Richard Painter, an ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush, has declared that the meeting of Donald Trump Jr., with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have compromising information on Hillary Clinton during the campaign, “borders on treason.” Others have said that the disclosure could be the long sought after “smoking gun” on collusion and evidence of criminal conduct. I am afraid that I have to continue my record as something of a “buzz kill” on these stories. There is not a clear criminal act in such a meeting based on the information that we have. Moreover, it is not necessarily unprecedented.
Painter declared on MSNBC that
“This was an effort to get opposition research on an opponent in an American political campaign from the Russians, who were known to be engaged in spying inside the United States. We do not get our opposition research from spies, we do not collaborate with Russian spies, unless we want to be accused of treason. . . . If this story is true, we’d have one of them if not both of them in custody by now, and we’d be asking them a lot of questions. This is unacceptable. This borders on treason, if it is not itself treason.”
I have to respectfully disagree with Painter. I tend to view these things through the lens of a criminal defense attorney and I do not see how either Trump Jr. or Natalia Veselnitskaya could be put into “custody” for such a meeting. There is no crime in listening to people who say that they have incriminating information on a political opponent, even a foreigner. Article III defines treason as “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” To say that this type of meeting even borders on treason is quite a departure from the language and cases governing that crime.
Moreover, it is hardly shocking to see a willingness to gather dirt during that election. Hillary Clinton was repeatedly criticized for her close association with figures like David Brock who was denounced even by John Podesta as sleazy and disreputable. There was also Sidney Blumenthal who was regularly denounced for spreading rumors and dirt against anyone threatening Clinton.
There also is the allegations surrounding who funded a former British spy to come up with the dossier against Trump, which is now viewed as discredited.
Once again, experts are pulling out the Logan Act to suggest a possible crime. Norm Eisen, a former chief White House ethics attorney, referenced the law even though it has only been enforce once and it widely viewed as unconstitutional, as we have previously discussed. Vermont Law Professor Jennifer Taub suggests that it could be charged as a conspiracy to defraud the United States. So listening to someone who claims to have evidence that a federal crime by your competitors is now an effort to defraud under 18 U.S.C. 371? I am highly skeptical of the chances of such a claim and I have never seen the like of it. Others have suggested that he might be charged with “violating federal criminal statutes prohibiting solicitation or acceptance of anything of value from a foreign national.” Well, business people accept things of value for foreign officials all the time. It is called transnational business. Presumably, this is meant to suggest a criminal contribution to a campaign from a foreign national — ironically the very allegation raised by the Russian lawyer against Clinton as the purpose of the meeting. That allegation is rather hard to square with the fact that campaign officials and candidates speak to foreign leaders and sources all the time on issues. If notice of a possible crime or information is now deemed as thing of tangible value under federal campaign laws, the wide array of exchanges on behalf of campaign would be implicated. Indeed, major free speech and association issues would be raised. Once again, this is a matter that is worthy of investigation. However, these possible criminal charges are radically over-extended on the facts that we currently have.
None of this excuses the slime machine that runs 24/7 in Washington. People in the Beltway regularly traffic in dirt — it is the currency of our time. It has been for some time. Indeed, the Federalists and Jeffersonians actively and openly sought scandalous material to use against each other.
Trump Jr. said in a statement to the paper on Sunday that he had met with Natalia Veselnitskaya at the request of an acquaintance and denied that he received any information on Clinton.
“After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton,” he said. “Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”
“It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,” Trump Jr. said.
Donald Trump Jr. said that the Russian lawyer contacted the office shorting after his father clinched the Republican presidential nomination to share information damaging to Clinton:
“I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign. I was not told her name prior to the meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to attend, but told them nothing of the substance.
We had a meeting in June 2016. After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton.
Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”
Foreign funding of an election would be federal crime.
Trump Jr. said that Veselnitskaya soon changed the subject and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and moved the conversation towards the Magnitsky Act — a 2012 bill that blocks certain Russian officials’ entrance to the U.S. and their use of the U.S. banking system:
“It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting. I interrupted and advised her that my father was not an elected official, but rather a private citizen, and that her comments and concerns were better addressed if and when he held public office. The meeting lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes. As it ended, my acquaintance apologized for taking up our time. That was the end of it and there was no further contact or follow-up of any kind.”
Quite frankly, most people in the Beltway look at that account and snicker that Trump Jr. was a fool to personally attend such a meeting. Other campaigns would have used surrogates like Brock but they would have gotten the information.
The one area of legal concern raised by this account is again the failure of various Trump family members and associates from listing foreign contacts on federal forms, including the SF-86. I have had to fill out that form regularly since the Reagan Administration and listed even brief meetings with foreign academics at conferences. It is hard to see how such meetings would not be listed.
