1. Does the surveillance of DJT, along with other attempts aimed towards subverting the electoral process, rise to the level of an attempted coup? If not, then what is/was it? Merely illegal political partisanship activities a la Otter "yes, mistakes were made"?
2. If yes, it was in effect an attempted coup, then do those actions equate to an act of war? Let us note that it literally means "stroke of state" ie a highly leveraged revolutionary act. Since when does a revolution not constitute an act of war? Again, I'm willing to consider arguments that the coup wasn't an act of war.
3. However, if the attempted coup was indeed an act of war, then by any reasonable definition, this meets the criteria for treason, which is: levying, aiding and comforting an enemy, foreign or domestic.
So, now we come to the nitty gritty: if Trump has the back of at least 50% of We the People, and perhaps more importantly, the military, then doesn't he have the casus belli to reference Lincoln by issuing a proclamation similar to "... the laws of the United States have been, for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the United State federal government in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law."
OK, so now we reach the next question, which is: why is the current situation in the US so unique that it contradicts all known historical precedent in terms retribution/retaliation with respect to defense of state security matters?
And this is what I truly don't get: Sessions, RR or any other players have to either be: (a) in an utter state of denial that their plans are unraveling to such an extent that it places them in actual personal peril; or (b) they have 'nads of steel, and are willing to keep pushing for a hail mary victory even as Hitler's bunker figuratively comes crashing down upon them.
Aaron Burr was tried for treason under the Jefferson administration and was freed because his actions did not constitute treason. He was planning to create an empire of his own and gathering arms and men.
So I think the term “treason” has such a specific meaning that it would be difficult to prove treason but a slam-dunk to prove Sedition.