wage war against the United States; OR
(2) "Adhere" to the enemies of the United States (presumably pledging loyalty to or something along those lines).
The "aid and comfort" clause is a little confusing; I guess I would read that as applying to acts (1) and (2) - basically in either waging war or adhering to enemies, you must give "aid and comfort" to the enemies. That would probably mean something like doing something material to aid them (as opposed to, say, passively supporting).
To charge someone with treason you would need to define a country or group as an "enemy" of the United States, but I see no basis in that clause for reading war as a prerequisite to the definition of an enemy.
It seems to be a bit of a gray area.
According to 50 USCS § 2204 [Title 50. War and National Defense; Chapter 39. Spoils of War], enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;
(3) the term "person" means
(A) any natural person;
(B) any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity; and
(C) any organization, association, or group.
That definition just shifts the vagueness from "enemy" to "hostilities." At least half of the world has hostile intent, but "hostilities" is generally understood to mean warfare. The US has foes, it has adversaries, it has competitors, it has rivals. Russia is all of these. But they don't rise to the status of enemies without armed conflict. Yes, attacking our elections is a hostile act, but we are not engaged in hostilities. If Russia were an actual bona fide enemy, they would not be ferrying our astronauts to the ISS.
Now, NK is an enemy because we are technically still at war with them. You might have a legal case for treason there if he were to cross the line into "aid and comfort" (which doesn't encompass inept diplomacy, IMO).
Most of us can plainly see that Trump's a traitor, but I won't agree that he's a firing-squad eligible Traitor, nor do I expect to see anyone in a position of authority make that argument. At least not based on what we know so far.