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

[ZiprHead]

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

Tell that to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. I'm sure they'll be so happy to hear they really didn't commit treason.

 

[James Madison]

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

Tell that to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. I'm sure they'll be so happy to hear they really didn't commit treason.

They were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage, and not the statutory and constitutional meaning of treason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

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?

Sorry typo..isn’t should say “is”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

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.

I never said anything about mutual exclusivity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

Tell that to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. I'm sure they'll be so happy to hear they really didn't commit treason.

I think in English history there were many attempted usurpations that were called treason. Some of them must not have involved being at war with a foreign power. For example, subverting the royal succession of kings by the English was seen as treason. Directly analogous would be to subvert a legitimate Presidential election to a different President than the people would vote for. And I think it makes sense that treason is sometimes from within like in such cases. Now doing so from outside is an act of war with the People of the country. Any adherents or those aiding such persons, either foreign OR domestic, are traitors.

 

[James Madison]

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

Tell that to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. I'm sure they'll be so happy to hear they really didn't commit treason.

I think in English history there were many attempted usurpations that were called treason. Some of them must not have involved being at war with a foreign power. For example, subverting the royal succession of kings by the English was seen as treason. Directly analogous would be to subvert a legitimate Presidential election to a different President than the people would vote for. And I think it makes sense that treason is sometimes from within like in such cases. Now doing so from outside is an act of war with the People of the country. Any adherents or those aiding such persons, either foreign OR domestic, are traitors.

The U.S. did not adopt the entirety of the English statute, and the “royal succession of kings” part of the statute wasn’t borrowed by the framers and no such parallel provision exists in the statute or constitution.

“When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his [Queen] or of their eldest Son and Heir; “ 1351 Statute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RVonse]

The only treason I can think of see as taking place is when our politicians allowed good manufacturing jobs to be exported from the US resulting in economic war with China.. But no one other than Trump is concerned about it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The only treason I can think of see as taking place is when our politicians allowed good manufacturing jobs to be exported from the US resulting in economic war with China.. But no one other than Trump is concerned about it.

That's a bit of a derail but anyway people have been concerned about this via not wanting free trade with such countries or demanding workers' rights in order to trade, thus evening the competition. It isn't possible to compete with worker wages of 16 cents per week, 16 hours per day with docking for using the bathroom. Yeah, but that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about whether Twitler violated 18 U.S. Code § 2381 by colluding with the Russians to gain his Presidential office. Colluding with the Russians to subvert democracy certainly makes him a traitor but is he technically guilty of treason via this particular code?

 

[phands]

The only treason I can think of see as taking place is when our politicians allowed good manufacturing jobs to be exported from the US resulting in economic war with China.. But no one other than Trump is concerned about it.

That's a bit of a derail but anyway people have been concerned about this via not wanting free trade with such countries or demanding workers' rights in order to trade, thus evening the competition. It isn't possible to compete with worker wages of 16 cents per week, 16 hours per day with docking for using the bathroom. Yeah, but that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about whether Twitler violated 18 U.S. Code § 2381 by colluding with the Russians to gain his Presidential office. Colluding with the Russians to subvert democracy certainly makes him a traitor but is he technically guilty of treason via this particular code?

Yeah...RVonse's reply is utter tripe.

That is indeed the question, and as the thread starter, I have to say that James Madison's stance is, according to all US legal opinion I have seen, is correct.... The US wording and subsequent writings all state clearly that a state of war must exist for it to be technically treason under this code.

So.....my OP title is wrong. The fact that the tangerine terrorist is a traitor in every other way doesn't change that fact.

It would seem that the definition of war might need revisiting, because the electronic warfare now being conducted by and against the US is still damaging hostile action by a foreign enemy.