Republican silence as the treason / corruption Trump / Russia crisis deepens is both deafening and alarming.
It reminds me of the Winston Churchill quote : ” They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.”
There are but two parties now — Republicans and Americans.
RESIST !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Please share widely!
bob-gardner says
It reminds me of what the Constitution says about treason:
” Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
I thought it was amusing but harmless when Christopher rewrote the Declaration of Independence. But when Fred attempts to rewrite the Constitution it’s just sinister. Mindless but still sinister.
Christopher says
Yes, but I did pretty much accuse Trump of treason, and I AM very careful to only used the Constitutional definition.
Mark L. Bail says
I’ve been surveying the laws possibly broken by Trump:
1. Foreign Agents Registration Act: Flynn and Manafort were demonstrably unregistered foreign agents acting on the behalf of Turkey, Russian, and Ukraine.
FARA also prohibits federal officials from acting as an agent of any foreign government, which puts Trump and probably Kushner in jeopardy during the transition if they claim to be acting as part of the incoming Trump Administration.
2. Foreign Intelligence Security Act. (I’m still reading on this. There may not be anything here.)
3. Obstruction of Justice. Lying to investigators. Destruction of evidence. Flynn may have lied to investigators; however, aside from neglecting to seek permission to represent Turkey and get paid by Russia Today, there is no public evidence of this crime.
4. Emoluments Clause/Constitution. Aside from the obvious problems of Trump and his businesses, Flynn hit the jackpot on this one. The clause expressly prohibits military from taking foreign gifts or receiving money without prior approval.
5. The Logan Act. Flynn. Trump, Kushner, Manafort. The Act prohibits carrying out negotiations with a foreign country. Reporters have said that there has only been one prosecution in the last 200 years; they are right about prosecutions. However, the law is followed pre-emptively.
As Bob Gardner points out, treason doesn’t apply to the situation because we are not at war with Russia. Trump’s behavior could accurately be described as “traitorous.” He could be guilty of “treachery,” which is not a crime. But legally, treason doesn’t apply.
fredrichlariccia says
All depends on how you define war. For Constitutional purposes it means military action. But by definition it can mean :
1. ” to confuse, perplex ”
2. ” active hostility or contention; conflict; contest ”
I would argue that though we were not in a declared state of war with Russia, Putin himself acknowledged that ‘ patriotic Russians, like artists’ , conducted cyber warfare against America to corrupt our election and undermine our democracy.
Christopher says
It definitely does not need to mean a declared and orderly war. If you take or suborn action hostile the United States despite being a citizen thereof you are levying war, or at least giving enemies aid and comfort. The point of the limiting definition in the Constitution was to make sure that speech and other forms of protest were not considered treason; remember this was before the First Amendment was added to more broadly and explicitly protect such things.
bob-gardner says
It’s a pretty short step from your definition of treason to declaring that the “enemies of the people” (in Trump’s words.) have committed treason by being “hostile” (to use Fred’s words) and trying to “confuse” us.
I’ve never seen anyone in any context argue that the first amendment should be used to weaken protections found in the constitution itself. It is about the most cynical and malignant argument I’ve ever heard. Is there any record from the constitutional convention, from the federalist papers, or from the anti-federalist documents , that support this bizarre and noxious idea?
SomervilleTom says
I hear you and share your concern. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle.
There IS a collection of hostile acts being taken by the US, Russia, China, and other Eastern European nations that we use the colloquial term “cyberwar” to describe. Many of the failures of the North Korean missile launches are being cited as evidence of this, as was a series of setbacks to the Iranian nuclear program some time ago.
This “cyberwar” is every bit as real as the armed conflicts of Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. The evidence of Russian participation in cyber attacks on the US during the 2016 campaign is overwhelming for any willing to see it.
In that context, the effort by Mr. Kushner and Mr. Flynn to arrange a secret and secure communication line to the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities and protection, in an explicitly stated desire to avoid legal and appropriate NSA surveillance, can only be seen as an act of betrayal. It was an explicit attempt to secretly meet with the leadership of a hostile power.
