Agree that it can certainly be tricky, at least from what I can see. But “Treason” doesn’t only require war - in the Constitutional definition it can also be “aid and comfort to the enemy”.
So if Trump colluded with Russia as a quid pro quo for lessening sanctions against Putin, I’d think it would definitely apply. Whether or not a charge of “treason” is pursued would be a separate matter of course.
However…
So, even if they tried to indict, it’d probably go straight to the USSC. To be decided by Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Kennedy.
Only if you define pre-Trump Russia as an “enemy”. If you’re using a definition that loose, it would apply to basically any country in the world that makes any effort to resist US domination.
Interestingly, a few days after this article the NY Times posted this legal memo written during the Whitewater era, which came to a conclusion that the President was indictable.
Well that right there. Like I said the usual legal theory on the subject. Given the context “enemy” there is usually interpreted to mean a country or entity we’re at war with. And you can have such an entity without an declaration war if there are plausible acts of war involved.
Treason charges in US history are incredibly rare. Fewer than 30 people have even been charged. In our whole history.
Its unlikely that anything going on with the Trumps meets currently established court precident for treason. We are not at war with Russia. Russia did not commit an act of war against us (or that seems to be the usual read), the Trump crowd did not help them do so. Nor did they instigate such. And so forth. So its likely that whatever is there. That if it brushes up on what we colloquially call “treason” the actual charge would look more like an espionage charge. Or any of the other statutes we’ve come up with to cover the gaps there. Like we still technically have sedition statute on the books.
But again. That is all theory and precedent. You can absolutely make your argument. In court. And potentially win. Its just unlikely. There are much easier charges with similar penalties and weight that can be used.
First I wasn’t neccisarily referring to an indictment of Trump himself. An indictment of nearly anyone close to him would be disastrous and feed directly into impeachment proceeding (after which he could be indicted).
2nd the president can be named as an unindicted co-conspirator. As Nixon was. Its kind of an end round on potential restrictions on indicting the president. Lets you treat them as if they were a person being charged/indicted without actually doing so.
3rd So far as I understand it its significantly less clear that you can’t indict a sitting president. Indictments are weird. They are less charging a person with a crime. Then asking the Grand Jury to decide if its likely they would be convicted if they were to be charged with a crime. So its more plausible that you could indict a president, since you aren’t technically charging him with anything.
But basically you don’t set up a grand jury unless you are very seriously looking at indicting some one. And you don’t indict some one unless you are pretty god damned sure they’ve done something.
Yeah; it’s not a settled question. Hence, the USSC, where Gorsuch et al get to play kingmaker between Trump and Pence.
Unless Trump just fires Mueller, or pardons himself.
Edit: OK, fair enough about Russia not being a country that we’re in a declared war against. It seems we’re back to having a low-intensity conflict with Russia, similar in many ways to the cold war with Soviet Russia.
And yes, looking at the history it seems the most recent convictions date to WWII-era situations when the US was actually in declared war. Walker Lindh was apparently considered for treason charges by the Bush administration, for joining to fight with the Taliban in Afghanistan. But he eventually pled out to lesser charges.
The Rosenbergs were charged with espionage, so I do wonder if the Trump campaign’s apparent collusion with Russian hackers to break into the DNC’s emails, and possibly even her SoS emails, would count. For Trump himself that would go up against the question of his being indictable of course.
Of course it’s not a settled question, because it hasn’t happened yet. : )
But it does seem there is expert opinion that weighs towards Presidents being indictable.
We’ll see of course.
The democrats have been subsidizing corn for DECADES waiting for this shitshow.
We have enough corn.
Yup; back to potential impeachment. Which is 100% a political process rather than a legal one.
Facts, laws and evidence have no controlling power there; it’ll be decided based purely upon the self-interest of the legislators. So, unless the GOP base turn on Trump, no impeachment is likely.
Sigh…
This calls for a popcorn cannon.
I honestly can see a pretty clear pathway here. If you have multiple indictments of people sufficiently close to Trump. You have a conspiracy. That means you can name him as an unindicted co-conspirator . Then you can prove in court that he was directly involved in malfeasance. Then it really doesn’t matter if his base is still behind him. Because the political risks among everyone else are too high for that small group (what is it like 30% of republicans?) to compensate. So the public shit show is just too much for the GOP to be blase about. If it goes long enough a successful midterm for the DNC vastly shifts the point at which this happens. Its basically a complete replay of what happened with Nixon, and honestly what’s happened so far is earily similar.
Its time consuming, but its about the way this has played out before. But its contingent on two things. One Trump actually did something. Which come on. Confirmation bias or not that’s pretty clear right about now. And Two GOP congressmen give some sort of shit about something, anything.
Have I mentioned I’ve been working on that duel citizenship paperwork?
And that’s a problem; it’s assuming that the situation is like Nixon. I’d argue that what you’ve got is closer to a mix of 1850’s USA and 1920’s Germany.
To my eye, it looks like Trump has the support of the overwhelming majority of the GOP base. The only segment that he doesn’t hold is a small portion of the plutocrats, and they were the smallest of the three factions (plutocrats/theocrats/white supremacists) anyway.
He’s clearly flagged that he’s willing to abuse his appointment, dismissal and pardon powers to whatever degree is necessary to protect himself. And the party has been clearly flagging for years that they intend to do whatever is required to subvert the democratic process and maintain minority rule.
I got it from a basic awareness of 20th century history. Outside the USA, recognition of American imperialism and hegemonic dominance is not a controversial thing.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321
I feel like that was his gambit in calling Sessions to the carpet publicly. He doesn’t seem to have the stomach to outright fire people and instead leans on his appointees and hired thugs to do the dirty work. Scarramucci is brought in and Spicer and Priebus go down; Kelly comes in and axes Scarramucci (for being more Trump than Trump). Common, cheap executive thuggery.
I’ve was on a federal grand jury for six months in Los Angeles. Jurors came from as far as the Inland Empire and Ventura County, maybe even Santa Barbara, I think. The jury pool is made up of citizens from within the federal district courts’ jurisdiction. I imagine that the federal court in DC covers parts of Virginia and Maryland, and maybe Delaware.
Ooh. That’s a tricky move on your part.
