Is it time for all Americans to stand up and shout "Treason!" against Trump until he steps down?
Hello there, Its another one From #Xtreme
Might want to bring a full bag of cough drops… that sounds like a very tedious 6 and 1/2 years of futile shouting.
And I’m not sure exactly why anyone would think that a President would be affected by people just standing and shouting a word… and anyway, would it be like… a chant of “Treason!” over and over for the whole time, or more like a long, drawn-out, single “Trrrreeeeeeaaaasssoooooonnnnn!” stretched over five years or so like kids trying to complete the entire chorus of Angels We Have Heard On High in a single breath?
I’ve got this image in my head of the old hag in Buttercup’s dream… or maybe the Knights Who Say Ni.
Seriously, though… don’t be silly. No treason has occurred—no, not even if he “colluded” with Russia to influence the elections.
Anthony Zarrella's answer to Did Donald Trump Jr. commit treason?
That answer was written a while back, about Trump Junior’s actions—but the legal reasoning is the same here:
Well, OK—has he levied war?
Of course not.
Has he “adhered to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort”?
Hmm…
He’s given “aid” to the Russians, sure.
I’m not sure he’s “adhered to” them—to me, that indicates an intent to be “on their side” against America, to essentially be “their man”, and I’m not sure striking a deal which only arguably subverts American politics to his own benefit really counts.
But the big issue is this:
Is Russia our “enemy”?
Now, in practical terms, we could debate the issue. But in legal terms, it’s not really debatable.
The President and Congress jointly have power over foreign policy.
Congress can only act via formal resolutions, and certainly never deemed Russia an enemy of the United States.
President Obama never did, either—in fact, he mocked Mitt Romney’s treatment of Russia as a hostile power. By 2016, he may well have been quite upset with Russia, but he never took any action consistent with considering them our enemies. If merely investigating possible cyberattacks made a nation our “enemy”, then we’d have practically no allies left in the world—even Britain almost certainly hacks us from time to time (it’s an open secret that even most allied nations have intelligence assets active on each other’s soil).
And President Trump… well, of course he’s not going to deem Russia an enemy in any formal sense if it means that he’d be exposing his own son to treason charges.
So, the only other way to consider Russia an “enemy” would be to identify an overt act of war against us. And hacking the data of private organizations (like the DNC) is not credibly an act of war.
And just so we’re clear, this analysis applies to the hypothetical case of actual collusion during the election.
The other argument—that Trump somehow “committed treason” merely by agreeing with Putin at a press conference—is too absurd to merit serious analysis.
Hello there, Its another one From #Xtreme
Might want to bring a full bag of cough drops… that sounds like a very tedious 6 and 1/2 years of futile shouting.
And I’m not sure exactly why anyone would think that a President would be affected by people just standing and shouting a word… and anyway, would it be like… a chant of “Treason!” over and over for the whole time, or more like a long, drawn-out, single “Trrrreeeeeeaaaasssoooooonnnnn!” stretched over five years or so like kids trying to complete the entire chorus of Angels We Have Heard On High in a single breath?
I’ve got this image in my head of the old hag in Buttercup’s dream… or maybe the Knights Who Say Ni.
Seriously, though… don’t be silly. No treason has occurred—no, not even if he “colluded” with Russia to influence the elections.
Anthony Zarrella's answer to Did Donald Trump Jr. commit treason?
That answer was written a while back, about Trump Junior’s actions—but the legal reasoning is the same here:
Well, OK—has he levied war?
Of course not.
Has he “adhered to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort”?
Hmm…
He’s given “aid” to the Russians, sure.
I’m not sure he’s “adhered to” them—to me, that indicates an intent to be “on their side” against America, to essentially be “their man”, and I’m not sure striking a deal which only arguably subverts American politics to his own benefit really counts.
But the big issue is this:
Is Russia our “enemy”?
Now, in practical terms, we could debate the issue. But in legal terms, it’s not really debatable.
The President and Congress jointly have power over foreign policy.
Congress can only act via formal resolutions, and certainly never deemed Russia an enemy of the United States.
President Obama never did, either—in fact, he mocked Mitt Romney’s treatment of Russia as a hostile power. By 2016, he may well have been quite upset with Russia, but he never took any action consistent with considering them our enemies. If merely investigating possible cyberattacks made a nation our “enemy”, then we’d have practically no allies left in the world—even Britain almost certainly hacks us from time to time (it’s an open secret that even most allied nations have intelligence assets active on each other’s soil).
And President Trump… well, of course he’s not going to deem Russia an enemy in any formal sense if it means that he’d be exposing his own son to treason charges.
So, the only other way to consider Russia an “enemy” would be to identify an overt act of war against us. And hacking the data of private organizations (like the DNC) is not credibly an act of war.
And just so we’re clear, this analysis applies to the hypothetical case of actual collusion during the election.
The other argument—that Trump somehow “committed treason” merely by agreeing with Putin at a press conference—is too absurd to merit serious analysis.
No comments:
Write CommentsThank you for your feedback. Reach out to you soon.
DK Extendz