the prosecution of war against ..... ?

not discounting out of hand - but, if there is a specific charge you would like to lay ... ?

There is no nation the US has declared war on, so there is no legal “Enemy” to aid and abet which would be considered treason.

But despite that, it�s all impeachable, if we elect a house and senate with the courage to do it.

Reminder: the Rosenbergs gave nuclear secrets to Russia, but couldn�t be charged with treason. They were executed for espionage.

So treason (aiding people in killing US troops) is OK if the war is illegal (undeclared)?

Think about how attempting to charge Trump with treason would unfold…

US attorney: “but your honor, the defendant had a photo of Putin on his wall, and spoke to him frequently”

Judge: “charges dismissed, and I’m referring you for disbarment”.

Like I said, launching an illegal war is certainly impeachable, but not prosecutable as treason.

Did Jane Fonda have a a photo of Putin on her wall, and did she speak to him frequently?

You moved the goalposts.

The Rosenbergs gave nuclear secrets to Russia.

No goalposts moved, just an insistence on consistent, accurate use of legal terms.

Any member of the reality-based community knows how narrow the crime of treason is defined, and it doesn’t include photos and phone calls.

I also know about the Rosenbergs.

When Fonda was president did she give classified information to an adversary?

It’s the reason no one has been charged with treason since WWII.

Do you know the difference between a coal company and an enemy?

Walter Allen was convicted of treason on September 16, 1922 for taking part in the 1921 Miner's March against the coal companies and the U.S. Army at Blair Mountain, West Virginia.

Or was he convicted of waging war against the US? (the other half of the definition of the crime of treason)

I think you’re quite confused.

Crimes aren’t defined by how we “feel”, they actually have defined parameters that must stand up in court.

BTW, Allen was convicted of treason against the state of West Virginia; he was not convicted of the breaking the federal statute on treason.

I don't have any feelings about this, so I am not going on how I “feel.” Nor am I in the least bit confused.

The topic of conversation is:

Does Trump’s conduct meet the legal definition of treason? And secondarily, what is the legal definition of the federal crime of treason?

You say yes for “reasons” (definitely not feelings ) that are not connected to or supported by any definition of treason in federal law that has ever been successfully charged and a conviction obtained .

And I disagree with your position because of facts and reality, as described in my prior posts.

I didn't say that Trump’s conduct meets the legal definition of treason. I simply asked you: "Really? So treason (aiding people in killing US troops) is OK if the war is illegal (undeclared)?"

My original post was sincere and innocent. Do you think that if a war is undeclared that treason cannot occur?

My subsequent tongue-in-cheek responses should have been more than sufficient to demonstrate to anyone that I was not looking for a fight, perhaps at least demonstrate that to anyone who was not themselves looking for a fight.

I think the history of treason charges and convictions shows that there is no hard and fast "legal definition" in practice.

So, when Jane Fonda was president, did she or did she not have a picture of Putin on the wall? Was Viet Nam a war, or was it not a war? What role might G. Gordon Liddy play now in the Iran/Epstein affair, were he around? So many questions.

Using facts, which you simply refused to accept.

Philip Vigil and John Mitchell were convicted of treason for their involvement in the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.

John Fries, the leader of Fries' Rebellion, was convicted of treason in 1800 along with two accomplices.

Governor Thomas Dorr, 1844, was convicted of treason for leading the Dorr Rebellion.

Hipolito Salazar, hanged on April 9, 1847. Convicted of treason for rebelling against the military occupation of New Mexico in the Taos Revolt during the Mexican-American War.

Abolitionist John Brown was convicted in 1859 of treason and executed.

Aaron Dwight Stevens took part in John Brown's raid and was executed in 1860 for treason.

William Bruce Mumford was convicted of treason and hanged in 1862. He tore down a United States flag.

Walter Allen was convicted of treason on September 16, 1922 for taking part in the 1921 Miner's March against the coal companies.