Unless there is more (and this is worthy of investigation), I see nothing close to treason or a crime in this account. That obviously does not fit with the breathless accounts given the story but the criminal code is not a code of political etiquette.
I think they planned to frame Trump after he lost to Hillary because all this Russian collusion business was too well packaged. I think it wouldn’t have mattered if he won or lost, they were planning to do it either way.
Every time I read another story about corruption in politics I’m reminded about this comic. Just replace Ensign with Progressives and Chief with Constitutionalists. This never gets old! 🙂
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=448460575533975&set=gm.10154524085230047&type=3
Oh, that’s disappointing.
Anyway, it says:
Ensign: I just thought it odd that a Chief can become and Ensign, but an Ensign cannot become a Chief.
Chief: We got standards.
The title itself made me laugh.
“Foreign funding of an election would be a federal crime.” I have to wonder why the author of this article thinks the real story is about whether the Trumps did anything wrong or not and not about how the DNC always turns their crimes into opportunities to accuse their opponents of a crime instead. Accepting foreign funding is a crime as stated in the article. Exposing Foreign funding is not a crime it’s a civic duty and an act of Patriotism. Why is he letting them control the narrative?
Why is he letting them control the narrative?
Perhaps he’s simply letting them fashion the noose they will hang from.
At 81 I just fell asleep twice trying to read this crap. The stock market is better reading.
looks like the devil is brewing up more poison for his final judgement. no president of USA has ever been
under so great attack and bigger money will not stop its evil. too bad people have dismissed the Bible with its explanation of exactly what is going on and about to happen. Why has the past administration been covered up in all their corruption. Answer is that evil is present everywhere and evil has much more financial power than the righteuos. Evil is allowed to do anything imaginable and the righteous are under the guidance of truth and Holliness.
MOST OF THESE COMPLAINERS APPARENTLY HAVE VERY LITTLE EDUCATION SINCE THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND “TREASON” IN RELATION TO POLITICAL AND CIVILIAN COMMUNICATIONS – AND TOTALLY IGNORE INTENT. MOST OF OUR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS AND AMERICAN OFFICIALS AND MAYBRE EVEN EMPLOYEES HAVE AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER COMMUNICATED WITH RUSSIANS OF ALL KINDS AND NOT EVEN KNOWN THEY MAY BE OUR “ENEMIES” AND WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ENEMY. ALL OF THIS CURRENT NOISE IS JUST SMOKE MEANT TO DISTRACT THE CURRENT PRESIDENT – WITHOUT REALIZING THEY CAN DO THIS WHILE PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES CAN’T.
STOP ABUSING THIS RIGHT AND DO A LITTLE MORE THAN TRYING TO DESTABILIZE THIS COUNTRY WHICH IS THE ONLY SAFE HAVEN YOU HAVE.
Y0U’RE A HAUGHTY AND ARROGANT INDIVIDUAL AND i INTUIT THAT AND YOUR POST REFLECTS MAYBE NOT THE FACTS BUT MORE SO YOUR EGOMANIA.SORRY, BUT I CALL THEM AS i SEE THEM.
IF I AM WRONG, i APOLOGIZE.
If Trump Jr knew he was meeting with somebody connected to the Russian government prior to the meeting, he had to know there was a reason the Russian government wanted the meeting to take place. The focus of the meeting, per the most recently divulged email sent to Trump by Goldstone, was to help the Trump campaign win the election. By meeting with the Russians to aid the Russians in their goal of influencing the election outcome, Trump aided an enemy. An enemy attacking the very foundation of our democracy. Is that not treasonous? “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”. Russia is certainly an enemy in this instance and Trump Jr, and cohorts certainly knowingly met with an individual connected with the Russian government, thereby aiding Russia in their effort. How is this not treason?
This is great! Reminds me of the Soviet Alfa class submarine trying to take out the Red October. In an act of desperation it removed the safeties, missed the target and their own torpedo blew them up. All the desperation to sink this President is no different. Statements like An enemy attacking the very foundation of our democracy. Is that not treasonous? are beautiful! Conservatives have been saying that about the progressive movement for 100 years and it has fallen on deaf ears. The best thing we could do now is continue to wake up the American people, let the progressive left give the civics lesson about what a threat to our freedoms and rights really are, and just sit back and watch them implode.
More popcorn please.
