“This is the FBI we’re talking about — that is treason. That is a treasonous act. What he tweeted to his lover is a treasonous act.”
--President Donald J. Trump, Wall Street Journal interview
There has been much discussion on this site and elsewhere regarding the definition of the word “treason” and its possible application to the actions of Donald Trump, his presidential campaign and transition, and members of his party. The general, and admirably conservative, consensus among DailyKos diarists and commenters is that the actions of the president and his defenders, while almost certainly felonious, do not rise to the level of treasonous.
I believe it may be time to revisit the question. I will try to present my argument that actual treason is indeed prospering as clearly as possible.
Definition
We are fortunate that Mr. Madison was very specific in his definition of treason when framing our Constitution:
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.
This Constitutional principal is further clarified in US Code 18, Sect. 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.
Madison, in adapting his definition of the word from English Common Law, was specific for good reason: the English Treason Act of 1351, still in effect at the time, was frighteningly broad for a law that prescribed capital punishment for its transgressors. A lot of things which would surprise us today were lumped under its definition of treason: counterfeiting the currency, boffing the ruler’s daughter or his daughter-in-law (really), even “compassing or imagining” his death. Take care you don’t chuckle at the thought of what all those Big Macs are doing to Himself’s cardiovascular state.
So Madison gave us a very narrow set of criteria: getting up an army to oppose the government, making common cause with the country’s enemies or “giving them Aid and Comfort.”
That last is the most ambiguous clause in the sentence, and the one against which we must measure recent actions. But, first, a bit of quibbling over another word.
“Enemies” “Hostilities”
It has been argued that, as we are not in a declared war against Russia, they are not legally an “enemy of the United States.” This is strictly, legally false.
US Code 50 Sect. 2204 defines the term for legal purposes:
(2) the term “enemy” means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;
The Department of Defense has outlined a number of cyberattacks that should be interpreted as acts of international aggression—“hostilities.” They include, but are not limited to:
cutting off power supplies or bringing down hospitals and emergency-responder networks
While the cyberattacks aimed at furthering the campaign of Donald Trump may not rise to the level of “threatening widespread civilian casualties,” they are part and parcel of a wider Russian effort to penetrate US security and infrastructure that could result in precisely that outcome. Efforts to burrow into the digital underpinnings of the electrical grid have been noted and are ongoing, as are attempts to intercept the communications of military and security personnel and systems.
By the DoD’s own definition, we are being targeted with aggressive acts. Hostilities.
“Aid and Comfort”
No American (that we currently know of) is “levying War” against the United States. No one is organizing armed militias to oppose the legitimate government yet (though some of the neo-Nazis terrorizing Americans last year come pretty close).
But treason is also defined as offering “Aid and Comfort” the the country’s enemies, something that is also clearly defined in US law (US Code 10, Sect. 904, Art. 104):
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
We know for certain that, since taking office, Donald J. Trump has directly given classified intelligence to the Russian government, intelligence gathered by our ally. Though he consulted no one before doing this, it has been determined by past events (Plamegate) that the president may, at any time, by his sole prerogative, declassify and disseminate intelligence, so he’s clear on that account.
But what of those working for his campaign, his transition and his administration? Until Robert Mueller receives a comprehensive account of Brad Parscale’s and the Trump campaign’s (including their contractor Cambridge Analytica) potential coordination with Russian trolls’ Facebook and Twitter postings and ad buys, we can’t definitively point to that possible “Aid and Comfort.”
Also awaiting revelation by the Special Counsel are details on just what Trump aide and son-in-law Jared Kushner communicated with Russian agents and why he desired a secret back-channel to the Kremlin, as well as what information transition adviser and later National Security Advisor Michael Flynn passed to the Russians.
“It’s Not the Crime...”
While we still await final confirmation that the president’s mantra of “no collusion” is best stored in holes or houses, there is, right now, proof of treasonous action on his part. And it comes from his own… hole.
In the Oval Office meeting where he spilled Israeli-gathered classified intelligence to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Ambassador Kislyak, he confirmed that he’d fired “nut job” FBI Director James Comey and that it had taken “a lot of pressure off.” He also told NBC’s Lester Holt, in a televised interview, that he’d fired Comey to stop the Russia investigation.
Who, besides himself and his family, was “pressured” by the investigation? Who benefited from an effort to curtail it?
If, as is clear from the 2016 DNI report, the efforts to “meddle” in the US election was directed by the Kremlin and the GRU, if those efforts were only part of a larger, ongoing aggression by the Russian government to destabilize the United States, any investigation beginning with the election hack will surely bring out more details on the scope and effectiveness of the attack, leading the military, intelligence agencies and, perhaps, the Congress to stiffen our defenses against this aggression.
Attempts to slow or halt the investigation into the Russian attack on the integrity of our electoral process benefit one person even more than they do the president: Vladimir Putin, the man who directed that attack and is behind other, current attacks on our country.
Conventional Washington wisdom tells us that, “It’s not the crime that’ll get you, it’s the cover-up.” In this case, however great the crime itself may be, the cover-up is truly greater, for it represents the worst crime of all: conscious, deliberate treason.
Conclusion
There will still be some who hesitate to use the T word in connection with the actions of Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, Devin Nunes and their accomplices. I admire their legal and rhetorical caution in a matter of such grave import.
But the facts of the matter, incomplete as they still are, are clear: we have been attacked, and are still under attack, by a hostile adversary intent on doing harm to our country, attacks which could well lead to physical and financial injury to a great number of people.
The actions of the president and those in his circle are of direct benefit to the attackers and will inevitably lead to an escalation of hostilities. They are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.
Prudently parse as you wish. I’m prepared to call these actions what they are, in spirit and in law.
Treason.
Entirely self-serving addendum: Since this bit of personal speculation has nested atop the rec list, I’m going to take the opportunity to mention my latest video, of a song from my album with The Moss Pickers. Feel free to ignore this part.
And, speaking of videos…
I just got word this morning that YouTube is going to kick me off their Partner program if I don’t get more subscribers and watch time, so I’ve put out a Request for Assistance. If you are a YouTube/Google/gmail user, please consider subscribing to my channel. Thank you.