To accuse a sitting President of the United States of being guilty of “treason” almost in any context intended to diminish that President’s authority and ability to govern might itself be one of the "predicate acts” for counter-charges of “Treason”
leading Democrats have loosely thrown around the “T”
word in connection with Trump's Comey firing and some other matters. --- That is treading pretty darn close to other indicia of a treasonous conspiracy resounding, perhaps even abounding, throughout the land
Maybe, the latest carping about Trump's treason is even close enough to illegality, that the FBI needs to launch a criminal investigation of some of the usual suspects on the left, perhaps even among some of the leading Democrats
Many years ago, a writer, political historian and social critic, Rebecca West, wrote a series of articles for the “New Yorker” about pro-Nazi sympathizers and under-cover agents in Britain. Those article were then published in book form as “A Train of Powder”; and some of that material was re-published in a later Rebecca West work, “The Meaning of Treason”; and all of that was reworked and/or cross-referenced in a final interation, “The New Meaning of Treason.” Almost all of West’s focus was on old-school villains, like pro-Nazis and pro-Commies --- finishing up with a post-script about Kim Philby in her last work.
Covering the tracking-down, trials and condemnation of several traitors in many different contexts, Ms. West shows us that, even though treason itself is not subtle once exposed as such, the constituent predicate acts often times can be. And, even if not subtle, often-times they are vague, and/or ambiguous.
A recent reviewer/ contemporary critic of West’s and some other works by others said this: “The questions [raised by Rebecca West] lose none of their relevance when transposed to an age in which the degree of state surveillance is matched only by the leakiness of information channels. As we take the moral measure of organisations such as Wikileaks, and of the activities of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, West’s considered reflections on the need to ‘unite care for security with the determination to preserve our liberties’ seem increasingly pressing. ‘It is our duty,’ she observes, ‘to readjust constantly the balance between public and private liberties. Men must be capable of and executing and insisting on social change, if they are to reform or even maintain civilization, and capable too of furnishing the rebellion which is sometimes necessary if society is not to perish of immobility. Therefore all men should have a drop of treason in their veins, if the nations are not to go soft like so many sleepy pears.’...” (See “The Alphabet Library: M is for The Meaning of Treason, 'simply superb storytelling' ” by Tim Martin, 5/20/14, The Telegraph [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10840548/The-Alphabet-Library-M-is-for-The-Meaning-of-Treason-simply-superb-storytelling.html]).
All of that was a rather long prologue for what will be an even longer main section.
WHO IS CLOSER TO BEING GUILTY OF ACTS COVERED BY THE TERM "TREASON" ? ? ?
Lately, certain people in what is being called a "Resistance Movement" here in America have been playing fast and loose using the term “treason” when referring to President of the United States Donald Trump. It might be easier to be merely dismissive of these clattering, clashing cymbals; however, thanks to a compliant and even cooperative mainstream press, these sour notes have been writ large. In fact, their reach and repetition strongly suggest that somebody is trying to gin up a rebellious spirit throughout the land; and, as such, that cannot readily or properly be ignored.
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ITS STATUTORY ECHO
It has been well-said that “treason” is the only criminal act defined in the U.S. Constitution.
According to that constitutional definition, “… 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….” (See U.S. Constitution, Art III, Sec. 3). There is also a similar-appearing codified statutory definition of “treason”: “… Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States…." (See 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason; [(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), , 108 Stat. 2148]).None of those Constitutional and statutory definitions and proscriptions apparently applies to Donald Trump under any of the scenarios and theories advanced by the Democrats, the mainstream media and/or anybody else running around with their hair on fire screaming things like "treason" over some of what Donald Trump has done since becoming president, or even leading up to becoming president.
NOTHING DONE BY DONALD TRUMP --- AS PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT-ELECT, CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OR PRIVATE CITIZEN REMOTELY APPROACHED THE LEGAL STANDARDS OF "TREASON" APPLICABLE IN THESE UNITED STATES
DEMOCRATS AND OTHERS WHO ENGAGE IN MAKING CHARGES OF "TREASON" AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP IN ORDER TO DIMINISH HIS AUTHORITY AND/OR HIS ABILITY TO EXERCISE HIS DUTIES AS PRESIDENT RISK INVESTIGATION(S) FOR- AND CHARGES OF- "TREASON"Ever since the U.S. Constitution was enacted, there have been fewer than forty prosecutions for treason and many fewer convictions. Nonetheless, from very early in the history of the United States, "levying war" has been interpreted as including internal insurrections and seditious acts.
In one of the early instances, not long after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, several men were convicted of treason in connection with the Whiskey Rebellion: however, they were pardoned by President George Washington.
Not long after that, the very famous treason trial of Aaron Burr occurred. However, Burr's prosecution resulted in acquittal on the charge of treason. Burr's case was brought to trial after a grand jury was presented with a purported letter from Burr that by its contents proposed the notion of stealing certain lands from the Louisiana Purchase. At trial no witnesses testified; and as a result, Burr was acquitted, even though the Jefferson administration threw its full influence against Burr. Burr was later acquitted again when lesser charges were brought against him.
THE CURRENT SCENE MIGHT NEED SOME "TREASON" SHOW TRIALS FOR SOME TOP DEMOCRATS AND THEIR ALLIES IN MAINSTREAM MEDIARemember, it is those that are trying to negate the election of Trump as President, and/or diminish the effectiveness of his presidency, who have engaged in concerted and apparently coordinated activity under the banner and rubric of "The Resistance" or "Resistance." The current use of those terms has made specific references and comparisons to the World War II armed resistance against the Germans in Occupied France. Furthermore, some of the concerted and apparently coordinated activities against Trump and his administration's policies have included instances of mob violence. The presence of elements of an armed insurrection have been found to be a sufficient predicate to prosecutions for treason against those "giving aid and comfort" but not actively involved in the insurrection.
Some of today's Democrats and the disloyal mainstream press need a wake call and a lesson --- maybe some treason charges and trials will help refocus their professed loyalties, if not their minds.
No need to hang 'em high yet; for now, just show them the noose.