Is Trump a Traitor?

[Anonymous]

It looks like the elements fit the crime.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39

The offense of “levying war” against the United States was interpreted narrowly in Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout (1807), a case stemming from the infamous alleged plot led by former Vice President Aaron Burr to overthrow the American government in New Orleans. The Supreme Court dismissed charges of treason that had been brought against two of Burr’s associates—Bollman and Swarthout—on the grounds that their alleged conduct did not constitute levying war against the United States within the meaning of the Treason Clause. It was not enough, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion emphasized, merely to conspire “to subvert by force the government of our country” by recruiting troops, procuring maps, and drawing up plans. Conspiring to levy war was distinct from actually levying war. Rather, a person could be convicted of treason for levying war only if there was an “actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design.” In so holding, the Court sharply confined the scope of the offense of treason by levying war against the United States.

[Anonymous]

Even if Trump is somehow found to not have levied war directly or as an accessory, there are multiple instances of him providing aid and comfort to enemies who did. On either count, a conviction labels him a traitor for all posterity.

[Anonymous]

Nope. But he is one of the top 5 presidents this country ever had.

[Anonymous]

I have confidence in Jack Smith after what he showed in round 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's like the founding fathers were thinking of Trump and his January 6 insurrection when writing the Constitution.

They were afraid of tyrants who flouted the law.

There was a revolution on a 1.5 percent tax rate.

without representation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have confidence in Jack Smith after what he showed in round 1.

Smith is textbook competence and class compared to the complete lack of it on the other side. You can tell that it's not his first time dealing with a shifty band of criminals.

[Anonymous]

Jack Smith, didn’t the Supreme Court rebuke him 9-0 in a past case?

[Anonymous]

Traitor is just one of Trump's many crimes. Both convicted and to be convicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you believe that Trump levied an army on Jan 6, and went to war against the US government at the Capitol, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.

If you believe that he gave aid and comfort (in the form of national defense information) to Russia and/or North Korea, and that these nations are enemies of the US, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.

I think these two actions of his could be construed as traitorous acts, but I understand that to others they might not meet that definition.

There have to be open hostilities according to US Code. The US is involved in a lot of conflict zones, but not directly NK or Russia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the elements fit the crime.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39

The offense of “levying war” against the United States was interpreted narrowly in Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout (1807), a case stemming from the infamous alleged plot led by former Vice President Aaron Burr to overthrow the American government in New Orleans. The Supreme Court dismissed charges of treason that had been brought against two of Burr’s associates—Bollman and Swarthout—on the grounds that their alleged conduct did not constitute levying war against the United States within the meaning of the Treason Clause. It was not enough, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion emphasized, merely to conspire “to subvert by force the government of our country” by recruiting troops, procuring maps, and drawing up plans. Conspiring to levy war was distinct from actually levying war. Rather, a person could be convicted of treason for levying war only if there was an “actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design.” In so holding, the Court sharply confined the scope of the offense of treason by levying war against the United States.

Certainly Trump is not a stranger to firsts in American jurisprudence. First president to be under state criminal indictment, federal criminal indictment, running a fake charity, running a fake university, the list goes on and on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you believe that Trump levied an army on Jan 6, and went to war against the US government at the Capitol, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.

If you believe that he gave aid and comfort (in the form of national defense information) to Russia and/or North Korea, and that these nations are enemies of the US, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.

I think these two actions of his could be construed as traitorous acts, but I understand that to others they might not meet that definition.

There have to be open hostilities according to US Code. The US is involved in a lot of conflict zones, but not directly NK or Russia.

Yup, open hostilities in the U.S. Capitol incited by Donald Trump, recorded and broadcast for the whole world to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's like the founding fathers were thinking of Trump and his January 6 insurrection when writing the Constitution.

They were afraid of tyrants who flouted the law.

They may have been (Jefferson definitely) but that had nothing to do with this part of the Constitution, when Britain in particular was still plenty on their mind.

While I'm at it, although some folks (Jefferson again) likely had tyrants in mind with 2a, I don't think that was the primary focus of 2a. I don't see personal defense in there as embedded in 2a, and I believe Heller got it absolutely wrong.

I think they believed they had constructed a system in which the powers of the executive were limited, with impeachment as the means of removing him. If he stepped outside his powers to foment an insurrection, then it becomes treason.

That might be the reason his didn't pardon Jan 6-ers. Which in a roundabout way was useful, since major leaders are in prison and everyone else sees how he didn't come to the rescue in the 2 weeks he had left. (Probably too busy stuffing more boxes).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you believe that Trump levied an army on Jan 6, and went to war against the US government at the Capitol, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.

If you believe that he gave aid and comfort (in the form of national defense information) to Russia and/or North Korea, and that these nations are enemies of the US, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.

I think these two actions of his could be construed as traitorous acts, but I understand that to others they might not meet that definition.

There have to be open hostilities according to US Code. The US is involved in a lot of conflict zones, but not directly NK or Russia.

Yup, open hostilities in the U.S. Capitol incited by Donald Trump, recorded and broadcast for the whole world to see.

Debatable (and you also need to look at US Code). He did not "set foot" although he attempted to, he may have incited but he had enough training by Mob lawyer Cohn to be careful how he phrased things. Plus insurrection has its own definition in the US Code separate from that of treason, so there is a distinction between treason an dinsurrection.

In any event there have to be two witnesses or confession in open court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jack Smith, didn’t the Supreme Court rebuke him 9-0 in a past case?

That was Mcdonnell, because the governor's role was determined to not have constituted official acts. He was in charge of the unit, although he was not the actual prosecutor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you believe that Trump levied an army on Jan 6, and went to war against the US government at the Capitol, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.

If you believe that he gave aid and comfort (in the form of national defense information) to Russia and/or North Korea, and that these nations are enemies of the US, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.

I think these two actions of his could be construed as traitorous acts, but I understand that to others they might not meet that definition.

There have to be open hostilities according to US Code. The US is involved in a lot of conflict zones, but not directly NK or Russia.

Yup, open hostilities in the U.S. Capitol incited by Donald Trump, recorded and broadcast for the whole world to see.

Debatable (and you also need to look at US Code). He did not "set foot" although he attempted to, he may have incited but he had enough training by Mob lawyer Cohn to be careful how he phrased things. Plus insurrection has its own definition in the US Code separate from that of treason, so there is a distinction between treason an dinsurrectionn.

In any event there have to be two witnesses or confession in open court.

Many more than two witnesses. But he’ll die before it goes to trial.