And unless we know the contents of the conversation we don't know if he gave material support.

He still perjured himself though.

For allegedly colluding with Russia in an act of espionage - and we weren't in any declared war with the Soviet Union at that time.

and seeing their bodies hanging left a mark on my consciousness that will never be erased.

maybe I mis remember if I do than thanks for correcting me.

Yup you're right

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg

I remember seeing two bodies laying out on what looked like purling's of a roof, I guess it was someone else or this picture was after they were executed. I don't know

At any rate they met their fate and it wasn't pleasant for them.

the federal government. The first was Mary Surratt who was found guilty of being a member of the plot to assassinate Lincoln. She was hanged.

He was shot, and the body was later hung up upside down in public.

I remember seeing the body as plain as day. seems like there was more that one body too.

Could be headed for similar charges! Conspiring with a hostile foreign power to thwart American democracy - rig a Presidential election in order to benefit that hostile foreign power!!!! Jesus H. Christ!!! Hard to imagine a more heinous crime - and one in which you could see a punishment even as severe a death penalty to serve as discouragement for anyone to ever consider trying to pull something like this ever again! I don't think I'm overstating anything here. That's where we are.

Sessions could be charged with espionage and perjury I would think...heard that Europe has evdence against Trump and his surrogates too...

Different crime. Different standard. The question was whether Sessions committed treason. The answer is no.

And treason does not require a war.

trea·son
ˈtrēzən
noun
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
"they were convicted of treason"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
the action of betraying someone or something.
plural noun: treasons
"doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
historical
the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.
noun: petty treason; plural noun: petty treasons

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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.



the british abused "treason" laws to round up colonialists they didn't like, so the founders wanted a very restrictive definition.
of course, that doesn't mean there aren't other laws that could be used, such as espionage....

Uhh, hello?

So that's that. Not treason.

During the Cold War missiles were pretarged against the Soviet Union at one time due to treaties it was said that Russia and the United States no longer target each other. As quickly and flexible defense system are today nuclear forces can be allocated quickly. You have in some cases 3 minutes to respond to a major nuclear attack (in actuality there is no such thing as a small nuclear attack). The rules of engagement work the same in Russia as they do in the United States. Mutual Assured Destruction has not gone away. Russia is an enemy capable of destroying the United States in a matter of minutes. Our existence as a species not just nation is at stake.

Most importantly folks should understand why it is in there in the first place. It is so that a charge of treason could not be used politically as was common in royal Europe!!!

We are at war with Russia as well as Russia is at war with the United States all with a 3 minute response time. There is no time to consult congress, the Constitution or muse who sold you out.

You can add China and just about anyone who has nuclear weapons and does not have a treaty with the United States.

Only congress can declare war. And treason is also specifically defined in the US Constitution.

Under our government one does not get to redefine war or treason for mere political expedience.

That's the way it is.

Civics 101, my good friend.

Some NCO sitting at a screen gets to send out the alert that turns the key.

Civics 101!

Send a predator drone or launch 10 ICBMs. I doubt in the aftermath there will be very many asking questions.

A Narcissist was not a good choice for POTUS.

Reality 101

One doesn't get to just make that up. People need to read the constitution for a change.

Start there. That's the reality in the USA.

They threaten our allies and the United States. An attack on any NATO country will elicit a response the same as if it were an attack on the United States. By treaty with our allies we are bound to a response. Russia is a foreign enemy. Interference in an American election is for me an act of war. In spite of that I am not too keen for a return to the Stone Age. Concurrent I find no desire to have any association with a country that has a murderous thug as its faux elected leader e.g. Vladimir Putin. We are at war with Russia apparently there appears to be more than a few domestic enemies.

First, Congress has the sole power to declare war! Nothing in the constitution has been changed in that regard. We are not at war with Russia until congress says we are. Period! And only a crazy person would want that.

Second, Article III, Section 3, the treason clause, was specifically put there by Madison so charges of treason cannot be used for political purposes in the USA like it had for centuries in the European monarchies!!!

