How comforting.

Isn't there an official 'enemies of the state' list? Like Trump said the media, right?

interesting note, it looks like a case for treason is brought in the courts, as opposed to impeachment which Congress handles.

Technically the United States is at peace with Russia since the Treaty with Russia for the Purchase of Alaska on March 30, 1867.

This is the sesquicentennial of the treaty.

"interesting note, it looks like a case for treason is brought in the courts, as opposed to impeachment which Congress handles."

Treason is the *first* thing the Constitution lists as grounds for impeachment (along with bribery and 'other high crimes and misdemeanors'). Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, and the courts may *also* pursue criminal penalties for whatever got someone impeached--it's not either/or.

Anyway--the original question is incoherent without some accounting of "what the left suspects." However, I think it's unlikely that even the worst fears of the left are compatible with the intentionally quite narrow Constitutional definition of treason.

Treason is to collude with the enemy. The enemy should be identical to the enemies of the constitution (any act that threatens the freedom and democratic rights of the citizens of a country).

And I just happen to know where one of the worst Traitors is and I can give you some hints of the location of this Traitor in case you are interested... :)

peterlund, that is certainly a novel interpretation of the law. Would you like to submit your interpretation for judicial scrutiny?

i am not interested in your conspiracy

Loads of stuff to say, but i think it is spread across the 'should we make friends with Russia' (Stephen Cohen says yes); Economics of News; and 'Deep State' (Glenn Greenwald says the NSA/CIA/Pentagon are more dangerous to the US than Trump) threads.

First, I'm not sure why you think it has to be tried in court. The only reference is to a confession in open court, but the two witnesses to the same act isn't necessarily in court. Also, one might ask whether an impeachment trial qualifies as a court for the purposes of this clause.

Second, as you say "enemies" is undefined. I'd suggest that it is broader than "countries we have declared war on" since there are references to enemies foreign and domestic. Congress has defined it as countries, governments groups or persons engaged in hostilities, but that might not govern here.

To answer that question posed, that'd in turn suggest the question of whether disrupting our elections qualifies as hostilities

CAPT Brad is not interested in the "conspiracy" that the FBI director very recently used specific language to validate.

FBI director, is he a Trump appointee (and should he be?) or a deep state position which survive individual election cycles and thus keeps the US secure regardless of who the current President happens to be?

And what are the motives of the Deep State, when it comes to Russia. (I'm not even saying their claims are necessarily false, they could be true and still motivated by institutional bias towards war with Russia)

As others have pointed out "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a separate thing and doesn't need to be treason. Frankly, neither does bribery. I'd say there are a number of things that qualify there. Probably the clearest is changing the administration's policy on One China in exchange for some quick granting of highly valuable Chinese trademarks. What is even better is that now it isn't just the Russians with Kompromat on Trump. Lovely.

Comey was appointed by Obama (stupidly) for a ten year term but can be fired by Trump. He was one of the witch hunters on whitewater that rabidly found nothing wrong

Of course Capt Brad isn't interested in the issue. He would be doubtless very ahppy to turn the whole country over to Russia to rule as a colony as long as they were harsh on gay people, women, and minorities. That's roughly the deal the GOP struck with Putin

The Stephen Cohen video i linked on another thread discusses how there are differences within the security community regarding how to deal with any issue; so one Obama appointee with a plan to get rid of Trump isn't enough.

Am i right in saying, no impeachment can succeed without the Republicans onboard?

Also, it is not all of the GOP, there are several members of the party who oppose any detente with Russia. They just happen not to be in the majority, and are waiting until the get everything they can out of Trump on domestic issues...

It's hard to imagine someone would actually believe the Republican Party is colluding to have Russia vassalize the US solely so they could oppress gays

Is it? It appears that both the Trump campaign and certain members of Congress including McConnell were in on a plan to work with Russia to get power for themselves. Such a deal obviously comes with serious strings attached that will subordinate US interest to Russian ones. The only reason such a deal would seem like a good idea is because they feel that advancing their party platform is more inportamt than protecting the interests of the country. In fact, we have repeatedly seen the GOP put party ahead of country for fifteen years now. So, no, it isn't hard to imagine. In fact, it would be hard to imagine them turning down such a deal

It's quite hard to imagine. Sorry.

