It's TREASON not sedition

[4bonhoffer]

We are at war. The guy who has putin’s photo on the White House wall is working with putin . putin is providing Iran with satellite data that’s enabling Iran to kill our troops. Jesus H Motherf*,+king Christ. THAT, democratic representatives is something you should all be screaming about. For god’s sake. If we can’t call out obvious treason ….

[stopdiggin]

1. the 'obvious treason' - would be the picture on the wall .. ?

the prosecution of war against ..... ?

not discounting out of hand - but, if there is a specific charge you would like to lay ... ?

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Treason is narrowly defined

There is no nation the US has declared war on, so there is no legal “Enemy” to aid and abet which would be considered treason.

But despite that, it�s all impeachable, if we elect a house and senate with the courage to do it.

Reminder: the Rosenbergs gave nuclear secrets to Russia, but couldn�t be charged with treason. They were executed for espionage.

[Cirsium]

7. Really?

So treason (aiding people in killing US troops) is OK if the war is illegal (undeclared)?

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. Did Jane Fonda get charged with treason? How about the Rosenbergs?

Think about how attempting to charge Trump with treason would unfold…

US attorney: “but your honor, the defendant had a photo of Putin on his wall, and spoke to him frequently”

Judge: “charges dismissed, and I’m referring you for disbarment”.

Like I said, launching an illegal war is certainly impeachable, but not prosecutable as treason.

[Cirsium]

14. lol

Did Jane Fonda have a a photo of Putin on her wall, and did she speak to him frequently?

You moved the goalposts.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. She went to Hanoi and had photo ops with various NVA officials

The Rosenbergs gave nuclear secrets to Russia.

No goalposts moved, just an insistence on consistent, accurate use of legal terms.

Any member of the reality-based community knows how narrow the crime of treason is defined, and it doesn’t include photos and phone calls.

[Cirsium]

16. I know what she did

I also know about the Rosenbergs.

When Fonda was president did she give classified information to an adversary?

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. You don't know the difference between adversary and enemy, do you?

It’s the reason no one has been charged with treason since WWII.

[Cirsium]

19. Sure

Do you know the difference between a coal company and an enemy?

Walter Allen was convicted of treason on September 16, 1922 for taking part in the 1921 Miner's March against the coal companies and the U.S. Army at Blair Mountain, West Virginia.

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. Was he convicted of "aiding and abetting an enemy"?

Or was he convicted of waging war against the US? (the other half of the definition of the crime of treason)

I think you’re quite confused.

Crimes aren’t defined by how we “feel”, they actually have defined parameters that must stand up in court.

BTW, Allen was convicted of treason against the state of West Virginia; he was not convicted of the breaking the federal statute on treason.

[Cirsium]

22. Goalposts moved again

I don't have any feelings about this, so I am not going on how I “feel.” Nor am I in the least bit confused.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. The goalposts remain the same

The topic of conversation is:

Does Trump’s conduct meet the legal definition of treason? And secondarily, what is the legal definition of the federal crime of treason?

You say yes for “reasons” (definitely not feelings ) that are not connected to or supported by any definition of treason in federal law that has ever been successfully charged and a conviction obtained .

And I disagree with your position because of facts and reality, as described in my prior posts.

[Cirsium]

24. I didn't say that

I didn't say that Trump’s conduct meets the legal definition of treason. I simply asked you: "Really? So treason (aiding people in killing US troops) is OK if the war is illegal (undeclared)?"

[EdmondDantes_]

18. That doesn't change the legal definition of treason

[Cirsium]

20. What??

Jane Fonda admiring Putin doesn't matter???

"Legal definitions" are so 20th Century. Get with the program!

[lame54]

3. It's not what can see and call out...

Trump owns the enforcers
Nobody to bring these charges

[calimary]

25. But only for awhile.

He DOES NOT own ANY of ‘em for life.

He does NOT have lifetime guarantees on this.

True, as a FORMER president, he’ll still have guards that the rest of us will be billed for. But he won’t have the phalanxes of protection as a FORMER President that he has, now, as President.

Thank God!

[mr715]

4. "Low treason"

It isn't treason in sensu stricto but I get the point.

Treason is very explicitly defined, however.

[debsy]

5. Everything he does benefits Vlad in a big way!

[erronis]

6. Of course the "experts" on what is treason wlll be out in force. Maybe add quotes around it "treason"

and they'll understand it is a term for actions against this country.

Of course "traitorous" works but doesn't seem to have an entry in the Constitution that involves legal remedies.

[BattleRow]

8. Confederacy of conspirators aiding and abetting traitorous destabilization.

Sounds pretty high falutin.

If you cant blind them with your brilliance,baffle them with your bullshit.

Back at ya,MAGATs.

[stopdiggin]

9. and of course if you're just doing a 'rant' ....

and aren't really all that concerned about definition or meaning ...
then, go ahead - and fire away !

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. Impeachment is always an option

No statutory crime need be committed, charged or convicted for congress to remove a president.

Just courage.

[Six117]

10. ... kinda reminds me of that scene in the movie Nuremberg

Where Justice Jackson gets tripped up in semantics about Nazi verbage...

What a world.

[Denvermosaic]

11. The Democratic party is timid. Plays nice too often. Democrats who can hid hard are marginalize by the leadership.

[calimary]

28. That's what we have to fix.

And if we need to hit hard, for Pete’s sake, we hit hard.

NO timidity will be permitted, welcomed, or considered acceptable.

[leftstreet]

26. Trump let Israel influence his decision

Influence by a foreign government should be covered somewhere in the Constitution

You'd think

[vapor2]

27. 100% a traitor to this country