Those screeching treason here are attempting to do exactly that, use treason as a political weapon. I must oppose that with all ferver.

Russia is acting up, but is not yet our enemy. Thank heavens for that.

I was born in the forties and grew up in the fifties. I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis vividly. Only a lunatic would want to go back to those days.

That's where I have to stand on this. And the constitution backs me up. More people should get to know it better.

Thank you for your responses.

The 18th Century mind would have had a terrible time with assault weapons. Today in America anyone can obtain these weapons. Thermo Nuclear War as an arcane mystery would pushed same great minds into a state catatonic wonder. Actually there is no mystery and there is no time. I know all of the arguments. We are on the doomsday clock and there is no escape. A first strike on the United States or Russia would be answered by annihlation within 30 minutes with or without the permission of the orange haired shit stain, Russian oligarch and treasonous bastards who want your unthinking allegiance. The war already started years ago the plans have already been made and they are legal if not who will be left to argue the details? We die you die too for that you can be assured. Screwing with the American election was not a smart investment. I have seen enough of the elephant to know how it might work. The next war will be the final war, targeting elections for short term gain will not work.

Your argument is a non sequitur.

Treason under our constitution cannot be used politically, which is precisely what people are ignorantly arguing for here.

And no number of nuclear weapons in the world changes that.

Part of the problem is Governments do not level with their people. When you do find out it does not make you feel safe. Horrors of unimaginable proportions await. Sleep well.

I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country where charges of treason can be flung around for political expediency. That's why it is in the fucking constitution in the first place!!!!

That's not a matter of opinion.

I'm done here.

My best to you, my friend.

I wish others could take the long view. Some of us remember being labeled traitors because we counseled people how to evade the draft, by means that weren't always lawful. Some of us cheered Jane Fonda. Some of us burned our draft cards.

And some here on DU espouse a view of treason that would encompass all of those acts.

As I posted, what's important about this issue is why is treason defined in the US Constitution?

James Madison knew why. Apparently many here do not.

Again, thank you.

rival is the usual term.

anyway it's unnecessary. why go for the very high bar required to prove "treason" when it's far easier and practical to prove something like "espionage", "perjury", or some campaign/election law?

Foreign governments spy and disinform and influence elections all the time.

The problem is Americans accepting their help and coordinating with them.

WTF?

certainly israel, etc., and many of these countries are "enemies" of each other as well.

not sure what you're getting at with iran, but if you mean them holding scuttling talks with carter prior to the election and agreeing with the reagan campaign to hold them until reagan was officially in office, it wasn't the timing of the release or its influence on our election that made them an enemy -- it was the kidnapping of 60 american government employees in first place.

i'm not supporting russia or what russia did in any way, shape or form, and to pretend otherwise is disinformation in a way that would make donnie proud.

all i'm saying saying is that foreign election meddling is far too common to brand anyone who does it, any time, as an "enemy". the term ceases to have much meaning otherwise.

It is perjury. It may be a number of other things. But it's not treason.

There are two ways under the Constitution that one can commit treason.

One is to "levy war" and the other is to give aid and comfort to an enemy.

Levying war means taking up arms against the US. That's how it has been interpreted and that's the only interpretation that makes sense since it is the more stringent of the two standards.

The second standard involves activity that falls short of actually taking up arms against the US but involves giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Who are our enemies? Those that are engaged in hostilities subject to the rules of war -- that is, those who are levying war against us.

I refer you to the definition of enemy found in title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense): Section 2204: "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 term "hostilities" is not defined in title 50, but it is defined in title 10 (Armed Forces). Section 948a - "The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war."

Our differences with Russia do not amount to a conflict subject to the laws of war. Among the indicia that normally would mark a state of war exist between countries that do not exist with respect to the US and Russia:

Russia and the United States maintain diplomatic relations. War is the failure of diplomacy and I can think of no occasion where two countries fighting a war with one another have formal diplomatic relations.