Max Stephan, a German-born Detroit tavern keeper, was convicted of treason on July 2, 1942. He took in a Luftwaffe pilot who had escaped from a Canadian POW camp.

Hans Max Haupt, Walter Otto Froehling, Otto Richard Wergin, Erna Emma Haupt, Lucille Froehling and Kate Martha Wergin were convicted of treason on November 24, 1942 for giving aid and comfort to German saboteur Herbert Hans Haupt.

Martin James Monti, United States Army Air Forces pilot, convicted of treason for defecting to the Waffen-SS in 1944.

Douglas Chandler was convicted of treason in 1947 for defecting to Germany during World War II.

Nazi propagandist Robert Henry Best was convicted of treason on April 16, 1948.

Iva Toguri D'Aquino - "Tokyo Rose" - was convicted of treason in 1949. She was a disc jockey and radio personality on English-language radio broadcasts transmitted by Radio Tokyo during WWII.

Mildred Gillars, also known as "Axis Sally", convicted of treason on March 8, 1949. She was an announcer with the Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft, German State Radio during the war.

Herbert John Burgman was convicted in 1949 of treason during WWII for spreading Nazi propaganda.

Tomoya Kawakita was convicted of treason in 1952 for alleged abuse of American POWs in Japan during WWII.

But those facts don’t prove your point.

Some of your examples are convictions for treason against one of the states, not against the US.

Most, if not all of the 18th and 19th century convictions are for violating the “waging war against the US” part of the treason statute, not the aid and comfort to enemies part.

All of the convictions in the last 100 years were related to WWII, the last declared war the US was involved in, with legally defined enemies.

Thanks for sharing facts that proved my original point.

OK, that is true. But again, that is a new argument, that is to say you are "moving the goal posts."

My question was can someone be guilty of treason if there is no declared war. I showed that there have been convictions for treason when there was no declared war. Those are old, as you point out. So, do treason charges depend upon there being a declared war? Your answer may well be "yes" and you may well be right.

You said: "There is no nation the US has declared war on, so there is no legal 'Enemy' to aid and abet which would be considered treason."

I replied: "Really? So treason (aiding people in killing US troops) is OK if the war is illegal (undeclared)?"

The convictions in the 18th/19th century were for the other half of the statute regarding waging war against the United States.

In the case of waging war against the US, there is no “aiding and abetting the enemy” (the other half of the statute requiring a declaration of war to define the enemy), it is violent actions against the nation (I.e. the Whiskey Rebellion).

So to summarize, the treason statue has two sections, violating one is enough to be convicted.

Part one: waging war against the United States

Part two: giving aid and comfort to an Enemy (capitalized in the Constitution- why is that?) of the United States (this is the part requiring a declaration of war to legally define and establish who an Enemy is) There have been no convictions of treason for giving aid and comfort to an Enemy without a declaration of war.

From what I can see, I'm not the only one. I understand that may not be what you meant, but please remember that this is the internet, where it's extremely easy to misconstrue each other's intentions. I would venture to say that most of us here have been at one end or the other of such a misunderstanding at least once, if not multiple times. Welcome to the club.

Your question about whether treason can occur if a war is undeclared (or determining
whether any specific act can be prosecuted as treason under federal law), that is not something I am qualified to answer, as I have no training in constitutional law.

That seems pretty obvious to me.

Jane Fonda admiring Putin doesn't matter???

"Legal definitions" are so 20th Century. Get with the program!

Why would I want to change the definition when it was just as poor form for Republicans to accuse Democrats of treasonous behavior over opposition to the Iraq folly? The word treason isn't a panacea that would suddenly make his supporters recoil from him.

Reality doesn't follow the definitions of words, the definitions of words follow reality. The word is not the thing that the word denotes.

Apparently the definition of "war" changes depending upon what our dear leader says it is. So much for "definitions."

The Republicans' accusations against Democrats of treasonous behavior were false. That isn't changing the definition of a word, that is lying. They do that a lot.

