This is what Article 2, section 4 says:
"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
How in the world did you get "Treason means to breach one's government despite the oath they swore to uphold to protect the government and the nation, by levying war against the government by such means as aiding, abetting, or comforting the enemy." from Article 2, Section 4?
Your client is in deep doo-doo!
Here's what treason means:
Article 3, Section 3, US 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."
"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."
That means that treason can ONLY be two things:
1) Leviying war against the US--Chief Justice John Marshall said this on his thoughts on the trials of Aaron Burr and his associates: "However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into open action by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that . . . it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying of war."
Best as I know, Clinton does not fall under tha levying war part.
That leaves the next sentence: "...or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The problem with that half of the argument, is that at the moment in time that Clinton did whatever he may, or may have not done, China was not an enemy of the US, you and I might think so, but we are not at war, they are trading partners, and we maintain embassies in each other's countries.
Last, but not least, the Framers took great pains to tell us exactly HOW we could determine treason; "...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."
"...overt act...", did Bill Clinton, in full view, and within ear shot of two witnesses, say to Schwartz "go and sell secret technology that will harm the nation to the Chinese", can you, or anyone, produce those two witnesses?
Or do you expect Slick Willie to break down and confess in open Court?
Now, you either believe that we should adhere, protect, and defend the US Constitution or not.
In some cases, you have to defend it, even if the bad guys benefit from your actions.
That's the difficult part about being a conservative, you have to live by what you preach.
No sir, I believe it is you that is misintrepretating what treason means. When someone violates their oath of office to protect their country enemies abroad, and might it also include as well as domestic they have indeed commited treason. It's not just limited to levying war alone. Levying war also implies, selling weapons to enemies abroad who have every intention of using those missle against your country in the future. Although the House of Un-American Activities became defunct due to the heightened McCarthy hearings, communists are STILL the sworn enemy of the U.S. of A. Those who aid, abet, and provide comfort to those enemies should be removed from public office immediately!
"That's the difficult part about being a conservative, you have to live by what you preach."
I do. Not only that but as one transformed from a communist sympathiziser to that of a conservative, I live to tell from experience.
1) Are we AT WAR with the Taliban or any specific terrorist group? If YES, then why aren't the combatants being viewed as POWs? And what constitutes us being at war? We didn't FORMALLY declare it under the requirements in the Constitution. If NO, then are those groups our ENEMY? It would seem so since there was talk of trying Walker for TREASON.
2) Were we AT WAR with the USSR during the time of the so-called "Cold War"? During the time when we EXECUTED several people for spying for the Soviets, did we trade with them? During the time they SHOT DOWN, KILLED AND DETAINED many of our so-called "cold-warriers", did we maintain an embassy in each other's country?
3) What's the difference between the USSR and China now? They BOTH are(were) totalitarian regimes that see the relatively FREE U.S. Society and its market economy as the greatest threat to the hold they have over their people ... don't you think? They both threaten(ed) to attack US cities with nuclear weapons. They both spy(ied) on us. The Chinese Defense Minister predicted we would be AT WAR in just a few years. China SEIZED our aircraft in INTERNATIONAL WATERS and held the crew HOSTAGE. The Chinese sell weapons to those we have and are currently fighting. So are we in a COLD WAR with the Chinese? Did the Clinton Administration help the Chinese (supply them with access to formerly restricted ... secret in some cases ... information and technology)? Did they do it to help the U.S. or to line their own pockets and that of their party?
I'm not sure I accept your "definition" of and "requirements" for TREASON.