They could take away Trump's discretionary certification power.
I'm not saying they should, but you asked what they could pass. They could pass that.
Mueller indicts 13 Russians for election meddling.
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
I'm not saying they should, but you asked what they could pass. They could pass that.
Ok, so, a combination of 4 & 6 aren’t giving aid to an enemy because? Is the type of interference not just another type of warfare? Trying to undermine the sovereignty of the US government and its elections?
I’m well aware the indictments don’t say any of this. I’m trying to get at why helping a foreign government undermine our elections wouldn’t be treason. You know, if they determine US citizens willingly helped.
What about the polling? That's why I said conservatives. They've done an about face on a whole lot of Russia questions. If the shoe don't fit, don't wear it, Aloha, but this video might fit your conservative comrades:
Why don’t you look up the elements required for treason? You’ll find that you don’t know jack about it.
Because an "enemy" for the purposes of the Treason Clause is only a foreign government (or perhaps quasi-governmental org, like ISIS) in a state of open hostility with the United States. I.e., actual, physical warfare.
In the last poll I saw, 30 percent, give or take, have a favorable view of Russia. So?
Not as far as I know. As far as I know, all anyone is pushing for is for Trump to essentially decertify Russia, and implement the discretionary sanctions already passed.
Exactly. And people on both sides of the aisle have pushed for that. Our policy toward Russia has really not changed. We’re still working with countries like Poland to provide defensive weapons systems and othe military assistance against Russia. Trump yaps, but other than not going through with the sanctions, little has changed in that regard.
So is it your opinion the definition of warfare will continue to be relegated to actually firing a weapon? The founding fathers couldn’t foresee the internet or Facebook. When talking about “levying war” or “adhering to enemies”, those two actions are automatically interlocked. However, when talking about the second amendment, “well regulated militias” and “the right to keep and bear arms” are kept totally separate in modern interpretations.
What I’m getting at, aside from my usual fan following me around, is when do we look at changing the definition of what we call “warfare”? The founding fathers couldn’t foresee cyber warfare. Trying to undermine elections and destabilize a government sure seems like it could be effective weapon.
“Sure, you helped Russia, but they didn’t shoot anyone, so it’s not treason”.
Actually, levying war and adhering to enemies are completely separate clauses that are unrelated to each other.
This is where the Dem memo might prove interesting,imo...Let's say it gets released in the coming week or so.And let's assume for a minute it is going to shed some light on exactly why the FBI exercised the choice to seek a FISA warrant on Carter Page,as opposed to other likely candidates like Manafort or Paps.And let's assume for a minute that the Dems choose to combat the Nunes narrative that Page was just a poor US citizen that the FBI unfairly picked on for no reason...
So against this backdrop of US citizens "unwittingly" cooperating with Russian agents,we now have a direct corollary to someone who made the same "honest" mistake in 2013.But we see that this person apparently ignored his earlier close call,and continued to engage in what could be characterized as shady behavior.And this person wasn't just an anonymous US citizen,but had actually been an advisor to the Trump Campaign and represented them in a meeting in Russia,that the FBI viewed as suspicious.Do Nunes and his protect Trump posse still try to play the "poor Page" angle? I'm sure that was the game plan initially,but this development could be a gamechanger.
I’ve already got a beer, I’m an American.
On Treason
(For @SuperHoosierFan and @toastedbread)
There are only two forms of treason in the United States: 1) levying war against them, or 2) adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. It is unconstitutional for Congress to expand the definition of treason beyond these two cases. Treason is the only crime so defined and limited by the Constitution. There is a reason for that: it was the habit of the British government to broaden the definition of treason to allow for the execution of dissidents that were not actually dangerous to the state. The Founders considered this tyrannical.
Levying War
The first type of treason only refers to American citizens themselves actually levying war against the United States. For this standard to be met, there must be an "assemblage" of people. I.e., some random jackass committing terrorism isn't committing treason. Even a couple of random jackasses aren't committing treason. McVeigh didn't commit treason. He still got the short end of a needle - rightfully so - but he didn't commit treason. The Whiskey Rebellion was treason. The Civil War was treason. You might make an argument that those rednecks who took over the nature preserve in Oregon committed treason, but I'd find it hard to believe a U.S. Attorney would actually try to go that far, and even if they did, I'm not sure it would fly. Point is, the first type of treason requires a group of Americans to actually rise up in some sort of armed insurrection.
Adhering to Enemies
This is the broader of the two. As famed U.S. legal writer Charles Warren noted, everything that would constitute levying war, if done on behalf of an enemy, would constitute giving them aid and comfort, but not all forms of aid and comfort would constitute levying war. So this type of treason is actually easier to prove. However, the enemy must be a government that is in a state of open hostility with the United States. It's not enough to simply be an adversary. There must be a state of war or a rough equivalent. Americans who sided with and/or helped Nazis and Japan were charged with treason. The Rosenbergs were not. They were charged with espionage, instead. A treason charge against them probably would not have stood.
Treason is a strictly defined crime in American law, thanks to the Constitution. There are historical reasons for this. Because of this, there are a number of activities that would rightfully be considered traitorous, which would nonetheless not be considered treason.
