Per 18 U.S. Code § 2381, trumpo is a traitor, as is most of the rethuglican party.

[Elixir]

"When you hit Donald Trump. he hits back ten times as hard. Hit the United States of America, and the Donald whimpers and cowers in the corner. Pleeeeze Uncle Vlad, don't release those tapes!!!"

 

[ZiprHead]

Apparently there's some in congress too.

Aaron Nevins is a name that hasn’t appeared regularly in the news, but it was Nevins who not only helped the Russians go through their documents and sort them for those most damaging to the DNC. That included finding voter-turnout models and strategy on a district by district basis.

Nevins: Basically if this was a war, this is the map to where all the troops are deployed.

Nevins, the former chief of staff for a Republican senator in Florida and head of a pair of GOP consulting firms, made sure the Russians found that map and recognized its value—while also saying that he didn’t care if it was the Russians, because “their interests aligned.” That information allowed both Republicans (and Russians working for another division of the GRU) to target advertising and other actions directly to the points which Democrats had already identified as the most important. If it seemed that Republican campaigns were able to get into spots where Democrats were vulnerable and where resources on the ground were weak, it’s because they had a map.

And then we have this.:

Among those requesting documents from Guccifer 2.0 was a congressional candidate. Who asked the Russians for stolen goods. And got them.

43. a. On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, received a request for stolen documents from a candidate for the US congress. The Conspirators responded using the Guccifer 2.0 persona, and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate’s opponent.

Widespread speculation suggests that this candidate was Florida Republican Matt Gaetz.

Which would definitely explain why Donald Trump turned out this apropos of nothing tweet on Thursday.



One helluva coincidence.

The whole article is quite informative. I highly recommend reading it.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/7/13/1780236/-New-indictments-show-Russian-hacking-effort-was-large-intense-sustained-and-GOP-supported

 

[phands]

And today, he met with his Voldemort, and it "didn't occur" to him to ask for the deportation of the 12 spies....the tangerine wankmaggot is complete traitor.

 

[phands]

I think this morning's travesty removes any lingering doubt that Putin owns trumpo totally.

 

[phands]

I have never regretted being right so much as now. The treason index has never been so high. Ans now he's given up on any pretense, and is just trying to rewrite history.

 

[James Madison]

Here's the text for Code 2381...

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.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

So the list of traitors is at least....

The orange shitgibbon and his entire immediate family, perhaps with the exception of shit-for-brains Melanoma and the 10 year old with the poisonous father.
Most of the White House press apparatus - Spicer, Melted-face Sanders, the horrendous CreepyAnn Cuntway.
Manafort.
Cohen.
Pence.
Ryan.
McConnel.
All 8 of those scumbag religicans who met with Russians last week.
Bannon.
Gorka.
Hicks.
Haley.
Most Fox News pundits.
Nunez.

....more?

Doubtful.

The statutory language is borrowed from the text of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution borrowed a considerable portion from a 1351 English treason statute. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/2/section/II

Trump and those on the list did not “levy war” against the U.S. The “aid and comfort” language is also inapplicable because the U.S. was not involved in a war, something akin to war, or armed conflict with Russia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ZiprHead]

Here's the text for Code 2381...

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.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

So the list of traitors is at least....

The orange shitgibbon and his entire immediate family, perhaps with the exception of shit-for-brains Melanoma and the 10 year old with the poisonous father.
Most of the White House press apparatus - Spicer, Melted-face Sanders, the horrendous CreepyAnn Cuntway.
Manafort.
Cohen.
Pence.
Ryan.
McConnel.
All 8 of those scumbag religicans who met with Russians last week.
Bannon.
Gorka.
Hicks.
Haley.
Most Fox News pundits.
Nunez.

....more?

Doubtful.

The statutory language is borrowed from the text of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution borrowed a considerable portion from a 1351 English treason statute. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/2/section/II

Trump and those on the list did not “levy war” against the U.S. The “aid and comfort” language is also inapplicable because the U.S. was not involved in a war, something akin to war, or armed conflict with Russia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just because were not at war doesn't mean we do not have enemies. Were we not attacked by Russia in 2016 and beyond?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here's the text for Code 2381...

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.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

So the list of traitors is at least....

The orange shitgibbon and his entire immediate family, perhaps with the exception of shit-for-brains Melanoma and the 10 year old with the poisonous father.
Most of the White House press apparatus - Spicer, Melted-face Sanders, the horrendous CreepyAnn Cuntway.
Manafort.
Cohen.
Pence.
Ryan.
McConnel.
All 8 of those scumbag religicans who met with Russians last week.
Bannon.
Gorka.
Hicks.
Haley.
Most Fox News pundits.
Nunez.

....more?

Doubtful.

The statutory language is borrowed from the text of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution borrowed a considerable portion from a 1351 English treason statute. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/2/section/II

Trump and those on the list did not “levy war” against the U.S. The “aid and comfort” language is also inapplicable because the U.S. was not involved in a war, something akin to war, or armed conflict with Russia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you're defending the Republicans for being in bed with the Rus after they installed a Russian-friendly President. Historically speaking, would James Madison have produced such defense? Thomas Jefferson? Benedict Arnold?

 

[James Madison]

Doubtful.

The statutory language is borrowed from the text of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution borrowed a considerable portion from a 1351 English treason statute. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/2/section/II

Trump and those on the list did not “levy war” against the U.S. The “aid and comfort” language is also inapplicable because the U.S. was not involved in a war, something akin to war, or armed conflict with Russia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just because were not at war doesn't mean we do not have enemies. Were we not attacked by Russia in 2016 and beyond?

