Mueller indicts 13 Russians for election meddling.

[CO. Hoosier]

As I said, embarrassing. Feel free to keep sucking that nonsense teat.

Well, I understand what the indictment charges. You are wrapped up in the paragraphs about Russian conduct because that is the political impact you want to discuss. That’s fine but it ain’t lawyering, and you lied about the indictment in your thread title.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

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.

What I’m getting at is do we eventually change the definition of what constitutes warfare? Means of attack and weaponry have changed since that was written. Do we leave it unchanged for simplicity’s sake? Will an “enemy” be relegated to someone we’re exchanging missiles with?

I realize you don’t know the answer to these questions, no one does, it’s just something I think about. It’s hard to imagine definitions won’t eventually change to encompass technological advancements. “Arms” has been made to include the muskets from when it was originally written to the semi automatic weapons we have today. I personally believe the founders would have been more specific on the types of arms citizens could own had semi autos been available at the time.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Well, I understand what the indictment charges. You are wrapped up in the paragraphs about Russian conduct because that is the political impact you want to discuss. That’s fine but it ain’t lawyering, and you lied about the indictment in your thread title.

So even Paul Ryan has this completely wrong, from CNN:

We have known that Russians meddled in the election, but these indictments detail the extent of the subterfuge," Ryan said in a statement. "These Russians engaged in a sinister and systematic attack on our political system. It was a conspiracy to subvert the process, and take aim at democracy itself. Today's announcement underscores why we need to follow the facts and work to protect the integrity of future elections.​

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

What I’m getting at is do we eventually change the definition of what constitutes warfare? Means of attack and weaponry have changed since that was written. Do we leave it unchanged for simplicity’s sake? Will an “enemy” be relegated to someone we’re exchanging missiles with?

I realize you don’t know the answer to these questions, no one does, it’s just something I think about. It’s hard to imagine definitions won’t eventually change to encompass technological advancements. “Arms” has been made to include the muskets from when it was originally written to the semi automatic weapons we have today. I personally believe the founders would have been more specific on the types of arms citizens could own had semi autos been available at the time.

Bravo Zulu! You’ve demonstrated you are capable of posting something other than witless snark. You do this more often, and stop trying to be witty (you’re just not), and you could get removed from the totally worthless poster list.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

So even Paul Ryan has this completely wrong, from CNN:

We have known that Russians meddled in the election, but these indictments detail the extent of the subterfuge," Ryan said in a statement. "These Russians engaged in a sinister and systematic attack on our political system. It was a conspiracy to subvert the process, and take aim at democracy itself. Today's announcement underscores why we need to follow the facts and work to protect the integrity of future elections.​

Just another Republican in a “bromance with all things Russia,” right?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Just another Republican in a “bromance with all things Russia,” right?

I don't know, have I said Republicans are in a bromance with Russia? Trump maybe, I don't recall saying it about Republicans.

 

[toastedbread]

Seriously?

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.

There is debate as to whether or not cyber war is actually war. I would argue that attacking critical national infrastructure would constitute war. Attacking election systems would fall under critical national infrastructure imo. This attack didn't rise to the level of attacking the systems directly, but let's suppose it did. It's a hypothetical after all.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I don't know, have I said Republicans are in a bromance with Russia? Trump maybe, I don't recall saying it about Republicans.

Three of your compatriots insisted they were in one. I knew you weren’t one of them and I thought you’d help a brother out by agreeing with me that their isn’t one.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Three of your compatriots insisted they were in one. I knew you weren’t one of them and I thought you’d help a brother out by agreeing with me that their isn’t one.

I do not think with mainstream GOP there is, Trump zealots on the other hand seem to like authoritarianism more.

 

[Ladoga]

There is debate as to whether or not cyber war is actually war. I would argue that attacking critical national infrastructure would constitute war. Attacking election systems would fall under critical national infrastructure imo. This attack didn't rise to the level of attacking the systems directly, but let's suppose it did. It's a hypothetical after all.

