We now have a smoking gun on the Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia. Don Jr. admitted to being interested in oppo research from a Russian lawyer. A person with an ounce of integrity or smarts would have never agreed to any such meeting. He, and practically every other person involved in the campaign, have lied about the extent of Russian contacts. It’s that simple. It’s not subtle.
To sum up:
Flynn: Met w/Russians; lied
Page: Met w/Russians; lied
Sessions: Met w/Russians; lied
Kushner: Met w/Russians; lied
Donald Trump Jr: Me too.— Caroline O. (@RVAwonk) July 8, 2017
As smoking-gun reveals go, this is terribly unsurprising. There’s been strong circumstantial evidence of contacts with Russia going way back in the campaign. Trump even encouraged Russian interference in a sorry-not-sorry way. And shockingly (to me), people voted for him anyway.
America is not America without democracy. The Constitution begins with “We the People”. The vote has been won, maintained and expanded at great cost of effort and blood. It is not an exaggeration whatsoever to note that democracy itself, our most cherished institution, is under attack, from without and within. When one attempts to allow a foreign country to interfere with the America’s most sacred function, that’s treason — every bit as much as if one were handing over some military asset or intelligence (which Trump also has done).
I think we on the left-of-center have been exceptionally patient and restrained in the use of that word. If anything, we on the left underplay the threat, and we soft-pedal the accusation, because we know it’s grave. We have the memory of McCarthyism and the Cold War, and we know how it can be abused, because it was wielded against the left.
At the same time, let’s see the plain facts in front of our faces. The Trump “family” (in every sense) is both stupid and brazen enough to implausibly lie, and then flaunt their betrayal. It may open them to great jeopardy, but politically it’s their great Jedi-mind trick: It’s fine. What’s the big deal? And a good chunk of the conservative media-industrial complex will parrot their insouciance.
Add that to Trump’s preposterous suggestion that he would create a cyber-attack task force with Putin, and it’s perfectly clear that this President is intentionally and nakedly selling out the United States to an anti-democratic, malicious, sleazy, and murderous foe. He is openly inviting more interference and mischief, for his own political benefit. As Brian Beutler says:
It is frequently suggested that Trump’s solicitousness of Russian interests reflects his long-held affinity for strongmen, and that his imperviousness to the consensus that Russia meddled in the election reflects insecurity about the legitimacy of his victory in an election where he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by millions. But this analysis, attractive and safe in some ways, is too generous. Matt Yglesias’s slightly harsher assessment in Vox, that Trump is behaving like an accessory after the fact, is closer to the mark but incomplete. Based on everything we know, it is less of a reach to assume not just that Trump is helping Russia cover up past crimes, but that he appreciated Russia’s meddling on his behalf, and is sending strong signals that he would welcome more of it in the future.
That’s treasonous. I’m reluctant to say it, but I don’t know what else to call it. The fact that it’s out in the open doesn’t make it less nefarious. Trump should be impeached, and his involved underlings and family members should do hard time in prison.
Quite a tweet there.
Opposition research from an opposing nation.
One thing missing in this Russia stuff that should not be forgotten: a LOT of Republicans said nice things about Putin throughout the Obama presidency. Something went seriously wrong with the GOP, to lose perspective that badly.
There’s no logic or scruple or principle in the GOP anymore. “If we do it, it’s OK” — and the corollary, “If it hurts a Dem, it’s good”. Ad hoc rationalization now and forever, Amen.
I’ve thought this ever since he publicly said that he hoped Russia could find Hillary’s emails last summer.
Charlie, me boy))) I didn’t know it was a crime to have conversations with Russians. I guess that i am a traitor for maintaining contacts with Russians over the years. Please, tell us explicitly how these people have committed treason. There is no crime, just more last ditch attempts by your group of losers to diminish the election results,.
It’s not treason. The law on treason is pretty explicit in that the United States would have to be at war with Russia and then give aid and/or comfort to Russia. We are not at war with Russia. Ergo, no treason. Collusion, incidentally, isn’t a crime either. Unless you’re violating anti-trust laws. There are plenty of laws that may have been broken, though there’s enough that may have been broken ranging from receiving stolen property (hacked info) to conspiracy. I’d bet money on laws being broken, but at the moment, there’s no public evidence that could convict Trump of a crime.