This is awesome Olly! Just what I was thinking! I might have to watch that movie again tonight. Apparently lib-progs are hiding under their beds at night, since we know Putin prowls the streets… Put on more popcorn for me please.
slohrss,
Lincoln had it correct: America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
The worst case scenario is the Russians aided and abetted the citizens of the United States by destroying the Clinton campaign and the scourge she would have been to our very foundation of government. Best case scenario is the Russians had nothing to do with it and not only do we not have Clinton as President, but we have the progressives teaching the American people that the real enemy IS progressivism.
Do you want butter on that? 🙂
Well, we can see that. Our fearless leaders have used “divide and conquer” among the citizenry so effectively, they may have destroyed the basis of any social cohesion that weaves the country together through some relative commonality. While the more conservative lot seem to understand that without a structure, the country cannot continue, but the more liberal folks just want to add more fuel to the flame.
Maybe in the end it’s the lack of history in school that will be our undoing. Seems most just want the drive-up window to government bennies. I guess that’s the weak mentality that can be so easily subjugated by opportunist people like the Clintons.
Here, I’ll help them out Squeeky-style and solve the whole thing for the daisies who probably recently found out there is more to the world than Facebook and cable TV. Hillary Clinton on election night: “Darn, I can’t believe I lost again.” All the other Clinton creeps, “What do we do now?” Slick Willie, “Way’ll, heard somthin’ about the Russians–let’s blame it on them, people love to hate the Russians… Haaaay, I thank that’ll wurk!”
And that’s all there is to it. Can I charge for solving that ongoing government cash hole?
Light on the butter and a dash of salt, please.
(Meanwhile, I wonder how the government has done with the Flint water crisis. Guess that isn’t important news.)
Hey, you were pretty close! Except I don’t think it was Bill, as much maybe as David Brock and Sid Blumenthal types.
Plus, the Democratic Left Machine is organized like ISIS, and there is not a formal chain of command. One Lefty looks at what another Lefty says, and then repeats it, and soon all the Lefties are singing the same tune. Which is a lot easier than thinking out things for oneself. Remember this from last year:
https://pics.onsizzle.com/headlines-think-the-media-got-the-memo-in-acceptance-speech-3136408.png
Right now, they are all just singing the same old Russia Collusion song.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/884779605986508801
I think Gay Benson is just trying to stay relevant now that Megyn Kelly is no longer at FoxNews. She had him on her show a lot, and I was never impressed that much with his analysis on anything. He seemed to be a lightweight little fellow, who didn’t have the physical strength for a real job, like being a plumber or a mechanic. Sooo, he just went around blowing hot air.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You sir, are a scumbag. You side with a foreign power against your fellow citizens. I do not expect you to see your perfidy, but you should know it is obvious to the outside world. You’ve no idea who the Russians are and frankly, you no longer know your fellow citizens on the other side of the political spectrum. You only know what Faux News tells you. When your generation is gone the country will be a better place
You sir, are a scumbag. You’ve no idea who the Russians are and frankly, you no longer know your fellow citizens on the other side of the political spectrum.
First of all, thank you. That fact you went directly to an insult demonstrates I’ve hit the nail on the head. Unless the Russians have improved with age since the 20 years I spent with them as our adversary in the Navy, then yes, I have no misunderstanding of who they are. What has not improved is the civics literacy of our own citizens. I don’t give a rats ass what effing side of the political spectrum you hail from. There is only one rule of law and my oath is to defend that, not some ignorant, utilitarian bureaucracy masquerading as constitutional republic.
So no, I’m not of your ilk. I am not some ignorant ideologue with a gnat’s worldview. My recommendation is for you to go study and expand your knowledge of the purpose of government. If you don’t flinch when learning the average citizen scores less than 50% on the U.S. Civics exam, then you are part of the problem. And since the Russians aren’t part of our electorate (of course we’d be able to prove that if we scrubbed our voter rolls), then our republics greatest threat will come from within. And that dp would be you.
MPP
Sally Pena – technically we are not at officially at war with Russia.
We shall see, perhaps, what a jury decides on this issue. I know how I would vote.
It is an issue for some Democrats and supporters of the alias, B.H.Obama – and the owners of the MSM, who support both Democrats and Obama subordinates.
“Russia is certainly an enemy in this instance and Trump Jr, and cohorts certainly knowingly met with an individual connected with the Russian government, thereby aiding Russia in their effort. How is this not treason?”
The definition of treason is fixed in the 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. . . .” Congress cannot expand or contract that definition.
1) What is the legal definition of “enemies” for purposes of prosecuting an allegation of treason? Even if the US has sanctioned Russia for annexing Crimea, is this former ally in two world wars “certainly” one of our enemies?
2) Even if Russia is one of our enemies, how did anyone give Russia aid and comfort or adhere to Russia, when the information was allegedly given by Russia to Trump’s son to use not against the United States but against Hillary Clinton?