But there is this problem. We don't make these definitions. The Constitution does. No matter what we might want the definition of warfare to be - in order to take a President out and punish him as if he had committed treason - the crime has a specific definition no matter whether 12-15 posters on an internet board wish they could change the law to reflect their personal view. It just ain't so no matter how much some folks are consumed by their hatred. Goat spread it out for folks to see. Some would do well to read and learn rather than shout and scream wishing they could make up their own law to fit their own hate filled political preferences.

 

[toastedbread]

I do not think with mainstream GOP there is, Trump zealots on the other hand seem to like authoritarianism more.

Three of your compatriots insisted they were in one. I knew you weren’t one of them and I thought you’d help a brother out by agreeing with me that their isn’t one.

Putin/Russia popularity has doubled among pubs in2 years. Need another 20+ points before I'll declare a bromance, but the movement in 2 years is more than a complete outlier. Currently in the 30s.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There is debate as to whether or not cyber war is actually war. I would argue that attacking critical national infrastructure would constitute war. Attacking election systems would fall under critical national infrastructure imo. This attack didn't rise to the level of attacking the systems directly, but let's suppose it did. It's a hypothetical after all.

You guys are missing the point. It's not the type of war that matters. It's that the war isn't open and formal. You could help Russia blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and that wouldn't be treason, either. If you did it while we were at war with Russia, however, it would be.

 

[toastedbread]

Three of your compatriots insisted they were in one. I knew you weren’t one of them and I thought you’d help a brother out by agreeing with me that their isn’t one.

Off topic, but the other day you described yourself as a nationalist. I assume you meant Patriot?

 

[toastedbread]

You guys are missing the point. It's not the type of war that matters. It's that the war isn't open and formal. You could help Russia blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and that wouldn't be treason, either. If you did it while we were at war with Russia, however, it would be.

The moment Russia blew up the Brooklyn Bridge we would declare war with them. We didnt declare war on Japan until after Pearl Harbour. Would an American who participated in Pearl Harbour be open to Treason charges? If Russia attacked the Whitehouse with the help of Americans and we hadn't yet had an official declaration of war, I don't believe for a second that those involved wouldn't be charged with teeason. You can't preempt an unknown attack.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The moment Russia blew up the Brooklyn Bridge we would declare war with them. We didnt declare war on Japan until after Pearl Harbour. Would an American who participated in Pearl Harbour be open to Treason charges? If Russia attacked the Whitehouse with the help of Americans and we hadn't yet had an official declaration of war, I don't believe for a second that those involved wouldn't be charged with teeason. You can't preempt an unknown attack.

If it was the opening salvo in an actual war, maybe. But simply harming an adversarial nation isn't enough. No American who helped the Soviets was ever charged with treason. There's a reason for that.

 

[sglowrider]

It seems quite clear now that a few posters here may also be working at RT, judging by their latest article:

Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians perfectly timed to be buried in media cycle
https://www.rt.com/usa/419101-mueller-indictment-media-cycle/

The latest not-so-smoking gun in the ‘Mueller time’ saga – the indictment of 13 Russian nationals suspected of interfering with American democracy – comes at a time when it is certain to get the least media coverage.
FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller published the indictment on Friday evening – just two days after a high-profile school shooting in Florida. Both factors are likely to reduce the media coverage of the release, which apparently falls short of expectations of a smoking gun to take down the administration of Donald Trump, which many ‘Russiagate’ proponents have been hoping for.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Off topic, but the other day you described yourself as a nationalist. I assume you meant Patriot?

Of course I'm a nationalist. I'm a loyal citizen of this great country. I served this country in the military for 26 years. I've done my part in opposing our enemies. I do my part in that now as a civilian. Nationalist and nationalism are not bad things. They're good things. Most of my fellow citizens are nationalists too, even if they don't know it.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

The moment Russia blew up the Brooklyn Bridge we would declare war with them. We didnt declare war on Japan until after Pearl Harbour. Would an American who participated in Pearl Harbour be open to Treason charges? If Russia attacked the Whitehouse with the help of Americans and we hadn't yet had an official declaration of war, I don't believe for a second that those involved wouldn't be charged with teeason. You can't preempt an unknown attack.

