Stupid, but Not Treason

Donald Trump Jr. is the latest target of the ever elusive Russian collusion story.  In June of last year, he received an email from a British publicist who was going to hook him up with a Russian attorney who had some dirt on Hillary.  Perhaps the best summation was from Kyle Smith: "Don Jr. is why Nigerian e-mail scammers keep trying their luck."  Burn!  The Russian attorney had nothing on Hillary and instead tried to lobby regarding adoption policies between the US and Russia.  It sounds like the meeting was arranged under false pretenses, a bait and switch operation.  If anything, this meeting demonstrates that the Trump campaign failed in a collusion attempt.

As for treason, that's just nonsense.  As discussed here, treason can only be committed by giving aid to, or fighting alongside, the enemies of the United States.  Enemies is narrowly defined as those with whom the US is at war.  As we are not at war with Russia, it is impossible to commit treason on their behalf.  Now, if it had been ISIS or Al Qaeda...  Just because treason is off the table does not mean that espionage or some other crime wasn't committed.

 

Was it treason when Senator Ted Kennedy sought Soviet assistance in derailing President Reagan's re-election in 1984?  Was it treason when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved the sale of a Canadian uranium mining company (which controlled a quarter of US uranium mines) to the Russian Rusatom, especially after her husband had been paid handsomely for multiple speeches in Russia and the Clinton Foundation had received millions from parties interested in the sale?  Was it treason when the Clinton Administration approved a technology transfer to China after his re-election that was funded in part by illegal donations from the People's Republic of China?  If you hold that Don Jr. is a traitor, then so was Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton.  In fact, none of them are traitors though that doesn't mean they aren't reprobates and criminals.

Treason Defined

Here is an article that explains what treason entails, offering 5 myths as a means of pinning down the definition.  To my surprise, one can only commit treason if the United States is at war.  Moreover, the traitor must either take up arms against the United States or provide aid to a nation that is taking up arms against the US.  That is news to me.  By that definition, Alger Hiss was not a traitor since we were not at war with the Soviet Union.  Julius and Ethel Rosenberg wouldn't be traitors either?  Then again, I suppose it depends on how one looks at the Cold War - we had a number of proxy wars with the Soviets over the years.  It is interesting to see how narrow the definition is and that the framers of the Constitution included the definition in the document:

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.

 

I've read this many times but always took a more expansive view of Enemies.  In any case, it would appear that the frequent accusations of treason were predicted by the Framers and they took measures to limit the scope of treason.  Just look at the French Revolution which was just getting into gear as the Constitution was ratified.  How many political opponents were guillotined as traitors?  Soon, disagreeing with the head of state becomes treason and the heads start rolling.

 

This is not to say that the current flurry of treason accusations don't have merit as other crimes, but they aren't treason under the US definition of the term.