Not for anyone who knows US politics it isnt

I know US politics. Thanks for the not-so-subtle dig, though. Saying something that might get on my profile probably gets you silenced half the time now, so I'll take what I can get.

The GOP is working to put Russia in charge of the country? I don't know, I remember a certain presidential nominee not too long ago (Romney) who labeled Russia as the U.S.'s number 1 geopolitical foe and was then mocked by the left for it relentlessly.

Seeing as your the one doing the silencing, I'm not sure you're in a position to complain.

Romney has zero clout in the GOP. It's trumps party and Bannon's party and they hate propel like Romney. And a lot of us on the left agreed completely with Romney. His problem wasn't in foreign policy as much, I'll give him that.

I don't think Trump has nearly as much control over the GOP as Clinton has over the Democrats

No 1 threat to humanity, a nuclear war between Russia and the US. Detente between the teo has worked before; would help russia deal with its domestic terrorism problems (Islamic terrorists in the caucuses who have all kinds of ties to Afghanistan, Syria, and the foes the US has been fighting internationally).

Also the potential Exxon mobile oil deal with Russia if economic sanctions are lifted.

All kinds of reasons for Russia to like the plan. The US meanwhile is a bit split and indecisive on the issue.

But to suggest that it is about oppressing gays? I mean maybe the GOP wants some tips, as Russia is pretty good at suppressing rights of citizens, and lgbt citizens in particular... I remain unconvinced.

Let us at least steelman the theory so far as to say it's about the GOP's domestic agenda as a whole, rather than specifically focusing on oppressing gay people. Still dubious.

Who said I was complaining, Ogion? I was harassed more than anyone else in the history of this site for years. My profile was a great way to own it and make it as fun for me as it was for the idiots who did it.

Ora, nuclear war between North Korea and the US or between India and Pakistan is way more likely than between the US and Russia.

"I was harassed more than anyone else in the history of this site for years."

Well that's just not true

I guess I will never make Bo's wall. Regardless of our positions politically I could never personally attack such a decent fellow. Besides he likes PiNk FloYd. '[;-)

Drop a few names then, abge. I deserved a lot of it, but there are only a few people I can think of that come close and only one of them stuck around.

Ogion however.......

Diplofool comes to mind, or atom, or CM

Climate change is vastly more certain than any wars and buddying up with Russia isn't going to help that

Anti-gay agenda is not what republicans care (like McConnell and Ryan) about. They want tax cuts to "starve the beast" as Gordon norquist put it. Trump's team is all about corruption. They get paid a lot and selling out America is just a cost of "doing business". Anti-gay, pro gun, honor the troops/flag, anti-immigrant rhetoric is a cheap way to get the votes they need to maintain power.

*talk about in private

Lmao I forgot KA, CM was one of the ones I thought of. Hard to get away scot free with 20,000+ posts in a span of a few years I guess.

@Bo, nuclear war between the US and Russia is much more dangerous because you have more nukes. North Korea has a very limited number (afaik, love to see an estimate) and India vs Pakistan would likely be a local conflict - though it could still cause global devestation if a nuclear winter was triggered.

The US has militrary bases all over the world, and Russia has nuclear weapons the shoot all of them.

I, for one, would rather avoid this war if at all possible. If that means Trump needs to learn from Regan to effectively negotiate with Putin - in a way Bush and Obama failed to then perhaps all hope is lost, but i do fear the internal forces will push Trump out before he gets a chance...

What!?! Ortho, you are redeemable after all. Yes Reagan did more for world peace than many on the left credit him for. He was not satisfied with limitation. He wanted reduction and elimination; but needed a robust military stick with his resolve for change.

Ora, once one nuke is fired, no matter who fires it, a lot of nuked are gonna at least be taken out of storage and readied for takeoff. Russia and the US are very unlikely to fire the first shot. It's a stupid concern. North Korea is not a stupid concern, nor is India and Pakistan. None of them would be "local" conflicts.

Who's Next?

One of the big news items of the past year concerned the fact that China, which we called "Red China," exploded a nuclear bomb, which we called a device. Then Indonesia announced that it was going to have one soon, and proliferation became the word of the day. Here's a song about that:

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next?

Tom Lehrer - Who's Next?

The days when war is declared by Congress are not over, which is why the last treason cases prosecuted in the United States involved World War II. Treason is not a charge that should be thrown around lightly--it's a capital offense for a reason.