Hey Steve, you ought to get a lawyer to research this legal stuff for you! Here’s a hint about Question No. 1: United States v. Greathouse (1863, C. C.) 4 Sawyer, 457, 466, 2 Abb. (U. S. D. C.) 364, 26 Fed. Cas. No. I5,254.
Really? United States v. Greathouse, 26 Fed. Cas. 18, No. 15,254 (C. C. N. D. Cal. 1863). Fitting out and sailing a privateer held levying of war. Defendants convicted, later pardoned or released on bond upon taking oath of allegiance.
Keep trying.
You oughta read it before commenting. You’ve got about half the facts right and missed this little ditty:
“The constitutional provision, as you perceive, is divided into two clauses: levying was against the United States and adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The term “enemies” as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us.”
Did you pass the bar or are you a wannabe or just a paid troll?
Mark Esposito’s comment cites the the October 17,1863 Greathouse opinion from Associate Justice Stephen J. Field “riding” the federal Circuit Court for the District of California. Justice Field was formerly the fifth Chief Justice of the State of California.
Mark’s comment concerns Justice Field’s interpretation of the second branch (clause) of the constitutional definition of treason in Article III, section 3, which Sally Penna brought up and I queried, provoking Mark to confidently entertained himself – as he always does – by calumny. As you know, this is not about the first clause which pertains to levying war. From Greathouse:
“The constitutional provision, as you perceive, is divided into two clauses, ‘levying was against the United States,’ and ‘adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.’ The term ‘enemies,’ as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government. An enemy is always the subject of a foreign power who owes no allegiance to our government or country. We may, therefore, omit all consideration of this second clause in the constitutional definition of treason. To convict the defendants they must be brought within the first clause of the definition. They must be shown to have committed acts which amount to a levying of war against the United States. To constitute a levying of war there must be an assemblage of persons in force, to overthrow the government, or to coerce its conduct. The words embrace not only those acts by which war is brought into existence, but also those acts by which war is prosecuted. They levy war who create or carry on war. The offense is complete, whether the force be directed to the entire overthrow of the government throughout the country, or only in certain portions of the country, or to defeat the execution and compel the repeal of one of its public laws.” [Emphasis.]
http://uniset.ca/other/cs5/2AbbUS364.html
Mark jumps to a conclusion as to the veracity of that portion of the opinion dealing with the second clause. Justice Field provided no legal support for his opinion as to the “settled meaning” of the second clause at the time of adoption of the Constitution which certainly changed.
For instance, “rebels in insurrection against their own government” can be deemed “enemies” for purposes of the second clause. (Young v. United States (1877) 97 US 39 [aid and comfort to a rebellion through the government of North Carolina during the Civil War].) This directly conflicts with Justice Field’s “settled meaning” of the second clause.
In this respect, if it wasn’t dictum from Justice Field, it was a faulty legal analysis at least immediately following the Civil War if not during it.
“In this respect, if it wasn’t dictum from Justice Field, it was a faulty legal analysis at least immediately following the Civil War if not during it.”
*****************************
Your legal analysis is about as bad as your history. As every fifth grader knows, the American Civil War was fought from 1861-1865. The case of US v. Greathouse was decided in October 1863, shortly after the schooner in question was seized (March). That, dear Sherlock, makes it during the Civil War (which you’d know if you bothered to read the facts). In fact, the first sentence of the opinion provides a pretty good clue for you:
“On the fifteenth day of March, 1863, the schooner J. M. Chapman was seized in the
harbor of San Francisco, by the United States revenue officers, while sailing, or about
to sail, on a cruise 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞
𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬; 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐲 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞, 𝐀𝐬𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐲
𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐀𝐥𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐑𝐮𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐲, 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦 𝐂. 𝐋𝐚𝐰, 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐳𝐨 𝐋. 𝐋𝐢𝐛𝐛𝐲, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬,
𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐉𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝟏𝟕, 𝟏𝟖𝟔𝟐, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐢𝐝
𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐨, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬”
The case is cited for the proposition I mentioned (about the need for a real war to have an enemy and hence treason) appears in lots of law reviews (those are learned articles written by real lawyers, Steve) of which this below is just one:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/787437.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A78349316188ec473cf02f9257b956595
In it, the author quoting Cheif Justice John Marshall (you might have heard of him) says:
“It is therefore more safe as well as more consonant to the principles
of our constitution that the crime of treason should not be extended
by construction to doubtful cases; and that crimes not clearly within
the constitutional definition, should receive such punishment as the
legislature in its wisdom may provide.”
And thus limiting the discussion to the meanings in place for the crime of Treason at the time of ratification of the Constitution. So your post hoc attempts to one up the crime are just … well … silly, to be kind.