Russia is not named as an enemy of the United States under the Trading with the Enemies Act. In fact, a quarter of a million Americans will probably visit Russia as tourists this year and several billion dollars of commerce between the countries will occur. If there has been a time when Americans freely traveled to a country with which we are at war I can't recall it.

In fairness we are mortal deadly enemies for what we both possess and have the capacity to do to each other. Unfortunately Russia is ruled by a stone cold killer and the United States by a Fucking traitor.

and this is not a violation of the trading with the enemy act because russia is not considered an "enemy".

there are sanctions in place for certain entities closely tied to putin et al., though this is punishment for the ukraine invasion, and it doesn't make them an "enemy".


russia certainly has the *potential* to become an enemy at the drop of a hat, and we should be very wary of them, but they are not now considered an enemy.

That does not keep them from running continual proxy and covert wars. The hat for mutual annihilation drops real damn fast. As part of old Europe Russia has a long continual very bellicose history, Czars, Communist, and now a Neo Fascist hybrid.

Something you should know.

Yes, it's pretty clear. This is what Trumputin is doing.

Leaving aside what the law considers "adhering" or giving "aid and comfort", the fact is that the law, not the dictionary, defines who is an enemy.

Who are our enemies? Those that are engaged in hostilities subject to the rules of war -- that is, those who are levying war against us.

I refer you to the definition of "enemy" found in title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense): Section 2204: "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 term "hostilities" is not defined in title 50, but it is defined in title 10 (Armed Forces). Section 948a - "The term 'hostilities' means any conflict subject to the laws of war."

Our differences with Russia do not rise to the level of a conflict subject to the laws of war. Among the indicia that normally would mark a state of war exist between countries that do not exist with respect to the US and Russia:

Russia and the United States maintain diplomatic relations. War is the failure of diplomacy and I can think of no occasion where two countries fighting a war with one another have formal diplomatic relations.

Russia is not now, nor has it ever been (even at the height of the Cold War) named as an enemy of the United States under the Trading with the Enemies Act. In fact, a quarter of a million Americans will probably visit Russia as tourists this year and several billion dollars of commerce between the countries will occur. That is not how nations that are engaged in hostilities subject to the rules of war behave.

Finally, turning back to what constitutes "adhering" to an enemy and giving them "aid and comfort", I have to wonder which side you would have been on during the Vietnam War. Would you have been calling for Jane Fonda's head as a traitor to the US for "adhering" to the North Vietnamese? Would you have urged prosecution of people like me who not only did everything they could to evade serving in Vietnam, but counseled others as to how to avoid service, including fleeing to Canada? Would you have stood on the sidelines and yelled traitor at those who marched in anti-war demonstrations carrying the flag of North Vietnam or who burned their draft cards or even burned the American flag -- all actions that, broadly defined, gave "aid and comfort" to the "enemy" in that war.

Russia's interests are not our interests. Putin is a thug. And the Russians clandestine efforts to influence the 2016 election need to be fully investigated and appropriate actions need to be taken in response. But if you think we're at war with Russia, I would ask this: how does the war end? Is there a peace treaty? Unconditional surrender? Do we overthrow Putin's government by force? Do we invoke our NATO treaty and demand that our Allies declare war on Russia?

Throwing "treason" around is an easy, empty charge, which is why the founders of the nation went to lengths to make it as narrow as possible.

and now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

protestors "traitors."

Too bad the John Birch Society isn't still around in any meaningful way -- you'd be right at home.

FTFY...

unless s/he has something to hide, or feels s/he does...?

he was hiding something big.

he has the right to speak with foreign government officials. What they discussed is another matter. However, he lied in his hearing it's at least unethical and unbecoming a potential attorney general.

If he's acting as a Senator and Chairman of the committee and the conversations relate to committee business, why didn't he inform the committee of the content?

...depending on the topics discussed.

However, his decision to lie about it demonstrates that he is hiding something illegal.

He lied under oath to the Senate committee involved with his nomination.

