No collusion? How about betrayal?
The question is raised by the Constitution. It is raised by a phrase in one sentence:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.The words "adhering" to our enemies and "giving them aid and comfort" define an act that comprises treason. To "adhere" to an enemy is to ""believe in and follow the practices of" that enemy. "Aid and comfort" includes approving what another country does by encouraging its actions and becoming passively complicit with them.
The Constitutional article is implemented in the U.S. Code:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
The Mueller report specifically stated that "the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." But it did note that the Campaign responded with an accepting and cooperative attitude by being receptive in some instances of Russian offers to help. At times, the campaign was complicit with the Russian efforts. The report stresses that it is not the final word on the Trump Campaign's involvement with the Russian government and that there might be more to find with further investigation:
A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps [instances where information could not be obtained], the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.Those statements in effect lay out a plan for further investigation of the Trump Campaign and Administration by Congress and makes a recommendation that it do so. Although the report does not formally make a charge of obstruction against Trump, it details 14 instances, any one of which could be a case against him, if Congress wishes to make it.
However, as Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have pointed out, Congress should not go hell bent for impeachment, Rather, it should focus on the fact that Russia has committed an extremely serious hostile act against the United States that transcends politics and threatens to throw the nation into hopeless dysfunction. Congress' job is to investigate all the factors that are pushing the nation into dysfunction and deal with them accordingly. Rather than rush into an effort for impeachment of Trump, Congress must use the facts established by the Mueller report as the guideposts for further investigation, analysis, and legislative action. If the facts lead to impeachment, so be it. But the objective is to save the nation. Donald Trump and what is done about him is merely incidental to restoring the standards of liberty, equality, and justice for which the United States strives.
Trump has betrayed the nation with his fraud, his malice, and his ceaseless lying. His personal history shows that he has always behaved this way. Trump is not the essential problem. The 40 or so percent who support him and the malignant cancer he brings to the presidency are, along with Putin's Russia, the sickness that has made the United States a democratic invalid. Trump is a growing malignant tumor on the body politic. If the nation is to survive as a democracy, he must be removed. But his removal will not necessarily put the nation into remission or restore it to health. To many, the election of Trump is a symptom that the country has relapsed into the racism, sexism, and inequality that it has tried to overcome. The kind of support Trump has is a symptom that democracy in the nation has a potentially fatal illness.
Although the Trump campaign did not have any formal agreement of coordination and conspiracy with Russia to meddle in the 2016, it was openly blatant about shouting approval and encouragement of Russia's efforts. It applauded Russian activities at obtaining Democratic emails and and offered comfort if not specific assistance. Approving so overtly of Russia's efforts was a betrayal of the nation. It offered no discouragement of Russia's intrusions and provided the comfort of giving approval. And that is part of the definition of treason. What the Mueller report documents is overt attempts to exploit the products of Russia's work:
After candidate Trump stated on July 27, 2016, that he hoped Russia would "find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump asked individuals affiliated with his Campaign to find the deleted Clinton emails.264 Michael Flynn-who would later serve as National Security Advisor in the Trump Administration- recalled that Trump made this request repeatedly, and Flynn subsequently contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails.
...
In sum, the investigation established that the GRU hacked into email accounts of persons affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, as well as the computers of the DNC and DCCC. The GRU then exfiltrated data related to the 2016 election from these accounts and computers, and disseminated that data through fictitious online personas (DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0) and later through WikiLeaks. The investigation also established that the Trump Campaign displayed interest in the WikiLeaks releases, and that the evidence was sufficient to support computer intrusion and other charges against GRU officers for their role in election-related hacking.While the Mueller report concludes that the Trump Campaign did not have a formal arrangement of coordination and conspiracy with the Russians, it details complicity through encouragement and anticipation of using the results of Russian intrusion. The Campaign's approval of Russian hacking is an act of betrayal.
As Congress pursues the factual guideposts furnished by the Mueller Report, it should not limit itself to acts of obstruction of justice. Despite the Report's declaration that no evidence was found that the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia in its sweeping and systematic effort, the Report provides specific instances of betrayal. It is Congress's job to determine if the actions of the Campaign in adhering to Russian efforts offered enough aid and comfort to comprise acts of treason.