This act certainly appears to be analogous to Mr. Arnold’s treason. Certainly we are not in a shooting war with Russia today — the hostilities are nevertheless just as real.
The last time the US formally declared war was on December 8, 1941 — nearly 80 years ago. How do you characterize the armed conflicts that took place in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, and elsewhere?
How would you characterize someone who, for example, secretly negotiated with the South Vietnamese president to delay a peace settlement during an election campaign? Is that, in your view, a legitimate expression of First Amendment speech?
I don’t know if “treason”, per se, is the most appropriate characterization of this administrations apparent actions during the transition and after taking office. What I do know is that there is compelling evidence that:
1. This administration denied under oath that meetings took place.
2. After seeing proof that the denials were lies, alleged, under oath, that these meetings were inconsequential.
3. Now, after seeing transcripts and other evidence of the substance of these meetings, this administration alleges that they were — well, they say whatever comes to mind. It’s OK if you’re a Republican.
I don’t much care whether the specific charges are perjury (surely the lies of this administration are more consequential than Mr. Clinton’s denials about oral sex with a consenting adult) or “high crimes” such as money laundering, fraud, bribery, or the long and growing list of other crimes committed by Mr. Trump and his associates.
The bottom line, for me, is that this administration is toxic for each of us, toxic for America, and toxic for the world.
I think we need to take the most effective, most expedient, and most rapid path available for removing this administration from power.
fredrichlariccia says
Treason by any other name. The aim of my post was to raise the alarm within the progressive community to the shocking silence by conservatives in even acknowledging that Trump / Russiagate happened.
Christopher says
I absolutely did not argue that the first amendment should be use to narrow protections in the original Constitution, but rather pointing out the timeline and that the original protection was needed because the first amendment didn’t exist yet. You’ve gotten my comments completely backwards. Trump COULD argue anything he wants I suppose; Lord knows he tries. He would have NO case that the media have been engaged in hostile actions against the US precisely because their job is almost entirely protected by the treason and first amendment protections. There is ample evidence, however, that Trump has put the interests of Russia ahead of ours. For God’s sake, he publicly INVITED them last summer to hack their way into Clinton’s emails! Why is it you are so resistant to evidence that our intelligence agencies rely on and base their own conclusions, and that snowballs on a daily basis?
fredrichlariccia says
Distract., deny and delay.
Just read the idiots’ tweets BS to see who is trying to ‘confuse’ who.
fredrichlariccia says
Albert Einstein summed up our challenge thus : ” Democracy — rule by the people. Let us hope the people have their heads on straight.”
Mark L. Bail says
It’s party or country, as Fred says. Trump turned the country upside down. We are at a point in our history when our elected government when Russian agents are in the White House and advising the President and Congress could have slow-rolled the entire investigation, if no for leaks from law enforcement and the intelligence community.
In ordinary times, we should be very concerned about the leaks from the IC and law enforcement. They’ve been forced into the position of leaks because our elected government has failed to protect our country. The Democrats are limited by minority status, the Republicans by self-interest. The leaks are making sure that Trump is dealt with. It’s a bad situation, and a problem when we return to normalcy.
When it comes to the law, dictionary definitions may not suffice. Here’s the actual statute 18 U.S.C. § 2381::
fredrichlariccia says
Trump has released dark demons.
bob-gardner says
Nice use of spectral evidence, Fred. You must miss the 17th Century.
fredrichlariccia says
Trump has the courage of his ignorance. I’ll give him that.
Christopher says
I have come to the conclusion Trump literally does not know what he is doing. I mean that not in the usual sense of not having the knowledge, skills, and abilities to successfully execute a task (We’ve known that about him vis-a-vis the presidency all along.), but that he is in fact not aware of what he is doing at the moment he is doing it. In other words, I’m having a hard time explaining his latest tweets with anything other than sleepwalking.
johntmay says
Trump is a businessman who never sat on a board of directors and from the beginning, made his fame with daddy’s money and shifty lawyers.
fredrichlariccia says
The Godfather is running the government like the head of a family owned crime syndicate.. He demands loyalty oaths to him personally. Screw the Constitution. Violating his Oath of Office should be grounds to begin Impeachment hearings in the House.