They can try to weasel out of it but we all clearly heard
Sessions say unequivocally and under oath that he had
nothing to do with the Russians. It wasn't an 'except
for these few meetings'... he said no Russian contact.

"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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Since we are not at war with Russia this likely doesn't meet the legal definition of treason.

I am not a lawyer. It seems what he did is lying under oath. Illegal yes but not treason.

the "or" part. I.e., "war against" OR -

It's a different charge.

Also the term "enemy" is probably open to legal interpretation.


Don't get be wrong I think Sessions is one of the most dangerous people the administration. He was the closest thing to a KKK member the Senate had.

in this case, given the circumstances, you cannot dismiss the U.S.-Russia animosity of late - particularly since Putin returned to power during the Obama administration. Nor can you dismiss the issue of possible espionage given the massive web of interactions of certain individuals associated with Drumpf who actively engaged with Russia. And if you have the new keeper of that info (Beauregard) in charge, imagine the power he has to cover-up.

Agree 100%

I hate these people with a passion. The coverup is very alarming.

But what what I understand (I am not a lawyer) this isn't legally treason is all I am saying. If this is all true violated many, many federal laws just not treason.

you can look at the list of some of the people in the U.S. convicted of treason - including a principle during the Matewan (union coal mine) massacre, where in that case it wasn't a "war" or espionage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_convicted_of_treason#United_States

Yes, Walter Allen was convicted of "treason" for his participation in the miner's strike of 1921. However, it makes me weep to think a DUer would cite that as a proper precedent for a broad definition of treason under the US Constitution.

First, most progressives would recognize that the truly guilty parties in the labor disputes of the 1920s were not the workers -- it was the mine owners and their backers in the state government and law enforcement.

Second, Allen was tried in state court for treason against the State of West Virginia, not treason against the United States. That he was charged with treason even under state law was a gross overreach, which is why it stands as a rather unique case, not a precedent to be followed. (Allen who was sentenced to ten years in prison for his treason against the state appealed his conviction, but jumped bail. Given that the other cases alleging treason arising from the Miners Strike resulted in acquittals or having the charges reduced, its more likely than not that if he hadn't jumped bail, he could have prevailed on appeal.

Finally, the "treasonous" acts Allen and other charged with treason in connection with the Miners Strike arose out of the participation in and active support of armed conflict against the state. Even so, there is little question but that the conviction of Allen was a gross miscarriage of justice and certainly not anything a progressive board should be citing as an example to be followed.

is somehow indicating my approval of a historical injustice or what?

If so, then I suggest you think again.

The issue here is what (at least in the past) was supposedly considered "treason". Obviously court decisions over the years narrowed the definition depending on the arguments given, but it is interesting to see nonetheless...

Also interesting that you didn't cite the fact that people rebelling against their own enslavement shouldn't have been charged with "treason" either.

Again maybe I am misinterpreting your post and if so, no problem.

That too was a trial brought in state court alleging treason against an individual state, not the United States, and it too, in my view, represents a miscarriage of justice.

Whatever a state court thinks constitutes treason against a state should have (and has had) little bearing on how the provision of the US Constitution, even if the state provision and US Constitution provision are worded the same, should be interpreted.

not being associated with a "war", which seemed to have been the operative term most cited around DU from the Constitutional reference (yet forgetting to notice the Constitution also having the "or" piece in there).

That was my intent in this instance.

Of course, Brown was not a citizen of Virginia and thus owed it no allegiance, which is one of several reasons he shouldn't have been tried for treason.

There have been many "definitions" of "treason" depending on the era and past court cases, but what I was trying to get at from the OP perspective was that one cannot also ignore the "-or- giving aid and comfort to the enemy" part of the Constitution.

is defined in law.

that despite Glasnost, the breakup, initial gestures towards normalization, and recent pull-backs of such gestures, Russia has pretty much been persona non grata in the U.S. policy world, as a leftover of the "Cold War" - and mainly due to one man and the oligarchy that has evolved around him. The recent belligerent acts have only hardened the perspective - particularly if proven to be against the sovereignty of the United States (i.e., election tampering and governance). Some are even more recently defining a "cyber-warfare" as akin to "warfare".