You're an American - it's spelled "Pearl Harbor."

 

[Digressions]

Just another Republican in a “bromance with all things Russia,” right?

I understand the point you're trying to make wrt "the bromance", but I don't think Ryan helps your cause. He's quoted as saying something our intelligence agencies have been saying since before Trump took the oath, and what has he done to help prepare for, or prevent, the next attack? He's allowed a partisan hack to control the intelligence committee, which has done just about all it can do to undermine the very institutions we need to help protect us against Russian threats.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

McMaster now says indictments prove Russia meddled. CO seems on an island by himself. Well, maybe with Trump.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

McMaster now says indictments prove Russia meddled. CO seems on an island by himself. Well, maybe with Trump.

Standard CO trolling. I'm ashamed of myself for getting dragged into it. I should have just ignored him like I usually do.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Putin/Russia popularity has doubled among pubs in2 years. Need another 20+ points before I'll declare a bromance, but the movement in 2 years is more than a complete outlier. Currently in the 30s.

So? About 70% have a unfavorable view of Russia. I must note that when Mitt Romney correctly identified Russia as a growing threat during the 2012 election cycle, Democrats scoffed - including many here at the WC. They were wrong and he was right.

 

[toastedbread]

You're an American - it's spelled "Pearl Harbor."

Ive been living here too long

McMaster now says indictments prove Russia meddled. CO seems on an island by himself. Well, maybe with Trump.

McMaster is part of the deep state

So? About 70% have a unfavorable view of Russia. I must note that when Mitt Romney correctly identified Russia as a growing threat during the 2012 election cycle, Democrats scoffed - including many here at the WC. They were wrong and he was right.

Why did support double in a positive way, while Russia attacked our Democratic institutions? It makes absolutely no sense how any American could have a more positive impression of Russia.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I understand the point you're trying to make wrt "the bromance", but I don't think Ryan helps your cause. He's quoted as saying something our intelligence agencies have been saying since before Trump took the oath, and what has he done to help prepare for, or prevent, the next attack? He's allowed a partisan hack to control the intelligence committee, which has done just about all it can do to undermine the very institutions we need to help protect us against Russian threats.

Nothing the intelligence committee has done has altered US policy toward Russia. I'd recommend people here read some of our national security documents (unclassified versions are available), starting with the top one - the White House's National Security Strategy (NSS). Hint: Russia is specifically identified as a threat in the NSS signed by the President.

That link goes to the very brief top level summary and the full NSS is linked there. The NSS informs the National Defense Strategy, which is classified and lengthy, but an unclassified and short summary is available.

 

[zeke4ahs]

You're an American - it's spelled "Pearl Harbor."

Ive been living here too long

McMaster now says indictments prove Russia meddled. CO seems on an island by himself. Well, maybe with Trump.

McMaster is part of the deep state

So? About 70% have a unfavorable view of Russia. I must note that when Mitt Romney correctly identified Russia as a growing threat during the 2012 election cycle, Democrats scoffed - including many here at the WC. They were wrong and he was right.

Why did support double in a positive way, while Russia attacked our Democratic institutions? It makes absolutely no sense how any American could have a more positive impression of Russia.

Before I read or heard any dissection of the statement, it struck me how he kept saying this indictment. It certainly seemed obvious and purposeful to me. I guess not to everyone.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Ive been living here too long

McMaster is part of the deep state

Why did support double in a positive way, while Russia attacked our Democratic institutions? It makes absolutely no sense how any American could have a more positive impression of Russia.

Of course it makes sense. Those are the hard core Trump supporters that see the Russia thing as mostly a trumped up sore loser attack by Democrats on the President they support. What it really shows is they can't stand those Democrats and would take Russia over those dastardly sore losers. Why did 22.6% of Democrats think it was "very likely" and another 28.2% say it's "somewhat likely" when asked this question in a 2006 poll:

"How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"​

In other words, more than half of Democrats believed that it was at least somewhat likely that people in our government either helped facilitate the most deadly terrorist attack in history or stood by while letting it happen. Democrats made up the large majority of 9/11 Truthers (it was a regular thing at Daily Kos) with John Conyers even holding mock hearings (unofficial, but at least some televised) allowing, among others, some of the 9/11 Truthers to air their ridiculous conspiracy theories. Waxman gave them some credibility they certainly did not deserve. That's all pretty disgraceful, isn't it? The fact is that I don't think they really believed what they claimed to believe so much as they were letting their extremely emotional hatred of President Bush do their thinking for them. It's something people do all to often. Including certain folks here.

