Title : Can Trump be tried for treason?
link : Can Trump be tried for treason?
Can Trump be tried for treason?
Can Trump -- or Michael Flynn -- be tried for treason?A number of sources insist that Donald Trump cannot be tried for treason because we are not in a declared war with Russia. I haven't been able to find the court ruling which made this adjudication, but such rulings should be reconsidered as times change.
Obviously, this standard should be considered obsolete. We don't declare war anymore. If this country is ever attacked with nuclear weapons, the missiles will almost certainly not be sent by a declared enemy.
Consider the notion of an American General who substantially aided the Axis powers just a few days before December 8, 1941, when war was formally declared. Can you honestly argue that such an act would not have been treasonous?
Before you answer, note that the situation isn't really hypothetical: On December 4, 1941, the Chicago Tribune (a pro-fascist newspaper) published the details of America's contingency war plans against Germany. At the time, these plans were our most closely-guarded secret. Publication was intended to strengthen isolationism and to portray FDR as a warmonger, even though a contingency plan was only prudent. (We now have contingency plans for every nation on Earth.)
Who was the leaker? The chief suspect was General Albert Wedemeyer, an anti-Semite and America Firster who worked in the War Plans Division. He despised Roosevelt. Although he always denied the charge, there was hard evidence against him -- enough to convince J. Edgar Hoover of his guilt. Wedemeyer probably would have been indicted if not for the Pearl Harbor attack; as the nation mobilized for war, such a scandal would have injured morale.
Years later, Senator Burton K. Wheeler -- an anti-FDR Democrat -- said that he leaked the document to the newspaper after acquiring it from "an Army Air Corps captain." Although some felt that this was a garbled reference to General "Hap" Arnold, strong evidence points to Wedemeyer: A copy of the war plan was found in his safe, with sections underlined -- the same sections which appeared in the newspaper.
Interestingly, General Wedemeyer later became a right-wing conspiracy-monger -- the Michael Flynn of his day, if you will. (As some of you may know, Wedemeyer's name crops up in JFK assassination lore.)
Let us posit that investigators had found inarguable, conclusive evidence against Wedemeyer. Could he have been tried for treason? Let's rephrase the question: Should he have been tried for treason?
I believe so. The Constitution defines treason not just as giving aid to a declared enemy but also as personally making war against the United States. In my view, leaking the plan in order to aid Hitler and hobble Roosevelt constituted an act of war against the United States. I certainly don't think that Wedemeyer's guilt was lessened by the fact that his betrayal occurred four days before the actual declaration of war.
The big question: Would a court have agreed with my view?
Yes and no. A court in 1942 or 1943 might well have seen things my way. At another time, a court might rule differently. The world situation inevitably affects the thinking of jurists; differing times evince differing rulings. In an emergency situation -- as, for example, when a country faces an existential crisis -- a court would probably be more likely to define treason in a way that matches my personal definition, as given above.
Of course, such a determination would fall to the Supreme Court, and...well...Kavanaugh. Ew.
However...
The most famous example would be that of John Brown, convicted in November of 1859 for committing treason against the State of West Virginia. This, despite the fact that he did not live in that state, and his ill-fated raid did not lead to any deaths.
Another example: Governor Thomas Dorr of Rhode Island, who was angered by state law which allowed only white males of property to vote. In 1842, Dorr actually established a counter-government, in a doomed effort called "Dorr's Rebellion." He and five conspirators were convicted of treason against the state. The state soon pardoned Dorr and dropped the property requirement. (The federal government was surprisingly neutral in all of this.)
Believe it or not, the state of Florida could -- technically -- bring treason charges against Donald Trump. The minimum penalty is 5.5 years; the max is 30 years. I can find nothing to indicate whether New York still has treason laws on the books. In 1781, the New York legislature forbade anyone from printing and saying that the King of Great Britain ought to have "any Authority, or Dominion, in or over this State or the Inhabitants thereof." As long as Donnie avoids doing that, he may be in the clear.
That is -- in the clear in that particular state.
Quite a few other states still have treason laws. The John Brown precedent proves that one need not be a resident of the state to be executed as a traitor. Arguably, Trump could be tried in (say) California, or Vermont, where those tofu-munching blue-state SJWs still have a "death to traitors!" policy.
Michael Flynn could be charged as a traitor in Virginia. Why not?
Thus Article Can Trump be tried for treason?
That's an article Can Trump be tried for treason? This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article Can Trump be tried for treason? with the link address https://darmonewst.blogspot.com/2018/12/can-trump-be-tried-for-treason.html
0 Response to "Can Trump be tried for treason?"
Post a Comment