Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: For those not afraid to read Thom Hartmann -- this is really good. [View all]Novara
(5,861 posts)10. The orange fuck did not commit treason
Nixon did - it was wartime and he prevented the Paris peace talks ending the Vietnam war.
What Reagan did was criminal, but it wasn't treason. We were not at war with Iran.
Bush didn't commit treason. Underhanded and criminal, but not treason. Who were we at war with in 2000?
Only ONE of these presidents committed actual treason. Gosh, maybe that's why the rest of them were never brought to justice for a crime they did not commit?
It does no good to overstate false charges. My god, the truth is bad enough. The orange fuck committed insurrection and sedition by staging a coup. But it isn't treason.
Colluding/negotiating with a foreign power to win an election is not treason.
The Constitution specifically identifies what constitutes treason against the United States and, importantly, limits the offense of treason to only two types of conduct: (1) levying war against the United States; or (2) adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States], giving them aid and comfort.
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 Burrs associatesBollman and Swarthouton 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 Marshalls 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.
The Court construed the other treason offense authorized by the Constitution similarly narrowly in Cramer v. United States (1945). That case involved another infamous incident in American history: the Nazi Saboteur Affair. Cramer was prosecuted for treason for allegedly helping German soldiers who had surreptitiously infiltrated American soil during World War II. In reviewing Cramers treason conviction, the Court explained that a person could be convicted of treason only if he or she adhered to an enemy and gave that enemy aid and comfort. As the Court explained: A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this countrys policy or interest, but, so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemymaking a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strengthbut if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason. In other words, the Constitution requires both concrete action and an intent to betray the nation before a citizen can be convicted of treason; expressing traitorous thoughts or intentions alone does not suffice.
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 Burrs associatesBollman and Swarthouton 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 Marshalls 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.
The Court construed the other treason offense authorized by the Constitution similarly narrowly in Cramer v. United States (1945). That case involved another infamous incident in American history: the Nazi Saboteur Affair. Cramer was prosecuted for treason for allegedly helping German soldiers who had surreptitiously infiltrated American soil during World War II. In reviewing Cramers treason conviction, the Court explained that a person could be convicted of treason only if he or she adhered to an enemy and gave that enemy aid and comfort. As the Court explained: A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this countrys policy or interest, but, so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemymaking a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strengthbut if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason. In other words, the Constitution requires both concrete action and an intent to betray the nation before a citizen can be convicted of treason; expressing traitorous thoughts or intentions alone does not suffice.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/39
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
57 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
For those not afraid to read Thom Hartmann -- this is really good. [View all]
Grasswire2
Jul 2022
OP
Yes, he is focused on Democracy and the defeat of creeping fascism, a strong progressive voice.
Magoo48
Jul 2022
#21
Thom Hartmann is a DU member, FWIW, and has been for a very long time.
multigraincracker
Jul 2022
#33
Hartmann, as usual, makes some incisive points. HOW will we address a political
PatrickforB
Jul 2022
#34