Replies

Do a Wiki search and see how few times a treason charge was ever prosecuted in our history. The cases are few and far between, and they do include several cases of internal insurrection (John Brown, for example). Many of those defendants were later pardoned (like in the case of Fries' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion).

Here's an example of a treason prosecution that would fall apart very quickly for obvious reasons ...

Suppose it was 2016, and it was learned shortly after Election Day that Donald Trump and his senior campaign leaders DID conspire with the Russian government -- not only to "meddle" in the 2016 election, but to actually rig it ... by using Russian intelligence methods to hack voting machines and change results, for example.

Now they'd all be guilty of a whole lot of crimes, but TREASON wouldn't be one of them. Here's why:

If Donald Trump is a defendant in a Federal court in 2018 on a treason charge, the first thing his lawyer are going to do is make a very compelling case that Russia doesn't even meet any objective definition of an "enemy" of the U.S.

Here's the case laid out right here in a satirical piece I posted last year:

BREAKING NEWS: Three U.S. Military Personnel Under Investigation for Collaborating with the Russians

Seriously ... someone in the position of a Federal prosecutor is going to explain how the Russians are an "enemy" of the United States -- even while the U.S. has had its military personnel taking orders from RUSSIAN MILITARY OFFICERS for years?

Forget it. LOL.

Again, there are many and varied problems with the thesis you're advancing. For one, you're basing a significant amount of credence on precedent. However, a priori, for that to relevant, something of similar nature would have had to previously occur in this nation's history.

For example, where does your argument stand with respect to Lincoln's decisions and actions during CWI? What precedent, in term of cases, incidents or other civil disruptions, guided Lincoln leadership during that conflict?

More relevant, however, is considering Trump's actual position in relationship to the first instance of an extant administration conspiring against a presidential candidate. And not only that, but then collaborating with electors to thwart having him seated, and then subsequently mounting an unlawful attack with internal state apparatus engaged in a legal coup?

The answer of course is that there aren't any preceding instances, therefore this is completely virgin territory where decisions will be made by those who have the power to establish and enforce original principle(s).

You're a very good and logical thinker/poster, but I believe you're doing yourself a disfavor here. By insisting on standing on established precedence, and then continuing to point to the courts as if they have ultimate power denies both theory and practical reality.

Lastly, I cannot believe you advanced a hypothetical as support for your position. You're way too experienced and clever for that- that's auto forfeit in debate 101; what's going on?