What difference does any of this make? People here are accusing Trump of betraying the country - which is true, in my opinion. Of course he won't be tried for treason no matter what he dies, but that has nothing to do with any definitions. So why the debate about "definitions?" Is that just to scold and lecture people here? Why?

but the nicer points of the law would point out we have no higher authority at this point that is not badly corrupted or impotent. The future Democratic majority is presently much more at risk than the clear and present traitor/felon/rapist/child abuser and killer.

But I don’t think we could elect a Democratic president courageous enough to order such a thing.

Trump owns the enforcers
Nobody to bring these charges

He DOES NOT own ANY of ‘em for life.

He does NOT have lifetime guarantees on this.

True, as a FORMER president, he’ll still have guards that the rest of us will be billed for. But he won’t have the phalanxes of protection as a FORMER President that he has, now, as President.

Thank God!

It isn't treason in sensu stricto but I get the point.

Treason is very explicitly defined, however.

and they'll understand it is a term for actions against this country.

Of course "traitorous" works but doesn't seem to have an entry in the Constitution that involves legal remedies.

Sounds pretty high falutin.

If you cant blind them with your brilliance,baffle them with your bullshit.

Back at ya,MAGATs.

and aren't really all that concerned about definition or meaning ...
then, go ahead - and fire away !

No statutory crime need be committed, charged or convicted for congress to remove a president.

Just courage.

has been divided and conquered. Our system is at war with itself and the good guys can't win this one and we defy history with expectation of a just election.

BTW, nothing can stop the Blue Tsunami in November.

We may never get the votes to remove Trump, or even any of his cabinet, but we WILL retake the house, and, with each passing day, our odds of retaking the senate improve.

We do have the votes and vote surge, which we are either too modest about or let the media not rate it. They do have the absolute power though they be all non-military cowards relying on presidential pardons. We wait, they can act. There is some hope for some future. A future like sands in an hourglass.

That is a dangerous myth.

They have control over the executive branch, and very little else, including the states.

They have the power to sow chaos and destruction, but that doesn’t mean they have control over the outcome or results.

of selling weapons to Germany(WWI, the public wanted to hang him) and money(from that war profiteering?) in WWII provided to Germany for the death camps(albeit that could have pre-dated Pearl Harbor as did the sale of iron ore and technology to Japan by other wonderful capitalists), the plot to overthrow FDR. Prescott Bush, you sly dog!

Then all the outside interference and use of foreign policy chicanery to delay the Iranian hostage release(OK, not at war). Dealing for Putin's influence to subvert our elections. Creating wars with non-justification to change elections. Partnering in aggression with another state(israel designated friendly) costing USA in lives and resources.

George Washington and in the Constitution should have better defined foreign entanglements because such entanglements due to party and personal presidential ambitions and highly treasonous if not High Treason, Or is only the Nazis who get to criticize our legal system?

Where Justice Jackson gets tripped up in semantics about Nazi verbage...

What a world.

And if we need to hit hard, for Pete’s sake, we hit hard.

NO timidity will be permitted, welcomed, or considered acceptable.

Influence by a foreign government should be covered somewhere in the Constitution

You'd think

Louis of France and his wife
Charles I
Maximilen, Emperor of Mexico
Amin
Ceaucescu
Khadaffi
Mussolini
(not an exhaustive list and not counting suicides, assassination or inner circle plotting)

Lots of good precedents and popular at the time, some even with due process by the winners.

Not many many "good" examples of despotic heritages. Eventually this will turn out badly for the bad, but should the people's institutions meekly suffer these interim satans?

So's MAGA GOP and the NAZIs.

Fortunately for democracy, they're up against We the People.

Did Jack Smith have evidence that supported a charge of treason???

If so -- Expose the facts + charge the Mango Mofo + his administration
before someone or something decides America is an enemy worth
removing from the face of the earth...

America's former greatness is not going to protect us...