Justice Field, who was appointed to SCOTUS by Abraham Lincoln, reminded everyone what those meanings were (since they derive form the English Treason Act of 1351 and folks might have forgotten (“If a British subject does an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemies of the King 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐠, that is in law the giving of aid
and comfort to the King’s enemies.”)) in the case I cited:
“The term ‘enemies,’ as used in the second clause, according to its
settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only
to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with
us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own
government.”
The law review author goes on to quote Justice Field:
” What constitutes giving aid and comfort to the enemy may be
described, in general, in the words of Mr. Justice Field:
“𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦 ‘𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐞𝐬’ . . . 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧
𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐮𝐬. Wherever overt acts
have been committed which, in their natural consequence, if success-
ful, would encourage and advance the interests of the rebellion, in
judgment of law aid and comfort are given. Whether aid and com-
fort are given-the overt acts of treason being established-is not
left to the balancing of probabilities-it is a conclusion of law.”10
In the recent Casement treason case in England, in 1917, on an
indictment under the English Treason Act of 135I which reads:
“be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid
and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere,” the Lord Chief Justice
charged the jury as follows: “If a British subject does an act which
strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemies of the King in the
conduct of a war against the King, that is in law the giving of aid
and comfort to the King’s enemies. Again, if a British subject com-
mits an act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the King
and of the country to resist or to attack the enemies of the King and
the country, that is in law the giving of aid and comfort to the King’s
enemies.””
You might be interested to know that this Yale Law Review article was written by no less a legal giant than Charles Warren. Warren, among professional accomplishments too numerous to mention, won the Pulitzer Prize for his book “The Supreme Court in United States History (1922).” So legal scholar, historian, Special Master to the Supreme Court and Professor Charles Warren might know a tad more than Steve .. whatever your name is … about the United States Constitution.
Young v. US
Your crazy fabricated quote and faulty analysis of the Young case is simply laughable. The case specifically says the British subject petitioner in question seeking benefit of a federal act permitting recovery of goods seized in the South after the war could not prevail since he had provided aid and comfort to Southerners who were enaged in clause one treason by levying war on the United States. It also said he didn’t qualify for the pardon since he did not meet the definiton of a pardoned traitor as he had no allegiance to the United States in the first place. ” If he furnished munitions of war and supplies to the Confederate government, or did any acts which would have rendered him liable to punishment for treason had he owed allegiance to the United States, he gave aid and comfort to the rebellion within the meaning of that act, and was thereby excluded from the privileges which it confers. By giving such aid and comfort, he committed in a criminal sense no offense against the United States, and he was therefore not included in the pardon and amnesty granted by the proclamation of the President of Dec. 25, 1888, 15 Stat. 711.”
The case is not about the second clause of the Treason section but about the rebel-helping alien seeking his goods and cash back arguing he was in essence a pardoned traitor. The homegrown “rebels in insurrection” aren’t even mentioned as clause two enemies as you state and why should they be since they clearly were engaged in levying war under the first clause. What are you talking about?
You see, Steve, in the legal business it pays to know what you’re talking about before you talk. That means a little research and reliance on folks who know more about a given topic than you might. In your case and on the topic of treason, that would be just about anyone.
Mespo, Thank you for providing intellectual stimulus in this otherwise banal debate.
We sure needed it, Allan. And thanks.
Exactly. Trump Jr aided an enemy by agreeing to meet with them, knowing full well the agenda to be considered prior to the meeting. If such access (aid) has no value, I would like a meeting with Trump Jr and cohorts myself…
Sally:
“Exactly. Trump Jr aided an enemy by agreeing to meet with them, knowing full well the agenda to be considered prior to the meeting.”
***********************************
Nixon met with Mao Zedong in 1972 and (the horror!) “knew full well the agenda to be considered prior to the meeting,” and Jerry Ford did the same with Brezhnev and Tito. You wanna draw up the indictment against Tricky Dickie and Humpty Jerry for treason or shall I ….
What evidence is there that she is connected to the Russian government? She says she is not.
Sally, I have found no evidence in this article that Mr. Trump Jr. met with anyone connected with the Russian government. He met with a Russian lawyer, but it never stated that this lawyer represented the government in any manner.
Seeing that you have based your argument on something that doesn’t exist, your complete argument is moot.
David – The news this morning on Trump Jr’s emails just released makes it all too clear there was a connection with the Russian government… it is becoming clearer by the hour this was an act of treason. Trump Jr and cohorts knew they were in the wrong when all of them conveniently “forgot” about this meeting ever taking place… I am surprised you yourself do not recognize the significance of that meeting.