And given that specific sanctions were placed on that country (and specific individuals) by the previous President, it might be something for investigators to look into as well regarding violations.

Start with the first part of the clause: levying war- consistently understood to address those who take up arms against the US -- who, by force, wage war against the nation.

Adhering to or giving aid and comfort to our enemies? That refers to those who don't themselves take up arms but that give assistance/support/express their allegiance to those that do.

Even during the Cold War, for purposes of the treason clause, the US was not at war with Russia and thus Russia was not, for purposes of the treason clause, an enemy of the US. That's why those accused of aiding Russia through acts of espionage have been charged with espionage, not treason.

So who are our enemies for purposes of the treason clause? Those nations/groups/entities that are engaged in hostilities that are subject to the rules of war. I refer you to the definition of "enemy" found in title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense): Section 2204: "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 term "hostilities" is not defined in title 50, but it is defined in title 10 (Armed Forces). Section 948a - "The term 'hostilities' means any conflict subject to the laws of war."

Our differences with Russia do not now and have not in the past risen to the level of a conflict subject to the laws of war. Among the indicia that normally would mark a state of war exist between countries that do not exist with respect to the US and Russia:

Russia and the United States maintain diplomatic relations. War is the failure of diplomacy and I can think of no occasion where two countries fighting a war with one another have consistently maintained formal diplomatic relations.

Moreover, Russia is not now, nor has it ever been (even at the height of the Cold War) named as an enemy of the United States under the Trading with the Enemies Act. In fact, a quarter of a million Americans will probably visit Russia as tourists this year and several billion dollars of commerce between the countries will occur. That is not how nations that are engaged in hostilities subject to the rules of war behave.

and given that the document was written 235 years ago, this part -

and some opinion. Such as its a fact that we have now, and have had in the past, diplomatic relations with Russia, that we permit (and have permitted in the past) billions of dollars in bilateral trade between Russia and the US and allow their citizens to visit the US and our citizens to travel to Russia. It also is a fact, not opinion, that nations who are at war with one another as that term is currently understood in international law do not continue to maintain uninterrupted diplomatic relations, bilateral trade, and largely unrestricted travel for tourism and business.

You're right -- maybe one day the laws will be changed so that cyber war is deemed war for purposes of US law. Maybe one day, the NATO treaty will be amended so that it doesn't specifically refer to "armed conflict" as the trigger for mutual defense obligations.

But that day isn't here yet. And before it gets here, folks will need to give some thoughts as to what "rules of war" apply to cyber war. Does cyber war warrant an armed response or merely counter cyber attacks? How does a cyber war end -- with a peace treaty? With the overthrow, by force or other means, of the aggressor?

In the meantime, congress has plenty of legislative tools at its disposal to define assisting a foreign power in cyber attacks as a crime. We don't have to redefine treason in order to deal with the threat.

Call it what you will, we are the jury and very few will nitpick their perceptions.
It now becomes a public relations war.

We don't make up law based on the "eyes of the public" in this country.

The public perception is going to have great impact on the end of the story.

It is TREASON if you have evidence that the meeting involved: "levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere". And it is actionable if you have two witnesses.

He should recuse himself from investigating all Russian contacts, including himself. Talk about inappropriate!

Link to tweet

but now that we learn Sessions met with the Russian ambassador at the RNC, and then perjured himself to cover it up, I'm thinking there was widespread involvement.

elections taped spied on Trump surrogates and have tapes...if true...they could all go down...including Donnie

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

I can only wonder how long that iceberg will take to melt?

Something is rotten in Denmark so to speak!

He lied and lied badly.

THAT is what is treasonous

warrant the death penalty.

There are some really odd apologetic opinions in this thread being tag teamed.