No. Because we aren't at war with Russia. They are not officially the "enemy" :

Especially if It's state sponsored.

There are lay terms and legal terms.

Any way , if Trump and/or his fellow gang members colluded with the Russians he's done , whether at the ballot box or impeachment.

This was during the comey/rogers questioning. I wondered if Dems were trying to setup a circumstance where trump could be accused of treason?

Russia is absolutely an enemy to our people, our Constitution,
and the democratic voting process.

So Yes, 45 and co. are traitors in every sense of the word.

I don't like to read tea leaves but I couldn't help but think there was something much bigger being laid out during that hearing.

I think it's correct to call interference in an election by a hostile foreign power an act of war. Ergo, treason stands as a possible charge. I am sure an extremely strong message needs to be sent.

45, Manafort and the rest of the cabal were working on this for 10 years???? Yes they are traitors. And whoever else is involved in the repig party need to be held accountable too, namely Ryan and McConnell.

Chris Hayes thought the description of the Russian hacking as an attack was a little hyperbolic. His security expert he was interviewing yesterday disagreed. Causing Chris to back down. It's clear Dems and many anti-Donny people are the only ones pushing the hacking/Russian interference as an act of warfare.

If not treason, at least charge under the Espionage Act. As many in this thread have brought up.

We can continue to bury our heads in the sand if we want.

are broad. I think they apply.

. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/enemy

Nothing you posted negates that.

By trying to impose some sort of "official declaration of enemy".

Good luck with that.

Palestine wasn't our declared enemy either, but they still went after Clinton for providing material comfort to the enemy while Yassir Arafat was on hold.

Fuck that. This. is. TREASON.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Treason

Why would we join cretins who maliciously and fallaciously accused Presidents Obama and Clinton of treason, based on nothing more than their fevered imaginations and fundamental misunderstandings of the law?


If Trump and his fellow gang members colluded with the Russians they likely violated a host of laws and there will be hell to pay but treason is not one of them.

Either we are at war with Russia or we aren't.

Cyber war is still an act of war...and no formal declaration of "enemy" is necessary. It's really that simple.

Abraham Lincoln had it right - “He who represents himself has a fool for a client”

Cyber war is *still* an ACT of War.

now we have a "war" on terrorism. We never declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan. We also have the War Powers Act, since nuclear war is a threat, one the founders never envisioned. So how would a court interpret "war?" What if someone gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda? They aren't a country with which we could be at war, yet Dumbya did have us at war with them.

if there were case law about it - as to what constitutes levying war in this day and age.

he isnt at war with us. We are being attacked. Russia has committed an act of aggression against us.

Putin is a deplorable tyrant who persecutes glbtq folks, scoffs at the rule of law, demands tributes to do business in his country, bullies his weaker neighbors, and tries to subtly undermine his stronger ones.

But he doesn't think he is at war with us as legally understood and we don't think we are at war with him, thank God.

BTW, if we get our shit together Russia will fall like its predecessor the Soviet Union did, without us firing a shot.

If so, then anyone who helped with that is guilty of treason.

but I am not sure that we have enough statesmen to rise to the occasion to prosecute it as such. In fact, I am pretty sure that we don't.

Remember how they got Capone...tax evasion.

Russia is not our enemy.

Russia was called our adversary in the Comey hearing and they conducted hybrid warfare against us.

Will be interesting to see if Supreme Court has to rule on if that qualifies as war under Constitution. By modern standards, it definitely is.

We can call it cyberwar but it's still espionage. High tech but espionage.

desire war with Russia?

I just want them to respect the sovereignty of their neighbors and to stop undermining liberal democracies.

By interfering in our election.

They started it.

We will finish it

Fuck Russia.

Are you demanding that the NATO alliance announce that they are at war with Russia too under our mutual defense agreement?

If we're at "war" - legally speaking - why do we still have diplomatic relations with Russia, why are Americans free to travel to Russia for tourism and business (and why do we allow Russian tourists and businesspeople to come to the US), why is there billions in bilateral trade between the two countries, why hasn't Russia been designated as an enemy under the "Trading with the Enemies Act"-- in other words, why aren't any of the regular indicia of a state of war, as that term is defined in US law (not the dictionary) evident?

To put it colloquially Putin is a bad guy who needs to be monitored and peacefully resisted. We aren't at the point of going to war with his country, thank God.

Do you consider interfering in our elections an act of,war?

If a country invades the US and prevents elections from taking place -- act of war.
If a country hacks email accounts and releases private communications with the intent of influencing the outcome of the election -- no.