Sally,
David said: I have found no evidence in this article that Mr. Trump Jr. met with anyone connected with the Russian government. Your response did nothing to address the lack of evidence. You could clear this up by providing the actual evidence and in some way, any way, support your claim of treason.
I’ll wait.
Sally Penna – it is not treason nor is it collusion. However, Hillary’s deals with Russia for selling our uranium is both treason and collusion.
Paul, please, we’re trying to have a discussion completely devoid of intellectual honesty. Take that nonsense somewhere else, for crying out loud!
Sorry ,Paul,they’re neither, too. See below.
mespo – I know they are not, but it was just too easy to tease her. 😉
I figured as much. Don’t tease the slugs! It makes them angry.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-the-intelligence-community-is-decoding-donald-trump-jrs-emails/article/2628288 “Note the email line from Rob Goldstone: “This obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump — helped along by Aras and Emin.”
That line has relevance for three reasons.
First, because Aras and Emin Agalarov (father and son) are well-known intermediaries (or “cutouts, the formal intelligence community term) for the Kremlin. But this email indicates they were intermediaries for the most sensitive element of Russia’s 2016 election intelligence operation: communications with the Trump campaign regarding the anti-Clinton effort.
As I explained last week, Russian intelligence, and Putin in particular, thrive on using cutouts to conduct sensitive intelligence activities. In effective terms, one could replace “helped along by Aras and Emin” with “helped along by Igor and Sergey” (the heads of Russia’s GRU intelligence service).
Second, Goldstone’s clarification (“part of Russia and it’s government’s support for Mr. Trump”) is offered at face value. That strongly implies Goldstone already knew that Trump Jr. knew what the Russians were doing.
00:34 / 01:00
Week Twenty-Four of the Trump White House in Review
Watch Full Screen
Third, the meeting took place after this email exchange. That’s the crunch point. It shows that Trump Jr. was willing to meet with a hostile foreign government in the pursuit of information that would damage a U.S. political opponent.
I just love it when you try to explain things! It is sooo obvious that somebody is feeding you the talking points!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
It is an article from the Washington Examiner and not my words .Some right wing media is starting to catch on after Don juniors revelations.
Goldstone’s email?
Sally Penna:
“Russia is certainly an enemy in this instance and Trump Jr, and cohorts certainly knowingly met with an individual connected with the Russian government, thereby aiding Russia in their effort. How is this not treason?”
***************************
Just cool you jets, lassie. Here’s how. Russia is not an “enemy” for purposes of the crime of treason. Here’s a summary of the law (without case cites) from none other than the Washington Post:
“But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.”
So if you want nuclear war with Russia keep making irresponsible statements.
More likely nuclear war scenario is that Trump bombs NK and the fallout spreads to Russia.
Naw, we have active tactical nukes and unassembled neutron bombs that can be delivered by stealth aircraft along with laser weapons. Should keep the overspray of kimchi to a minimum.
Nope……will spread to both China and Russia
Frankly,…
During the primaries, Ted Cruz said that Trump’s foreign policy views were so inconsistent and erratic that “we might wake up one morning and find that Donald had nuked The Netherlands”.😄
Not irresponsible. What is irresponsible is keeping Trump in office.
Babble what you will, Sally. It keep us in stitches.
I would point out that she who laughs last laughs best. But in this situation we all lose and nobody will be laughing.
Maybe Mike Pence. 🙂
Mike Pence an his wife are laughing and measuring
MOM, does not allow laughing. Whole family is scary.
No. I assure you that I will still be laughing at you.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Whatever you do, please keep this dramedy rolling. 🙂
Sally, the important thing is that Trump has improved the job situation and the economy despite the gutter snipes.
Job growth is the same as it has been for the past few years. GDP is below par and wage growth is non existent.
Frankly, Instead of mindless banter look at the numbers. Look at the U6. Also go to the .gov economic sites and look at salaries.
GDP has been saddled with the inefficiencies created by the Obama administration and perhaps the Bush administration as well. Regulations have been removed permitting industry a chance to grow the GDP.
Pay attenetion to Obama’s hometown Chicago and the place where he learned how to destroy. It is Illinois the state that is fiscally the worst off in the nation. Their bonds are in jeopardy of becoming junk bonds. Illinois is the result of the BS you promote.
The job numbers and the market are up, you are right. That will be of little comfort if we lose our most fundamental and precious right to cast at vote with confidence that it has not been compromised. Millions have given their lives for the freedoms we enjoy. It is frightening we choose to cast a blind eye when those freedoms are put in jeopardy.
Sally, I’m glad we agree that each of our individual votes should count and not be diluted by those that are not citizens or ineligible to vote.
Now that was a very good post Sally.