7 comments:
Since treason is defined as aiding or giving comfort to an "enemy," how would law enforcement determine whether a country is an enemy? Does it require proof that the purported "enemy" country has declared war on the USA; or perhaps proof of a formal resolution by Congress declaring the country to be an "enemy?"
It would seem mere public opinion would be insufficient. Indeed, some members of the public, including many if not most Trump supporters probably see Russia as an ally for helping get their supreme leader elected President, even if Russia violated a few US laws in doing so (the old ends justify the means rationale).
On the other hand, in the 1950's Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of "treason" and executed for passing classified information to Russia, suggesting that Russia qualified as an "enemy." I am unaware of analysis (there may well be an explanation somewhere I haven't come across), however, that explains the factors used to determine that Russia qualified an "enemy" within the meaning of our treason statutes in the Rosenberg case.
While Trump is an unfit president and, in my view, he has in fact "betrayed" the USA and ought to be removed from office immediately and prosecuted for several federal and state crimes, I have trouble rationally applying our treason laws to him because I see see no objective justification for deeming Russia an "enemy" within the meaning of the treason laws. If Russia qualifies, however, then imagine how many other nations would qualify as an "enemy" under similar criteria.
For example, since Mexico is unwilling to assist the USA in persecuting and torturing adults and children within their jurisdiction to discourage immigration to the USA across our joint southern border, would Mexico also qualify as an "enemy" under or treason statutes? And if so, would a U.S. citizen's efforts to support this Mexican behavior by, for example, donating money or volunteering to help the Mexican government in humanitarian efforts to help people who want to come to the USA be deemed aid and comfort to our enemy - i.e. "treason?"
Russia has attacked and is still attacking the US. That's right: the vast wrong-wing conspiracy was going to beat Hillary Clinton at any cost even if it meant conspiring with Cambridge Analytica and a sworn enemy of the United States, destroying the presidency and taking down the republic. The paper trail is clear: John Thune made Congress look the other way as Russia infiltrated Facebook.
18 U.S. Code § 4. Misprision of felony
U.S. Code
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
~ Trump knew Russia had illegally hacked Clinton's emails and didn't report it to Justice. That's a violation of Misprision of Felony.
Rosenbergs were convicted of treason? I guess that the federal grand jury, trial jury, judge and all the appellate courts fucked up when they charged and then convicted the Rosenbergs of violation of the Espionage Act of 1917!
David, I submitted my initial comment hoping to elicit a response from you describing the criteria you relied upon to suggest that Russia qualifies as an "enemy" of the US for purposes of the treason statute. My suggestion that it seemed unclear and possbily incorrect was not intended as a conclusion or even an argument, but more of an inquiry into your thought process, which I have come to believe is usually rooted in a factually accurate foundation. Any further information you believe might be helpful would certainly be appreciated.
Bearcreekbat,
I confess that after years of courting the Soviet Union and then making friendly overtures to Russia after its collapse, I was not sure how Russia would be regarded as an enemy. But as the cyber attacks are regarded as an invasion of sovereignty with the intent to subvert, Russia seems to qualify, not merely because it disagrees with our political stance, but because its intention is to do damage.
Thanks for your response David. From a practical standpoint cyberattacks certainly seem like they should be regarded as an invasion of U.S. sovereignty, but even that may not enough to satisfy the criminal law element of treason, since the U.S, has never declared war on Russia.
And, of course, Spudweiser is correct and I was mistaken. The Rosenbergs were not convicted of treason, they were convicted of espionage. Mea culpa. Atomic heritage reports, the Rosenbergs:
". . . were charged with conspiracy and providing atomic secrets to the USSR. They could not be charged for treason since the U.S. was not at war with the USSR."
https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/rosenberg-trial
The only problem with that statement, however, is that the Rosenbergs were sentenced to death. Section 2a of the espionage statute apparently required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Rosensberg's illegal conduct was committed at a time when the U.S. was at war, presumably to assist some country with which the U.S, was, in fact, at war.
"Provided, That whoever shall violate the provisions of subsection:
(a) of this section in time of war shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years. . . ."
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=3&psid=3904
Post a Comment