Put another way, if Russia interferes with the elections in Latvia, I don't believe it would trigger the mutual defense obligations of the US and other NATO members, which it would if it was an act of war.

defining it.

It is strange, but acting in favor of any other country over the US, even an ally, might allow that term to operate.

The U.S. openly interfered in the Russia election in support of Boris Yeltsin in 1996. Forget that? Nobody said we were at war then.

Words used in criminal law have legal meanings.
As defined in section 2204 of title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense) -- a law enacted by Congress -- "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."
As defined in title 10 (Armed Forces), Section 948a - "The term 'hostilities' means any conflict subject to the laws of war."

Moreover, there are other indicia of when the US is at war: termination of diplomatic relations, suspension of travel and trade, designation of the "enemy" as such under the "Trading with the Enemies Act."

We have diplomatic relations with Russia. Hundreds of thousands of Americans travel to Russia each year for tourism and business (and Russians enter the US for the same purposes). There is billions of dollars in bilateral trade between the countries. All without Congress doing anything to stop it. The fact that some members of Congress call Russia our adversary doesn't create a state of war between the countries or cause Russia to be an enemy as that term is understood in law any more than the right wingers calling Russia our adversary during the "Cold War" made them enemies then. Most people have heard of the Rosenbergs,who were charged with espionage,not treason. But they're not the only ones -- remember Aldrich Ames? Robert Hanssen? Also spied for Russia. Also charged with espionage. Also not charged with treason even though they did so at a time when Reagan and many in Congress were referring to the Soviet Union as "the evil empire."

the word "enemy" - what does it mean exactly?

A nation with adverse interests?

As people said before many times treason has a very specific meaning that is only applicable in wartime.
The espionnage act however is broader and very likely applies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
noun
noun: treason; noun: high treason; plural noun: high treasons

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
sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion;
high treason, lèse-majesté;
apostasy;
literaryperfidy
"the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
the action of betraying someone or something.
plural noun: treasons
"doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion;
high treason, lèse-majesté;
apostasy;
literaryperfidy
"the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
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

What matters is how it is defined in the constitution.

Why else would they be trying so hard to cover-up their Russian meetings?

I think the republican leadership, by not exposing what we now know they knew about Trump and the Russians, have stepped over the line - the republican leadership has become the domestic enemy that military members take an oath to defend against!

It was an abused term when the Pukes were throwing it around and it's an abused term now.

I think there's a real case to be made that this falls under the purview of espionage.

and with that, it might do us all well to brush up on that law and particulars as well as the RICO Act:

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

Because there's a whole lot of that going on in this web of cases.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Espionage+Act+of+1917

These could be better options regarding charges that are more suited to the circumstances.

power, and a subversion of our democracy

In recent days, I've come to believe that it is.

The Constitution's definition is important. But equally important is how the USSC has defined it.

However, there simply must be some charges other than playing political dirty tricks, which are usually dismissed as bad behavior, but not technically illegal.

This is in a category yet to be defined to my satisfaction. Whatever it is, it needs to be punished severely. Just a monetary fine, no matter how hefty, doesn't cut it for these guys.

If it can be treason, the cyberWAR definition might be the path.

None Dare Call it Treason...... yet.

High crimes and misdemeanors, but not treason IMO.

But when you have a Secretary of State that is an agent of Russia, I think many need to go to jail for life.

maybe espionage though, but I think that's also a stretch.

Did the report the contributions by the hackers?

Recordkeeping

The treasurer of a political committee shall keep an account of-

(1) all contributions received by or on behalf of such political committee;

(2) the name and address of any person who makes any contribution in excess of $50, together with the date and amount of such contribution by any person;

(3) the identification of any person who makes a contribution or contributions aggregating more than $200 during a calendar year, together with the date and amount of any such contribution;

(4) the identification of any political committee which makes a contribution, together with the date and amount of any such contribution; and

(5) the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, the date, amount, and purpose of the disbursement, and the name of the candidate and the office sought by the candidate, if any, for whom the disbursement was made, including a receipt, invoice, or canceled check for each disbursement in excess of $200.

But this is awful.

If they get away with this, simply because they are in power, this will be one of our country's greatest shames.

When cavemen were fighting with rocks, they were defeated by tribes with bows and arrows. When those men with bows and arrows were defeated with rifles, there was a new way to fight wars.

Then there were cannons and aircrafts and missiles.

And then we had the Cold War, a war of propaganda and threats.

Now, I would say we are in cyber war. Nations battle to control the minds and actions of their enemies through cyber means.