(For @SuperHoosierFan and @toastedbread)
There are only two forms of treason in the United States: 1) levying war against them, or 2) adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. It is unconstitutional for Congress to expand the definition of treason beyond these two cases. Treason is the only crime so defined and limited by the Constitution. There is a reason for that: it was the habit of the British government to broaden the definition of treason to allow for the execution of dissidents that were not actually dangerous to the state. The Founders considered this tyrannical.
Levying War
The first type of treason only refers to American citizens themselves actually levying war against the United States. For this standard to be met, there must be an "assemblage" of people. I.e., some random jackass committing terrorism isn't committing treason. Even a couple of random jackasses aren't committing treason. McVeigh didn't commit treason. He still got the short end of a needle - rightfully so - but he didn't commit treason. The Whiskey Rebellion was treason. The Civil War was treason. You might make an argument that those rednecks who took over the nature preserve in Oregon committed treason, but I'd find it hard to believe a U.S. Attorney would actually try to go that far, and even if they did, I'm not sure it would fly. Point is, the first type of treason requires a group of Americans to actually rise up in some sort of armed insurrection.
Adhering to Enemies
This is the broader of the two. As famed U.S. legal writer Charles Warren noted, everything that would constitute levying war, if done on behalf of an enemy, would constitute giving them aid and comfort, but not all forms of aid and comfort would constitute levying war. So this type of treason is actually easier to prove. However, the enemy must be a government that is in a state of open hostility with the United States. It's not enough to simply be an adversary. There must be a state of war or a rough equivalent. Americans who sided with and/or helped Nazis and Japan were charged with treason. The Rosenbergs were not. They were charged with espionage, instead. A treason charge against them probably would not have stood.
Treason is a strictly defined crime in American law, thanks to the Constitution. There are historical reasons for this. Because of this, there are a number of activities that would rightfully be considered traitorous, which would nonetheless not be considered treason.
Last edited:
How would you think they might vote? Get real the Pubs are the most hypocritical corrupt group this country has probably ever witnessed. There is no core value anymore and that vote, while maybe true to value, is the easiest straw man they have ever had to stand behind for their "Merica first" bullshyte.
TL;DR - There is no way in hell Trump or any of his people committed treason.
Cliff notes?
How would they vote on what? If you don't want to converse, just say so. Don't call me hypocritical and corrupt if you'd like to converse.
Last edited:
@Goat: pffft Trump is getting old. There is no meme that tells the truth about Trump that can get old. It's a message that needs to be repeated ad infinitum. It doesn't break any forum rules and people are free to Ignore me.
I didnt call YOU anything . You referrerd to the sanctions vote as proof the Pubs are not deflecting and tacitly supporting this moron and his Russian connections, as if that is some kind of proof of something. Clearly the Pubs have sold out any objective views on th situation which is underlined by their pathetic intelligence panels. Jeez read your post and mine for that matter. The sanctions vote was nothing but convenient cover.
Simplified ramifications.
Basically, Mueller is laying the groundwork. Anyone who is now vaguely connected with these 13 indictments, is screwed.
I'm a Republican. You paint with a very wide and inaccurate brush. Republicans are not big fans of Russia. The SecDef, SecState and UN Ambassador are not treating Russia with kid gloves at all. You mistake some political protection for Trump with agreement with him. There isn't much agreement with him on Russia.
Trump soils everything he comes in contact with, and whether you like it or not that includes the entire Republican Party.
Meh. Distinction without a difference. People like Nunes who are doing this just to offer Trump cover are nonetheless acting as Russian agents, whether they want to or not.
First, we still don’t know if Trump is actually doing what he does in regard to Russia because he’s beholden to him or something. We don’t know why Trump does much of what he does or says. He’s not exactly normal. Second, it’s only natural that Republican politicians would try to use the President (politically speaking) to get some of what they’d like to do before he’s no longer President- one way or another.
Yeah, but either way, Nunes' behavior amounts to the same thing. Motivation is kind of irrelevant at this point. That's my point. Whether he's doing it for Trump, for Putin, or for himself, he's still doing the same thing.
I read that piece tonight as well. It was written in 1918. If American citizens participated in a cyber attack/war against the US that would not meet the defintiond of Treason?
I would say no. Just because we use words like "attack" and "war" doesn't make it the same thing. There's a formality to it that's missing in this case.
In case anyone is laboring under the mistaken opinion that today's announced indictments mark the "end" of anything,I'm thinking Mr Manafort would beg to differ...
"Special counsel Robert Mueller's office dropped more potentially damning details -- from an allegation of "additional criminal conduct" to personal financial troubles -- in a response to Paul Manafort's request to change his bail proposal on Friday.
The newly discovered alleged criminal conduct "includes a series of bank frauds and bank fraud conspiracies," a filing from the special counsel's office said on Friday night.
No new charges have been filed in open court against Manafort since he pleaded not guilty to nine counts of money laundering and making false statements about his business on October 30. But CNN has reported that additional indictments against the former Trump campaign chairman are being prepared.
In their filing Friday, prosecutors allege Manafort received a $9 million mortgage on a house of his in Fairfax, Virginia, by giving the Federal Savings Bank doctored business statements that overstated his wealth. The special counsel's office said it could show the court evidence of this bank fraud "and other bank frauds and conspiracies" at its next hearing, which has not yet been set."...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/6e974906-1d18-3f49-992b-c15b041397be/special-counsel-court-filing.html
Similar threads
