Is it possible for a President to be tried for treason?

[kentuck]

If there is found to be collusion with the Russians with intent to corrupt our elections, would that be treason? Or, since we are not at war, would it be called something else? It would be an act of betrayal, in either case.

What if a President was forced to resign for such an act? What would be the criminal penalty?

Would he then be able to get a pardon from his Vice President, as Richard Nixon did in 1974?

[Fullduplexxx]

1. That'll be for the gop to decide

[dem4decades]

2. Is treason a political charge?

[kentuck]

5. Interesting question.

Since he is also the Commander in Chief, could he also be tried by a military tribunal??

[Grasswire2]

41. yikes nt

[Eyeball_Kid]

76. Treason is a capital crime.

There's a definition for treason as a crime. That's a legal definition. When people accuse Trumpy of "treasonous behavior", they're likely leveling a political/rhetorical charge. They're looking at treason-like behavior that can be generally framed within another criminal context, such as conspiracy against the United States, working as an unregistered foreign agent, money laundering for Russians, etc.

[MFM008]

51. Ask again

In 101 days.

[triron]

3. Russia ATTACKED our elections and infrastructure. How is that not an act of war?

I think criminal statutes ought to take into account the information and AI revolution.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. "Treason" has always been interpreted as giving aid and comfort to an enemy

during a declared war.

In February 2017, when the Russia investigation was beginning to unfold amid accusations of treason leveled at members of the Trump campaign, Carlton Larson, professor of law at the University of California, Davis, also concluded that Russia could not be considered a formal enemy of the United States.

“Speaking against the government, undermining political opponents, supporting harmful policies or even placing the interests of another nation ahead of those of the United States are not acts of treason under the Constitution,” Larson wrote in The Washington Post at the time.

According to Larson, “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,” Larson wrote. “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.)

https://www.newsweek.com/did-trump-commit-treason-putin-meeting-heres-what-lawyers-say-1027643

Whether he could be tried for any crime while still in office depends on whether Mueller sticks to previous DoJ guidance about indicting a sitting president.

[PubliusEnigma]

77. The Korean War is still on, and Trump has given aid and comfort to Kim.

Now, all the technicalities have been addressed.

[EX500rider]

80. Technically S & N Korea are still at war.

The US did not declare war on N Korea, we were there as part of a UN "Police action".
The UN Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member states provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea.
Other countries that fought in that war under the UN banner:
United Kingdom
Canada
Turkey
Australia
Philippines
New Zealand
Thailand
Ethiopia
Greece
France
Colombia
Belgium
South Africa
Netherlands
Luxembourg

[scarytomcat]

9. war with Russia has not been declared and the president is a civilian

so military court

[TheRealNorth]

15. Is the president a civilian?

I thought he was technically Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces?

[scarytomcat]

18. he is commander but civilian

that is why he is saluted but has no uniform

[lpbk2713]

72. Well damn.

There goes any hope of a firing squad.

[Sedona]

62. The Rosenburgs my tend to disagree

If they hadn't been executed during peacetime.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg https://g.co/kgs/QzyZq3

[djg21]

65. They were tried for espionage

Not for treason.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.9e99853cdf66

[kentuck]

68. Trump's crimes may be closer to espionage than treason?

Depending on what he and Putin discussed in their "secret" meeting??

[GoCubsGo]

4. The President is not above the law.

Regardless of whether or not the guy currently squatting in that position believes he is. I know of nowhere in the Constitution that states that, if there is evidence of it, the President can't be tried for treason. I'm sure the five fellow traitors on the USSC would say otherwise, however. But, that would not make them right.

[bitterross]

8. I hope you're right. The founders took great pains to avoid a monarch.

The only people who are above the law, because they are the law, are monarchs/emperors/dictators.

Our country is not supposed to be ruled by any of those. It is supposed to be led.

My concern is this. Treason, in addition to other "High Crimes and misdemeanors" is specifically called out in the Constitution as a reason for impeachment. The SCOTUS could very well rule that it is within the power of the legislative branch to remove the President for treason and not the power of the Executive branch through DOJ and the Judicial branch through Federal Courts. Too many legal questions way above my non-lawyer head.

I also don't know that if the President were impeached and then tried by the Senate if double jeopardy kicks in and he cannot be tried in federal court then. Or vice-versa.

[kentuck]

10. If he cannot be indicted...?

...then he would be above the law, would he not?

Mueller does not believe a sitting President can be indicted while in office, is my understanding?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. He could be indicted after leaving office, just not while he's president.

So he's not above the law. It's just postponed a bit.

[kentuck]

21. "Justice delayed is justice denied."

[marylandblue]

25. If he can't be indicted while President

He could order the military to kill every member of Congress and the Supreme Court, grant all who followed the illegal order pardons, declare himself President for Lifeappoint a new Congress to retroactively approve the orders, and appoint a new SCOTUS to declare it all constitutional.

Since the above was surely not what the Founders intended, he can be indicted while office. At least that will be the legal argument if Mueller chooses to indict him.

"The president wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment." - Nixon's lawyer defending the indefensible

[GoCubsGo]

20. I don't believe it is settled whether or not he can be indicted.

And, just because Mueller believes they can't, it doesn't mean that is the case.