Pence is no treat, either. You could settle for a hobbled Trump that is constantly under investigation.
The Russian lawyer in question has stated that she does not have connections to the Russian government. She’s a private citizen who happens to be a citizen of Russia; that’s her only connection to Russia. As a private citizen she has the right to contact whoever she wishes to talk to. What sounds fishy to me is the pretext used to requet a meeting with Trump. She uses that as a pretext, gives them some vague information about Hillary’s campaign collusion with Russians,about donations sent to her campaign and then switches to the adoption of Russian children by foreigners. Was she lobbying for the children or was she being paid by Soros, the Clinton campaign and the DNC to set up a trap for Trump to fall into? What was the real motive to set up a meeting with Trump? I think this is what needs to be investigated. I have a feeling it is all the work of evils Hillary and DNC.
Why would Goldstone put his access to Trump at risk by telling them the woman was connected to the Russian government if she wasn’t? She has reason to deny. Goldstone had no incentive to destroy his connection with a lot of nonsense about nothing. Further investigation will reveal the truth.
https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/884779605986508801
what about FEC rule 441e which states that it is unlawful for a foreign national to provide “contributions”?
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal/legacy/2013/09/30/electbook-0507.pdf
Define contributions.
“contribution” – in general, any gift, loan, or anything
else having pecuniary value that is made for the
purpose of influencing the nomination or election of a
federal candidate. 2 USC § 431(8).
It seems likely that opposition research would fall squarely under this definition
“contribution” – in general, any gift, loan, or anything else having pecuniary value that is made for the
purpose of influencing the nomination or election of a federal candidate.
You do know what pecuniary means, right? Please do continue down this road and let’s include the Clinton Foundation in the discussion. Oh heck, let’s include the entire political class and analyze every contribution. We’ll see just how objective and patriotic ya’ll are.
Ready. Begin.
Yes, I do know what “pecuniary” means. Opposition research is a commodity used in political campaigns for the purpose of undermining opposing candidates. It doesn’t simply drop out of the sky. Political campaigns hire staffers to whom they pay salaries (read “pecuniary value” here, please) for the express purpose of collecting this stuff.
I have no objection to your including the clinton foundation or anyone else in the political class in this discussion as I’m accustomed to you nimrods changing the subject and wandering off topic. To the extent that foreign nationals are providing items of opposition research or other contribution, there would be a violation of the election code in the case of any other political campaign.
I have no objection to your including the clinton foundation or anyone else in the political class in this discussion as I’m accustomed to you nimrods changing the subject and wandering off topic.
Do you even read what your write? The word Including means on topic you halfwit.
OK, now you just sound butt-hurt.
We’re not laughing WITH you.
Good day to you, sir.
Your welcome. And a great day to you as well.
I have to agree with rimshot:
Opposition research has pecuniary value or people like Karl Rove (Ned Beatty’s evil twin) and James Carville (the alien from Hale Bopp) wouldn’t do it. Trump would have paid a boot-full for it if he had to. Hell, he settled the Trump Univ. fraud case for $25M prior to taking office. It’s all good business judgment to him.
Of course you would Steve, because your legal instincts are so skewed. Philosophy has pecuniary value or people wouldn’t do it and lots of folks pay a boot-full for it so that clearly meets your definition. If the Russian lawyer waxed eloquent about Tolstoy was she likewise offering things of pecuniary value so as to trigger the statute? Steve, we have a policy promoting the free exchange of ideas and that trumps your silly argument about oppo research being criminally sanctionable. Go outside, take a deep breath, head on over to the library and read a book or two about the Constitution and its interplay will silly arguments about criminalizing conversation. Spoiler Alert: The Constitution always wins.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/donald_trump_jr_s_free_speech_defense_is_as_bogus_as_it_sounds.html ”
To let someone off the hook who solicited “very high level and sensitive information” from a hostile government because there may be cases in which information from a foreign source does not raise the same danger to our national security and right of self-government is to turn the First Amendment into a tool to kill American democracy.
“Put aside the incredulity Trump World would deserve if it pivots from saying there were no campaign contacts with the Russian government to acknowledging the contacts and saying they were just free speech. As a matter of protecting American democracy, the argument is pernicious and threatens the very core of what it means for “we the people” to decide who governs us.”
Well, I like a good talking point, too. Let’s look at the normative analysis you quote. So we throw out the FA and thus anytime a foreign national approaches anyone in a US political campaign promising to discuss issues or provide evidence of the other side’s criminality or even other matters of value to us, the American politician risks a prosecution for violating the federal solicitation statute. Therefore, no campaign member could ever speak to a foreign national about issues important to them in the context of American policy. Accordingly, had prominent Nazi Deputy Führer Rudolph Hess flown to America instead of Scotland to discuss deposing Hitler it would have been prudent for Roosevelt to tell him to plan his return trip to after the November election instead of during one in May. Yeah, I like it. Loonland here we come!