 

[Digressions]

Nothing the intelligence committee has done has altered US policy toward Russia. I'd recommend people here read some of our national security documents (unclassified versions are available), starting with the top one - the White House's National Security Strategy (NSS). Hint: Russia is specifically identified as a threat in the NSS signed by the President.

That link goes to the very brief top level summary and the full NSS is linked there. The NSS informs the National Defense Strategy, which is classified and lengthy, but an unclassified and short summary is available.

"The use of emerging technologies to discredit and subvert democratic processes in Georgia, Crimea, and eastern Ukraine is concern enough, but when coupled with its expanding and modernizing nuclear arsenal the challenge is clear."

They left an important country off that list, no?
With all due respect, simply saying Russia is a threat, isn't good enough. Please name one thing an elected Republican official has done to help prepare us for/prevent another attack on our elections. What little I have knowledge of, is being done in spite of Republicans, not because. And as I pointed out earlier, I think Nunes, et al, are actually setting those efforts back...to be kind.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

McMaster now says indictments prove Russia meddled. CO seems on an island by himself. Well, maybe with Trump.

McMaster's comment is ignorant and is unacceptable for a high-ranking government officer.

First indictments don't prove a damn thing. An indictment is only an accusation.

Second, the indictment does not charge anybody with meddling.

Third, a high official of the US government should not comment on guilt or innocence before trial. If the case were ever to come for trial, the defendants could seek a dismissal of all charges over the the mostly false publicity surrounding the indictment.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You guys are missing the point. It's not the type of war that matters. It's that the war isn't open and formal. You could help Russia blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and that wouldn't be treason, either. If you did it while we were at war with Russia, however, it would be.

Should Major Hasan have been charged with treason?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So even Paul Ryan has this completely wrong, from CNN:

We have known that Russians meddled in the election, but these indictments detail the extent of the subterfuge," Ryan said in a statement. "These Russians engaged in a sinister and systematic attack on our political system. It was a conspiracy to subvert the process, and take aim at democracy itself. Today's announcement underscores why we need to follow the facts and work to protect the integrity of future elections.​

I don't know. The statement is typical political mumbo jumbo meant for public consumption and quotability. It isn't meant to be a comment on the charges.

The indictment does not charge anybody with election meddling. Ryan didn't say that it does. So Ryan did not lie in that sense.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

"The use of emerging technologies to discredit and subvert democratic processes in Georgia, Crimea, and eastern Ukraine is concern enough, but when coupled with its expanding and modernizing nuclear arsenal the challenge is clear."

They left an important country off that list, no?
With all due respect, simply saying Russia is a threat, isn't good enough. Please name one thing an elected Republican official has done to help prepare us for/prevent another attack on our elections. What little I have knowledge of, is being done in spite of Republicans, not because. And as I pointed out earlier, I think Nunes, et al, are actually setting those efforts back...to be kind.

That's the unclassified version for public consumption. I'll leave it at that.

I care about what our policy is and we've not changed our policy toward Russia. If anything, it's gotten stricter against them. Step back from the politics and look at what is really going on in this country. We have outstanding Republican appointed people that are doing an excellent job with our foreign policy, starting with Mattis, McMasters and Haley.