I don’t think it’s as clear as you say, to say the least.
https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/884178093522472962
We’re both quoting Painter. Heh.
I saw Painter’s tweet, but I’d like to know his reasoning. I assume he’s a laywer. Steve Vladeck has been writing about it at Just Security. I linked to the second post he wrote. https://www.justsecurity.org/?s=treason
Hey guys! Let’s stop feeding the TROLL!
While I understand the sentiment, I think in this instance edgarthearmenian is directly responding to the substance of Charley’s post, even if he is doing it in a trollish manner
That would be traitorous and not treasonous. The action of treason need only be against the legitimate government, and need not be in support of a foreign power.
Suppose I’m the Secretary of Commerce and I plot, all on my own, to be absent during the State of the Union so that I can blow up the building and, by the succession act, become President. That’s an act of treason (as well as murder) that has no involvement with a foreign power.
Here’s the statute 18 U.S Code Section 2381:
War is defined in the statute as:
We are not engaged in a declared war with Russia. We are not involved in an armed conflict in opposition to Russia. No one in the Trump campaign attempted any armed conflict against the United States. I don’t see how treason legally applies to this situation. Colloquially, the argument can be made, but colloquial definitions don’t have much legal weight.
We’ve come a long way since muskets….
Russian agents employing cyber activity to weaken the USA is an attack. It is an act of war. How else can one spin it?
When it comes to the law, you really can’t spin it. There are plenty of crimes to choose from, however. That’s why I keep coming back to the law. Call it what you want. Trump & Co. certainly violated the spirit of the law, but our stretching the meaning of the word will not pass muster in court.
Americans were prosecuted for betraying their country during the Cold War with Russia even though Congress had not formally declared war. Why is this collusion between Trumpists and Russian agents to undermine our democracy and destroy Clinton any different ?
Fred, I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m not a lawyer, but people have to violate a statute. Each word in a statute has a definition. Many of the key definitions have case law behind them. In the Cold War, no one was convicted of treason. The Rosenbergs went down for espionage. Others were held in contempt of Congress. The last two people convicted of treason were Tokyo Rose and a Japanese American who helped in a Japanese POW camp in Japan. Trump & Co. (may) have broken laws, but treason isn’t one of them as far as I can tell.
Russia’s nefarious propaganda cyber attack to corrupt our free election of Clinton in collusion with their preferred tool Trump may not meet the Constitutional definition of Treason.
But Trump and his sycophant confederates will always be traitors to me. The JudASSES sold America out to our sworn enemy for 30 pieces of silver and I hope they choke on it.
Treason is defined against allegiance owed, either in an overt act of direct hostility (“levies war” meaning to take steps to bring to war and can mean divulging military secrets or recruiting soldiers and doesn’t necessarily mean the shooting has started) or in aiding an enemy. We don’t have to be at war with an enemy… and it may be the case that sanctions, diplomatic, economic and/or militarily, are enough to define a state as an enemy. In fact, that’s the pivot around which the charges turn…
Michael Flynn, for example, owed his allegiance to the United States a country that levied diplomatic and economic sanctions against another country. The very act of speaking about sanctions with an ambassador for the sanctioned country, any sanctioned country, when he was not empowered to do so is ….
… wait for it…
… An. Act. Of. Treason.
The problem with this isn’t that Flynn didn’t do it, it’s that, by the Constitution he has to be charged on the account of two people who witnessed to the same overt act or make a confession in open court. Both are highly not likely.
I’m perfectly happy to concede that the law (which I read) is not 100% clear on the wording I raise in the original post. We don’t know how that law maps onto cyber-war or other skullduggery, presumably because it hasn’t been necessary. It would seem that the only people convicted of treason in the US were during actual wartime.
I suppose a defense might be that Trump doesn’t consider Russia an “enemy”. That question does properly belong to diplomacy and politics — which is not the domain of what we are talking about here.
