Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Cyrano

(15,041 posts)
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 03:37 PM Mar 2017

So about the treason thing

Watergate was not treason. It was about a paranoid man, Richard Nixon, who thought everyone was against him. (There's a photo of him walking along the beach in wingtip shoes. And that one picture tells you all you need to know about an extremely anal retentive man who got to be president.)

Iran/Contra wasn't treason, (exactly). It was a deal made by the Reagan Administration to secretly sell military arms to Iran, (our enemy at the time), and then pass the profits on to the Nicaraguan rebels who were fighting the government, ... a government that Reagan considered to be "commies" and should not be in charge of Nicaragua. (Hell, by that kind of standard, no sane American thinks that any Republican should be in charge of baby sitting or dog walking.)

So we already know that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election which ended up putting an ignorant, mean-spirited, and perhaps mentally defective man in the White House. So why has the word "treason" come up?

If Trump, or any of the multitude of toadies he had serving him had contact with Russia during the campaign in order to help him secure the nomination, (and then the presidency), that would fit the definition of treason.

Trump has consistently claimed that he knows nothing about any of this, but it seems to be common knowledge that he's in bed, financially, with Russian oligarchs. And when you're talking about Russian oligarchs, you're talking about the Russian mafia. And when you're talking about the Russian mafia, does any sane person not understand that Putin gets a cut of everything.

No one has yet offered proof of these connections. But every single Republican and Democrat in congress already knows about these dots that remain to be connected.

I'm just speculating here, but my guess is that if Trump were not our "so-called" president, many people would be in jail right now on charges of treason ... sedition ... an international criminal enterprise. Take your pick.

But only a total fool could believe that we are being ruled by an administration with clean hands. So about that "treason thing," if it turns out to be true, will anyone go to jail this time around?

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So about the treason thing (Original Post) Cyrano Mar 2017 OP
Those Republicans back then are alot different than the Republicans now SummerSnow Mar 2017 #1
Considering that Flynn was put in a position to have access to our national secrets, shraby Mar 2017 #2
Damn.... I hate Cons amuse bouche Mar 2017 #3
Watergate was gibraltar72 Mar 2017 #4
Huh? PdxSean Mar 2017 #5
What can I say Cyrano Mar 2017 #6
About treason.... Mike B Mar 2017 #7
"War" is a slippery word Cyrano Mar 2017 #8
RICO RICO RICO. pansypoo53219 Mar 2017 #9

shraby

(21,946 posts)
2. Considering that Flynn was put in a position to have access to our national secrets,
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 03:48 PM
Mar 2017

and trump and others have access and are playing toesies with Russia, I would be more inclined to call it espionage. The penalties for espionage are pretty severe. Ask the Rosenbergs.

gibraltar72

(7,506 posts)
4. Watergate was
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 03:52 PM
Mar 2017

not treason just a giant criminal conspiracy, and a terrible attempt at a coverup. What we are seeing here is treason it is someone inside our country consorting with another power to undermine our democracy and the best interests of America. This is already way worse than Watergate could have ever been.

PdxSean

(574 posts)
5. Huh?
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 03:55 PM
Mar 2017

Selling weapons to Iran when Iran was an enemy wasn't treason? What definition of "treason" are you using?

Cyrano

(15,041 posts)
6. What can I say
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 04:07 PM
Mar 2017

There's no way that anyone would have ever been convicted of treason. But at the very least, everyone of those pricks should have been in jail for many years, with Reagan in the dementia ward.

The reality seems to be that we're never going to see a president, or former president in prison. "The law applying to all, equally" is bullshit and we all know it.

But, yeah. Iran/Contra does fall under the definition of treason.

 

Mike B

(19 posts)
7. About treason....
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 04:21 PM
Mar 2017

Under the Treason Clause, an intentional subversive act must be committed during the time of war. Since we were not at war with Iran when the weapons were sold to them, treason did not occur. In Cramer v. United States, the Supreme Court opined that a specific dedicated relationship to the enemy, with intent to harm the United States, is necessary to be considered as 'rendering aid and comfort'.

Cyrano

(15,041 posts)
8. "War" is a slippery word
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 04:49 PM
Mar 2017

The Constitution says that only congress can declare war. The last time that happened was on December 8th, 1941.

So I guess we've never been at war since then. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan are just some brush ups that our military just somehow happened to get involved in.

Realistically, we have been in a "cold war" with Iran since they took over the American embassy and held American hostages starting in 1979 and ending the moment Ronald Reagan was sworn in.

I'm treating the term "treason" the same way most people treat the term "war."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So about the treason thin...