From the Slate article: “And a federal court, in the prosecution of New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, said that a thing of value need only have subjective value to the recipient.”
Here’s the FEC complaint against the President and Junior:
http://www.commoncause.org/press/press-releases/doj-fec-complaints-filed-against-donald-trump-jr-and-trump-campaign-for-illegal-solicitation-of-contribution-from-foreign-national.pdf
Under FECA, 52 USC sec. 30121 states in part:
(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
Mark Esposito should be retained immediately as Sen. Menendez’s criminal defense attorney for his upcoming trial in September. Mark knows the law and reasonable doubt for a reasonable fee.
Then there’s Junior’s lies to the media and under oath regarding the Russian connection being a pack of lies:
Jay,
The Russian Dossier on Trump is the poster child for ” foreign nationals providing items of opposition research”.
Shhh! Stay focused tnash, that’s not what they want to talk about.
Tnash, I think you make an interesting point. I confess to not having educated myself about that. However, I would make two points, based on my understanding: First, this opposition research was originally obtained by anti-Trump Republicans during the primary season and later by Democrats after Trump secured the nomination. Second, my understanding, which I freely admit may be incorrect, is that it was obtained through arms-length contract with a British intel firm, in which case, it might not be a contribution at all. (I don’t think the relevant statute prohibits the purchase of goods and services from foreign nationals/firms.) So, one of two things are true: either the Republicans and Democrats are both innocent or they’re both guilty. My guess is that they’re both innocent in the Russian Dossier matter. Just my two cents and I gladly yield to any thoughtful person who has spent any time educating him- or herself about the relevant facts and legal issues.
It has some value if she had any to give but so does the First Amendment and the free exchange of ideas precludes any numbskull prosecution like the one you postulate. Find me one federal prosecution for having a conversation with a Russian lawyer. I spoke to one last year about a contract. Should I lawyer up, too? Try again, Jay.
Mespo,…
I don’t think you need to lawyer up unless you were in any way connected with the Trump campaign….a Trump bumper sticker or yard sign will do.
None of this farce has anything to do with the law itself, but if you met with a Russian and had a Trump poster, you might find yourself in the news, accused of inappropriate or criminal conduct.
It’s the accusations that count, not the law.
Apparently, tnash. Even Comrade Toobin over at Anti-Trump Hdqtrs says these email break no laws: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/07/11/cnns-toobin-trump-jr-s-emails-in-and-of-themselves-are-not-proof-of-any-crimes/
But why listen to lawyers about the law when we have paid trolls to hear from?
Mespo,..- Exactly.
Look at the recentcexample of the accusation of “treason”.
I don’t think Richard Painter is stupid enough to actually believe that he could realistically make a case for treason.
The ACCUSATION is a way of using “the law” as a political football.
Painter’s candidate, Hillary, lost the election.
He has no case for. “treason”, but thr accusation has political impact and value.
It does not matter if there is any actual violation of the law…that’s beside the point.
Exactly. Tim Kaine did the same thing here and was called on it mightily in the newspaper. Political whores are the cheapest kind.
This really is a brilliant strategy to the drain the swamp. The political class for years have insulated themselves from being held to the same rule of law as their constituents. What we have going on now is the political class is stripping away that insulation by defining the law that they will not be able to weasel their way out of. One of two things will happen; either equal justice will remove every corrupt politician through our legal system or the people will do it for them.
I did remove an old TRUMPet from out of my house and took it to the neighbor’s yard sale. People saw me! Does that count?
Do your own research. As for lawyering up, I’m not providing legal advice. Good day to you, sir.
See ya, Jay Jay!
Looks like Donnie Jr. has now publicly lied multiple times about this little tete-a-tete. Why oh why did Donnie Lie? I can’t wait to see more posts from Prof. Turley about how this is not treason. That is much more important than figuring out why Donnie Jr. Lied.
In celebration of Donnie Jr.’s lies, it is time for a Russian poem, to be recited by the President:
My Donnie lies over the ocean
My Donnie lies over the grass
My Donnie deserves a promotion
For lying to save my a$$.
Green-backs, Green-backs, oh Green-backs galore for me, for me.
Green-backs, Green-backs, oh Green-backs galore for me.
Can’t be treason as the USA is currently not legally at war with any other country.
Does anyone know if Richard Painter is still pursuing his Oct. 2016 complaint against James Comey for violation of the Hatch Act?
It was mentioned in the Oct.31 JT column.