War means different things to different people.

Which is why not only the Rosenbergs, but spies like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were charged with espionage not treason even though they were aiding and abetting the "evil empire" during the Reagan years.


(The War on Drugs also isn't a war either....)

From Merriam-Webster:


Definition of espionage

: the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company industrial espionage

prohibiting acts favoring some other country over our own, even an ally.

I mean we aren't at war with Russia but surely it is illegal to say give them the nuclear codes or other acts.

No different than accepting aid and being abetted by an enemy.

per the Constitution and US law. We are not at war with Russia! ergo they are not our "enemy" in legal terms.

Election systems would qualify one as an enemy of the state.

Let me know how it goes. Common parlance or definitions are not legal definitions: walking like a duck and quacking like a duck doesn't make a cretin into a duck in a court of law.

I just think it would be a wonderful experience for all American to see the arguments aired in public before the SCOTUS.
Recent cases involved people who were broadcasting propoganda against us during war time conflicts.
I could imagine, given the nature of our new electronic world, the the SCOTUS may interpret our treason laws more liberally.
Also, if this current situation becomes a fire storm, Congress could create new laws regarding the use of the electronic media that may expand the nature of "treason".

which Trump would have to sign, and which could not be retroactive. Also any reversals of precedent (and iirc this is about the oldest one there is) would not be retroactive either.

So yes, laws may change, but not in a way to resolve the current problem and--I would argue--not in a good way.

There is a reason I object so strongly to the use of the word Treason: RWers have so often applied it to any form of dissent from the left: most prominently but not exclusively it was applied to the anti-war movement during Vietnam. Love it or Leave! That's a door we do not want to open, particularly with DFT and his malevolent minions with their stubby fingers on the reins.

There are plenty of other charges to investigate and no doubt some that will stick, without changing our foundational law.

imho, for a foreign power to manipulate our political system is as much an act of war as any invasion of soldiers, maybe more so.
perhaps we have not declared war on russia, but they most certainly have committed an act of war on us. and traitors in this country abound.

considering the tortured definition of war and war powers throughout our foreign entanglements of the last 50 years +, i will say that if it is good enough for the merchants of death who sell us war at every turn, it is good enough for me. and likely for the courts.

These terms aren't defined in a court of law by looking at a dictionary. They're defined by looking at a statute. The term "enemy" is defined in section 2204 of title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense) as "any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States." And as defined in title 10 (Armed Forces), Section 948a - "The term 'hostilities' means any conflict subject to the laws of war."

The laws of war do not currently treat cyber attacks as acts of war. For example, a cyber attack on the US does not require members of NATO to declare war on the country that cause that cyber attack, etc.

isnt an act of war.
whether or not we declare war on them, they have clearly declared war on us.

Should we suspend all diplomatic relations with Russia? Terminate all travel and business relationships between the two nations?

How does it work if they're at war with us, but we're not at war with them?

the nato nations are already looking at this, and seeing it as a threat to nato itself. i wouldnt be surprised if they took concerted efforts.

but i dont think every skirmish requires invoking nato. perhaps we should have when putin marched into ukraine. but we didnt really.

in the 21st century, i dont think dropping bombs are rolling in troops is the only kind of war.

and i guess it works about the same as when we enter shooting wars on other nations and dont bother to declare it.
our nato allies tend to be right there w us when we do.

if/when we get past this, laws concerning this type of activity may need to be revisted and modified by Congress.

Jonathan pollard was convicted of one count of passing classified information to an ally and was sentenced to life in prison.

One count. An ally. Life.

Sure, there's more to the story. But it suggests that these co-conspirators do not necessarily have to have committed treason to go to jail for a very long time.

I'm fine with the al capone approach. Sure, he was a gangster and murderer. But I would call 11 years for tax evasion a success.

As others have suggested, what we gave here is a very complex example of the prisoners dilemma.

but people thought I was "overreacting." It's looking like I might have been right after all. I've been on the planet since Eisenhower was President and this felt different--darker and much more dangerous. I've never been frightened by an election before--pissed off, yes--but never frightened. I didn't turn on my television for a month after the election, and even then I didn't start watching the news until the last couple of weeks when this whole Russian thing began to heat up.

I absolutely believe that this was treason and I'm starting to think it doesn't stop with the Administration. The way that Nunes, Chaffetz, and now Gowdy are freaking out, I think they are either in cahoots with them or are being blackmailed by them. Wikileaks/Russia hacked both the RNC & the DNC, but only leaked DNC. Why? Developing Republican assets?