 

[toastedbread]

Of course it makes sense. Those are the hard core Trump supporters that see the Russia thing as mostly a trumped up sore loser attack by Democrats on the President they support. What it really shows is they can't stand those Democrats and would take Russia over those dastardly sore losers. Why did 22.6% of Democrats think it was "very likely" and another 28.2% say it's "somewhat likely" when asked this question in a 2006 poll:

"How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"​

In other words, more than half of Democrats believed that it was at least somewhat likely that people in our government either helped facilitate the most deadly terrorist attack in history or stood by while letting it happen. Democrats made up the large majority of 9/11 Truthers (it was a regular thing at Daily Kos) with John Conyers even holding mock hearings (unofficial, but at least some televised) allowing, among others, some of the 9/11 Truthers to air their ridiculous conspiracy theories. Waxman gave them some credibility they certainly did not deserve. That's all pretty disgraceful, isn't it? The fact is that I don't think they really believed what they claimed to believe so much as they were letting their extremely emotional hatred of President Bush do their thinking for them. It's something people do all to often. Including certain folks here.

Nonsensical whataboutism. It's the equivalent of OBL's popularity doubling among Democrats after 9/11. Show me that poll.

 

[toastedbread]

"The use of emerging technologies to discredit and subvert democratic processes in Georgia, Crimea, and eastern Ukraine is concern enough, but when coupled with its expanding and modernizing nuclear arsenal the challenge is clear."

They left an important country off that list, no?
With all due respect, simply saying Russia is a threat, isn't good enough. Please name one thing an elected Republican official has done to help prepare us for/prevent another attack on our elections. What little I have knowledge of, is being done in spite of Republicans, not because. And as I pointed out earlier, I think Nunes, et al, are actually setting those efforts back...to be kind.

There is an element of game theory here imo. Republicans know that changing demographics are their worst nightmare. With each day, their supporters are dying. In such a scenario, you need outside help if you wish to remain relevant as a party. They won't ask for it openly.

 

[toastedbread]

McMaster's comment is ignorant and is unacceptable for a high-ranking government officer.

First indictments don't prove a damn thing. An indictment is only an accusation.

Second, the indictment does not charge anybody with meddling.

Third, a high official of the US government should not comment on guilt or innocence before trial. If the case were ever to come for trial, the defendants could seek a dismissal of all charges over the the mostly false publicity surrounding the indictment.

This I agree with. McMaster makes a lot of public comments that seem woefully inappropriate. Actually, that seems to be a trend in this administration. The behavior of Pompeo is deplorable.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't know. The statement is typical political mumbo jumbo meant for public consumption and quotability. It isn't meant to be a comment on the charges.

The indictment does not charge anybody with election meddling. Ryan didn't say that it does. So Ryan did not lie in that sense.

If the facts laid out are facts, what would you call them if not meddling?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If the facts laid out are facts, what would you call them if not meddling?

Assuming all the facts are true, they are definitely meddling. My point is Mueller chose not to charge the Russians with meddling. The thread title is a lie.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If the facts laid out are facts, what would you call them if not meddling?

This helps explain the problem many have with this indictment. Reading about the indictment is substantially different than reading the indictment.*

*FWIW, I think Mueller intended to produce more smoke than fire. The question is why?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

You guys are missing the point. It's not the type of war that matters. It's that the war isn't open and formal. You could help Russia blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and that wouldn't be treason, either. If you did it while we were at war with Russia, however, it would be.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but this is kind of what I’m getting at when you say “type of war”. I’m not talking about the current definitions of warfare and/or enemy. I wasn’t clear in my original reply (some members of the Duvel family were at my house). The question about being an “enemy” was partly rhetorical. I’m getting more into what people think about the definition or interpretation changing over time. After all, the constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Nonsensical whataboutism. It's the equivalent of OBL's popularity doubling among Democrats after 9/11. Show me that poll.

No it’s not. It’s 100% relevant to my point that emotion in politics shapes opinions.

Plus it’s nice to use a relevant aexample that shows how unreasonable Democrats can be too.

 

[Ladoga]

You guys are missing the point. It's not the type of war that matters. It's that the war isn't open and formal. You could help Russia blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and that wouldn't be treason, either. If you did it while we were at war with Russia, however, it would be.

Here's a cut and paste from the Constitution. Treason is what this says and not one jot or tittle more or less. Congress is granted the power to determine the punishment but not the definition.

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.