[kentuck]

24. True.

[dameatball]

6. Many have said that the attack on our election in 2016 (and ongoing) is an act of cyber warfare.

I won't argue with that. But I do not control Congress, the DOJ or the Supreme Court.

So, my answer is not helpful....

Slightly off topic: Due to the scope of this crime that has unfolded I really have doubts about Mueller bringing the investigation to an end before the November. I do think that Trump will either be removed from office prior to 2020 or he will not be the GOP candidate in 2020.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. In light of recent developments in the area of cyber warfare, maybe the treason statute

should be amended to re-define what constitutes "war." Not that the GOP would ever agree to it.

[dameatball]

19. Right. I doubt that the Founding Fathers ever contemplated cyber warfare.

Although in those days there were certainly plenty of newspapers and pamphleteers that basically did the same thing.....propaganda and disinformation.

[marylandblue]

26. Not a statute, it's in the Constitution

And it's there to prevent Congress and the President from extending treason definitions in order to attack prosecute political enemies.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

49. There is a statute as well, 18 U.S. Code sec. 2381:

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.

The Constitution says:

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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Note that neither the Constitution nor the statute defines "war" as meaning only an officially declared war, although that's been the traditional interpretation. There's nothing in the Constitution indicating that Congress could not add a definition of "war" to sec. 2381.

[marylandblue]

56. Yes, they could define war, but

it wouldn't apply to his actions in 2016, since that would be a ex post facto law, and the Constitution does not allow that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

57. Yes, that's correct; I was thinking only of how to handle cyberwar in the future.

We're stuck with what it is now vis-a-vis Trump.

[kentuck]

69. What does this mean??

levies war against them or adheres to their enemies

[shanny]

39. And even if they did

it would be ex post facto and so would not apply to past actions.

[Iliyah]

11. I wish.

I also wish they find factual information beyond a reasonable doubt that t-rump's presidency is illegitimate.

If that is proven, than YES.

[Historic NY]

12. yes it is.....Article II Sec. 4 US Constitution

Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


So lets convict him and hang the son of a bitch.

[shanny]

40. Plain reading of that

would indicate he has to be impeached first. Alas.

[grantcart]

78. So the answer is "no"

Impeachment and removal of office for Treason is not being tried for Treason.

After removal from office he can be arrested for and tried on the crime of treason as an ex President

[madinmaryland]

13. I think it is much more likely to be considered conspiracy. As in a vast right wing conspiracy,

starting with commentators at Fox, dozens and dozens of Republican Senators and Representatives and most everyone in the White House.

HRC was correct, once again.

[PoliticAverse]

14. First a reality check - Trump isn't going to be tried for treason.

Even if there was sufficient evidence against him the current official policy of the Justice department is that a President cannot be indicted and it is rather unlikely Mueller would go against that policy and get an indictment (if a President resigned this policy wouldn't apply).

Second even if he was tried and convicted of treason he wouldn't necessarily be removed from office which can only occur
through impeachment or invocation of the 25th amendment.

Note that a president can certainly be impeached for treason:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

A resigned, or impeached and removed, or convicted President could certainly get a pardon from the next President, even for treason.

[marylandblue]

27. That's not a policy, it's a legal opinion of a part of a DOJ

It's binding on DOJ, but it is not binding the Attorney General, that is, Rosenstein.

[PoliticAverse]

29. Rosenstein will not be charging Trump with treason. n/t

[marylandblue]

30. He can authorize Mueller to do it.

[PoliticAverse]

35. Both those guys are likely much too smart to do that. You don't make your prime charge questionalble

[marylandblue]

37. I don't think they will charge him with treason

I think they woild charge him with conspiracy against the United States.

[triron]

45. I am agreeable to that.

[brooklynite]

55. I suppose reading the Constitution was too difficult?

Article 3: Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Define how Russia is our enemy -- seriously. You'll have to in order to explain how the charge applies.

[gibraltar72]

22. Why the hell not?

[Odoreida]

23. As part of a bill of impeachment, yes.

The only question is whether removal from office can be followed by a judicial trial.

[marylandblue]

31. That's not in question, the Constitution is clear on that point

[PoliticAverse]

34. There's no real question on that, the answer is a clear yes. That's why Nixon was pardoned...

- to remove that possibility.

[shanny]

42. Absolutely it can.

Only question is whether it can happen while he is in office (no ruling on that since it has never come up...before).

[onenote]

28. He isn't going to be charged with treason.

Russia is not our friend, but that doesn't make them an "enemy" in the legal sense required for a prosecution for treason. Indeed, Russia wasn't our friend during the Cold War when they were spying on us, gaining access to valuable military and intelligence data, and providing arms and other support to North Vietnam while we were in a shooting war with that country. Yet, Americans accused of spying for the Russians -- Rosenbergs, Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen -- were not charged with Treason.

There is a definition of the term "enemy" in title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense): Section 2204: "the term "enemy" means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States."

The term "hostilities" is not defined in title 50, but it is defined in title 10 (Armed Forces). Section 948a - "The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war."