The “enemies” has been understood to mean a foreign power engaged in war, an armed conflict, with the United States.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Doubtful.

The statutory language is borrowed from the text of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution borrowed a considerable portion from a 1351 English treason statute. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/2/section/II

Trump and those on the list did not “levy war” against the U.S. The “aid and comfort” language is also inapplicable because the U.S. was not involved in a war, something akin to war, or armed conflict with Russia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you're defending the Republicans for being in bed with the Rus after they installed a Russian-friendly President. Historically speaking, would James Madison have produced such defense? Thomas Jefferson? Benedict Arnold?

I’m inclined to think neither one would have resorted to a false inference, as you did above.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

Doubtful.

The statutory language is borrowed from the text of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution borrowed a considerable portion from a 1351 English treason statute. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/2/section/II

Trump and those on the list did not “levy war” against the U.S. The “aid and comfort” language is also inapplicable because the U.S. was not involved in a war, something akin to war, or armed conflict with Russia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you're defending the Republicans for being in bed with the Rus after they installed a Russian-friendly President. Historically speaking, would James Madison have produced such defense? Thomas Jefferson? Benedict Arnold?

I’m inclined to think neither one would have resorted to a false inference, as you did above.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your conclusion is based on the doubtful interpretation of treason. Treason does not require us to be at war with our enemy.

 

[James Madison]

I’m inclined to think neither one would have resorted to a false inference, as you did above.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your conclusion is based on the doubtful interpretation of treason. Treason does not require us to be at war with our enemy.

The statutory provision, which is codifying the constitutional provision, which is what I’m discussing, does require war or armed conflict for the “aiding” language.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Doubtful.

The statutory language is borrowed from the text of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution borrowed a considerable portion from a 1351 English treason statute. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/2/section/II

Trump and those on the list did not “levy war” against the U.S. The “aid and comfort” language is also inapplicable because the U.S. was not involved in a war, something akin to war, or armed conflict with Russia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you're defending the Republicans for being in bed with the Rus after they installed a Russian-friendly President. Historically speaking, would James Madison have produced such defense? Thomas Jefferson? Benedict Arnold?

I’m inclined to think neither one would have resorted to a false inference, as you did above.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you won't answer.

 

[phands]

Your conclusion is based on the doubtful interpretation of treason. Treason does not require us to be at war with our enemy.

Correct. In fact treason has often been used to take over a country surreptitiously to avoid a costly and perhaps unwinnable war. Oh....wait....

 

[James Madison]

Your conclusion is based on the doubtful interpretation of treason. Treason does not require us to be at war with our enemy.

Correct. In fact treason has often been used to take over a country surreptitiously to avoid a costly and perhaps unwinnable war. Oh....wait....

The historical evidence shows the phrase of “aid,” and “comfort” required a war or armed conflict. The framers weren’t reinventing the wheel when they borrowed specifically some phrases from the 1351 statute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

I’m inclined to think neither one would have resorted to a false inference, as you did above.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you won't answer.

Your false inference? No. It’s futile to address your false inference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I’m inclined to think neither one would have resorted to a false inference, as you did above.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your conclusion is based on the doubtful interpretation of treason. Treason does not require us to be at war with our enemy.

The statutory provision, which is codifying the constitutional provision, which is what I’m discussing, does require war or armed conflict for the “aiding” language.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The thing you cited does not in its language:
"; or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere,..."

It states A or B. You are claiming it states A and B.

- - - Updated - - -

I’m inclined to think neither one would have resorted to a false inference, as you did above.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you won't answer.

Your false inference? No. It’s futile to address your false inference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is futile because you can't answer in support of Trump.

 

[James Madison]

The statutory provision, which is codifying the constitutional provision, which is what I’m discussing, does require war or armed conflict for the “aiding” language.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The thing you cited does not in its language:
"; or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere,..."

It states A or B. You are claiming it states A and B.

- - - Updated - - -

I’m inclined to think neither one would have resorted to a false inference, as you did above.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you won't answer.

Your false inference? No. It’s futile to address your false inference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is futile because you can't answer in support of Trump.

It’s called historical evidence. There is to “levy war” and “aid and comfort” to an enemy. The latter provision is applicable when there isn’t an armed conflict or war with a foreign power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It’s called historical evidence. There is to “levy war” and “aid and comfort” to an enemy. The latter provision is applicable when there isn’t an armed conflict or war with a foreign power.

The two are not mutually exclusive. It is not A XOR B , or rather, (A AND NOT B) OR (B AND NOT A). No, it is A OR B. So A AND B also satisfies A OR B. Likewise A by itself satisfies A OR B and B by itself satisfies A OR B.

Even so, we are at perpetual war against Terrorism. So we are always at War.

Also, we don't have a King. What we have now is a country with a representative democracy. Someone from within who is trying to subvert democracy is an Enemy of the Country. Also, a Russian spy such as Maria Butina on American soil is an Enemy in the Realm. Rethuglicans who gave aid and support to her country by subverting our democracy after she fucked them are Enemies within the Realm against the "King" i.e. representative democracy.

 

[laughing dog]

It’s called historical evidence. There is to “levy war” and “aid and comfort” to an enemy. The latter provision is applicable when there isn’t an armed conflict or war with a foreign power.

So why are you arguing that it requires a war?