Surely Trump (Jr, et al)’s actions are disloyal, a betrayal to the US. Russia is demonstrably a foe — if not in an actual hot war. And Trump Sr’s refusals to protect the United States’ democratic processes is positively disloyal.
I’d say the onus is on you to tell me how your ordinary contact with ordinary Russians is a little different from the situation at hand. Don’t bother to think too hard – it won’t require it.
Honestly, would never have pegged you as a Trumpist, edgar. Disappointing.
If the “conversations” you’ve had with the Russians over the years contain elements like these:
1. You were contacted by Russian lawyers claiming to have secret documents stolen from a high-profile American politician.
2. You were a senior player in a nationwide campaign for a major party presidential candidate.
3. You had a lengthy history of apparently corrupt business contacts with Russian players in organized crime
4. You denied these meetings when asked, filed disclosure forms (under threat of perjury) that omitted these meetings, falsely characterized these conversations when asked, and so on
5 … (you get my drift)
If your conversations contained these elements then yes, you could expect federal authorities to be VERY interested in you.
I find it fascinating how passionately you parrot right-wing Trumpist talking points, and how faithfully you deny the preponderance of evidence against Mr. Putin, Mr. Trump, and pretty much the entire administration of Mr. Trump.
People have been explaining why these actions are treasonous for months, I frankly don’t believe that your request for yet another explanation is anything except another rhetorical outburst.
In the world I live in, Mr. Trump and pretty much everyone associated with him has betrayed virtually EVERY value about America that I hold dear. He, and they, have lied, cheated, abused women, taken bribes, betrayed intelligence sources in the Oval Office, and explicitly advanced the efforts of Mr. Putin to disrupt our electoral processes.
I call that criminal, and treasonous (although I am happy, of course, if actual prosecutions use different vocabulary to pursue the same ends).
The only “losers” I see are those who steadfastly deny the reality that is unfolding all around us.
Tom, the Vova whom I know and love))):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV4IjHz2yIo
Ouch, that video is SO painful, it’s even worse than the one Mr. Putin blamed on an out-of-tune piano. I’m reminded of the piano “recitals” performed by the 4 year olds at my church.
Although we disagree about all this, I appreciate the humor of your video. Its provenance (RT) is particularly humorous given our exchanges about that propaganda outlet. 🙂
I just wanted you to see Putin as most Russians do. He has restored their pride and confidence, though not for everyone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngwH6Zy5vb8
Magnitsky would disagree. Except he’s dead.
Jeesh, I really did think you were joking.
THAT charade was intended to restore pride and confidence? REALLY?
Ok, I’m with Betsey. You’re just trolling.
I’ve argued here for quite some time that the Russian connection was problematic and part of a broader campaign by the Russian intelligence community to infiltrate the far right and the far left to cast illegitimacy on Western democratic institutions. This conspiracy has been going on for at least a decade, stretching back to the Orange Revolution.
I said this at the time the rest of you were mocking them that McCain and Romney were right on Russia. The reset failed and it may have cost Hillary the presidency and Obama his legacy. You don’t appease someone like Putin, you contain him and if need be roll him back.
It also means the left has to stop being useful idiots for Putin and retweeting his patsys like Assange and Snowden or insisting the intelligence community has it out for Trump. They are woke enough to know Putin has it out for America and our nation would be weaker under his leadership. It’s well past time the rest of the left did the same.
There are at least two crimes here: Micheal Flynn, acting on behalf of the incoming, but not yet sworn in, administration having discussed the sanctions of the then administration, It was illegal for him to have done so. He then lied about it the FBI.
It is certainly worth investigating, whether the FOUR (4) other people now known to have lied about either campaign season or pre-inauguration contacts with Russians ALSO discussed incoming policy when it was illegal for them to have done so.
Obama’s sanctions hurt Russia. Bad. Putin wants them lifted. His actions, however, have only had the opposite affect. Trump hasn’t helped.
There is rampant speculation that Michael Flynn has flipped and is cooperating with the investigation.
That alone is compelling evidence that crimes have been committed.
Similar rumors about Mr. Kushner abound.
The claim that “there is no crime” is patent nonsense.
Treason it is. To reprise the favorite chant of the Trump campaign: #LockHimUp and #LockThemUp