Countries involved in conflicts that are subject to the laws of war almost by definition do not maintain diplomatic relations with one another, do not allow their citizens to visit each other as tourists, have extensive economic trade with each other.

Russia is not now, nor has it been in the past, designated an "enemy" for purposes of the Trading with the Enemies Act. A quarter of a million Americans will probably visit Russia as tourists this year and several billion dollars of commerce will occur between the countries will occur. If there has been a time when Americans freely traveled to a country with which we are at war I can't recall it.

[pnwmom]

44. Mueller's indictment said the Russians had been engaged in "cyberwarfare" against the US.

I think that could correctly be deemed "hostilities."

[onenote]

46. how do you explain travel and trade and diplomatic relations?

Countries that are in a state of war with each other don't trade with each other, don't let their citizens travel between their countries and don't maintain formal diplomatic relations.

No one is bringing treason charges against anyone. Period.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

52. Yep.

Last edited Sat Jul 28, 2018, 08:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Treason requires war. Both statutes that I can think of that define war both require either a declaration of war or armed hostilities. Neither apply here.

[pnwmom]

59. Where in the statute does it say "armed hostilities"? nt

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

64. 18 USC Chapter 18 Section 2331(4)

Defines act of war as actions taken during a declared war, during armed conflict between 2 or more nations regardless of whether war is declared, or during armed conflict between any military force of any origin.

[pnwmom]

66. Is that the definition for "act of war" in the terrorism law?

I haven't seen it defined that way in the treason law.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

70. It isnt.

But it is defined in other statutes, same with enemy. When interpreting undefined terms, the courts will consider the definitions used by the legislature in other statutes.

[pnwmom]

58. One word: Trump. n/t

[onenote]

60. I don't think "Trump" is a legal principle.

Again, a state of war doesn't exist when the alleged combatants have diplomatic relations, allow their citizens to travel between their countries, and there is billions of dollars in ongoing trade between them.

[pnwmom]

61. Trump controls the GOP, lock, stock and barrel. And the Trump GOP

will not declare war on the country that put him into power.

[onenote]

67. And thus we're not at war.

Thank you.

[True_Blue]

73. Actually the Rosenbergs were charged with treason and executed

And their 2 young son we're orphaned and had to be raised by relatives.

[onenote]

74. ACTUALLY, you don't know what you're talking about.

The Rosenbergs were charged with, convicted of, and executed for espionage, not treason.

[True_Blue]

79. You're right

After Googling I see they were only convicted for espionage and not treason. So, since we're not in a conflict or war with Russia, Trump can't be charged with treason.

What if Congress were to declare the Russia interference in our election as an act of war against the US, could Trump be charged with treason at that point if they find he colluded with them?

[onenote]

82. Congress isn't going to declare war on Russia.

So why bother with pointless speculation.

[oberliner]

32. Not with Republicans in charge of Congress

[beachbum bob]

33. Sure one could be...and if under UCMJ be sentence to death

[PoliticAverse]

36. Although "Commander in Chief" the President is a civilian. n/t

[AncientGeezer]

38. UCMJ has NO applicationt to a POTUS.

[pnwmom]

43. If he is thrown out of office by Congress, yes.

There has never been a SCOTUS decision on whether a President could be indicted and/or tried, while sitting in office.

[Blue_true]

47. From what I understand.

The category "High crimes" includes treason as one of the crime in the category.

[kentuck]

48. "Treason OR high crimes and misdemeanors"?

What would be considered a "high crime"?

And what would be considered a "misdemeanor"?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

50. If the president is a Democrat, it's a blow job.

If the president is a Republican, it does not include conspiring with a foreign government to affect the outcome of the election that made you president.

I wish somebody would volunteer to blow him and take one for the team.

[marylandblue]

53. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" would be felonies that Congress judges severe enough

Last edited Sat Jul 28, 2018, 08:19 PM - Edit history (1)

It's actually not well defined. But it would include crimes that affect the political and legal climate of the US. Conspiracy would certainly qualify. Cheating on your taxes maybe not. Maybe.

Misdemeanors are also hard to define. Some say minor crimes of major importance, perhaps disobeying court orders on minor issues. Others say it's the original non legal meaning, which is "acting with bad demeanor," aka, being an asshole. I'd like to see a Congressional Resolution declaring Trump an asshole.

[Kablooie]

54. I would think he would have to be impeached first. Afterwards he's a private citizen.

So assuming he isn't pardoned by the subsequent president he's vulnerable.

[liberal N proud]

63. If he committed treason, which I believe he did, then...

Yes he should be charged, tried and when found guilty suffer the fullest extent of the law.

[True_Blue]

71. IMO Trump is the biggest traitor in the history of America

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2018, 03:15 AM - Edit history (1)

If Mueller brings charges against Trump, then Congress can vote to impeach him. Once Trump is impeached, then he could be arrested and tried since he would be a private citizen. But that'll never ever happen in a GOP controlled Congress. Our only hope is for the Dems get control of the House in the midterms.

[ck4829]

75. K&R

[UCmeNdc]

81. There is no doubt Trump used Russian connections to win the election over Hillary Clinton!