I could be all wet & am turning into a conspiracy theory nut, but I don't think so. Al Franken didn't call it hinky for nothing.

says" treason is a citizens actions to help a foreign government overthrow,
make war against,or seriously injure the parent nature.
also attempt to conspire to overthrow even if no foreign country is aiding or involved or aiding the endeavor."

Bannon, Gulianni, Manford, Gowdy, Comway...who else?

No sentient person is disputing that, but words have meaning. We are not at war with Russia, thank God.

Or just a simple betrayal?

It is probably espionage, but more like corporate espionage than government espionage because the espionage was done against a political party and not the government. OTOH, the espionage was in the service of a foreign government to affect our government.

Ask Former9th Ward. He's a constitutional lawyer.

Laws were definitely broken. Which specific one(s)? A lawyer would know.

At the end of the day if a case can be made to the satisfaction of a reasonable person that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the Russians him and/or they are done.

gate was to ban a religion from coming into this country.

Even before that, they refused to let the last president fill a Supreme Court seat.

Now they are trying to take our health care away from us. I don't want to see what they have planned for next week.

Most likely charge would be conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Depending on the evidence as it comes out, there might be charges for being an accessory before or after the fact to CFAA violations. There might be charges under other, related laws concerning the unauthorized access to and disclosure of electronic communications.

The criminal activity here appears, at this stage, to be related to the Russians gaining unauthorized access to private electronic communications and releasing them in an attempt to influence the outcome of the election. It is the first part of that activity that is criminally prosecutable, not the second. It is, like it or not, not a crime for a foreign government to try to influence the outcome of a US election. If it was, then statements by high government officials of foreign governments that they preferred one candidate over another (and such statements were made in 2016) would have been unlawful and any attempt by a campaign to solicit or coordinate such endorsements would be criminal.

Now, if evidence was to come out -- and I've yet to see anyone in government present such evidence -- that voting machines were tampered with or voting counts falsified -- then there would be another level of criminality to address.

Common understanding...

If I hack a corporation's website or e-mails and steal privileged information haven't I committed espionage? And even if I wasn't the hacker, but knowingly disseminated the stolen information aren't I an accessory?

At least not under Federal law based on the information that I've read thus far.

The federal crime of espionage is limited to situations involving information relating to the national defense or information that has been classified by the government. I don't believe the emails disclosed by wikileaks meet those standards, although I don't pretend to know the details of everything that was released.

The Economic Espionage Act is directed at protecting "trade secrets". The term "trade secrets" is defined in the Act as follows:

the term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if—
(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and

(B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information;

But it wouldn't be applicable against the Trump cabal because of the prohibition on ex post facto laws.

If you stipulate that data theft is indistinguishable from physical theft would the mass media have run with the Podesta and DNC correspondence if their offices were burglarized and the correspondence was subsequently leaked?

As a first amendment matter, the press generally has the right to publish information even if that information has been obtained illegally. Indeed, Daniel Ellsworth was charged with theft of government property in connection with the Pentagon Papers (although those charges were later dropped). Some, if not all, elements of the media routinely publish stolen photos and videos, often very embarrassing. One argument is in those instances privacy rights should be given stronger protection than the media's first amendment rights since the information does not relate to matters of important public interest (as opposed to prurient interest). On the other hand, the right of the press to disclose information that concerns matters of public import -- including candidates for election -- generally would be viewed as outweighing the privacy interests of those from whom the information was illegally taken.

(This doesn't mean that the media itself can steal information with impunity, of course. Just means that they can publish information obtained by others, whether legally or illegally).

Finally, apart from the legal issues, there are ethical issues. But in today's world, someone is going to publish just about anything.

which effectively sealed the defendants' fate with the jury. Even so, there are those who believe the decision was a bad one from a First Amendment perspective. In any event, there is no comparison between a sex tape, even of a celebrity, and information by or about a candidate for public office.

For example, if the "grab their pussies" video tape had been stolen and given to the media, I'm pretty sure we'd have been outraged if the media had sat on it because it was obtained illegally.

Didn't the defense argue that Hulk Hogan was a clown and therefore wasn't damaged by the revelations and the jury rejected that argument?

And I don't think it would be possible to know exactly how the jury came to its conclusion. The argument was made that Hogan's boasting about his sex exploits undercut his claims that the video's publication violated his privacy. Hogan's argument in response was that those boasts were made by his on-air "persona" -- a character he played -- and were distinguishable from his private persona. One can conclude, given the verdict, that the jury agreed with Hogan that his private persona was distinguishable from his public one.