7 ms·

> Christina Marie Chapman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments in a US D

by cko 1y ago

> Christina Marie Chapman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments in a US District Court on Tuesday. Why not treason? Any lawyers know?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 1y ago
The Constitution defines treason very narrowly - the only crime to be specifically defined in it: > Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. The last time we convicted someone for it was in 1949.
- abeppu 1y ago
  ... is helping them get $17M not "giving Aid and Comfort"?
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    We are not presently at war with North Korea.
    - eschaton 1y ago
      Actually the Korean War hasn’t ended yet.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        The US never declared war on North Korea in the first place, and there are no active hostilities between the two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_Sta... > The terms used in the definition derive from English legal tradition, specifically the Treason Act 1351. Levying war means the assembly of armed people to overthrow the government or to resist its laws. Enemies are subjects of a foreign government that is in open hostility with the United States.
      - paradox242 1y ago
        The Korean War was famously the first of many "police actions" the U.S. would become involved in after WW2, saving Congress the trouble having to turn up to authorize an actual war declaration.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      Nor Venezuela, and yet the Alien Enemies Act has been invoked. You are right, of course, but it's not relevant to policy decisions.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        I'd note that a Trump appointed judge just made that point about the AEA. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/01/us/texas-judge-trump-alien-enemies-act.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/01/us/texas-judge-trump-alie... > He also found that the “plain ordinary meaning” of the act’s language, like “invasion” and “predatory incursion,” referred to an attack by “military forces” and did not line up with Mr. Trump’s claims about the activities of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan street gang, in a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
mikeocool 1y ago
Not a lawyer, but treason charges in the US are pretty rare -- there's been one person charged with Treason since 1954. Even the Rosenbergs weren't charged with Treason.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Why not treason? The same reason almost no one is ever charged with treason, given the plethora of other criminal charges available to anything that might remotely be similar to treason: Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution: “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.” Even where the first part (in which, it should be noted, the terms involved are interpreted very narrowly) is not problematic, the “two witnesses" rule, which is applied independently to each fact necessary to sustain the conviction, is usually quite difficult to overcome, so its usually vastly easier to get a conviction for something else.
- tcdent 1y ago
  It's rare that I come across a story about some questionable ethics in black hat tech and don't have some sympathy for the perpetrator. But this is not that. This is blatant treason.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    It's run-of-the-mill organized crime that happens to benefit a shitty regime. We didn't even charge Soviet spies with treason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen
  - toast0 1y ago
    It's not levying war against the United States. I don't know what the legal definition of Enemies is, but I would imagine it would involve a declaration of war. The Korean war was never formally resolved, but the US hasn't declared war since WWII. There's also no indication of adherence here. Doing things that benefit a country and a leader that your government officically doesn't care for can be all shades of prohibited and illegal, but it's not treason.
    - mtVessel 1y ago
      | I don't know what the legal definition of Enemies is, but I would imagine it would involve a declaration of war. These days, some vague tattoos will do it.
rdtsc 1y ago
Too high of a bar. She would have to have an intent specifically to betray and hurt the US and act on it. Just acting or just having an intent is not enough.
cosmicgadget 1y ago
These are financial crimes against Americans. They're not attacks on the country's security unless you take very broad view of security.
burnte 1y ago
Because money laundering and trade with a banned nation isn't the same as attempting to overthrow the government.

by cko 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ceejayoz 1y ago

The Constitution defines treason very narrowly - the only crime to be specifically defined in it: > Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. The last time we convicted someone for it was in 1949.

abeppu 1y ago
... is helping them get $17M not "giving Aid and Comfort"?
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  We are not presently at war with North Korea.
  - eschaton 1y ago
    Actually the Korean War hasn’t ended yet.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      The US never declared war on North Korea in the first place, and there are no active hostilities between the two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_Sta... > The terms used in the definition derive from English legal tradition, specifically the Treason Act 1351. Levying war means the assembly of armed people to overthrow the government or to resist its laws. Enemies are subjects of a foreign government that is in open hostility with the United States.
    - paradox242 1y ago
      The Korean War was famously the first of many "police actions" the U.S. would become involved in after WW2, saving Congress the trouble having to turn up to authorize an actual war declaration.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Nor Venezuela, and yet the Alien Enemies Act has been invoked. You are right, of course, but it's not relevant to policy decisions.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      I'd note that a Trump appointed judge just made that point about the AEA. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/01/us/texas-judge-trump-alien-enemies-act.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/01/us/texas-judge-trump-alie... > He also found that the “plain ordinary meaning” of the act’s language, like “invasion” and “predatory incursion,” referred to an attack by “military forces” and did not line up with Mr. Trump’s claims about the activities of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan street gang, in a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

mikeocool 1y ago

Not a lawyer, but treason charges in the US are pretty rare -- there's been one person charged with Treason since 1954. Even the Rosenbergs weren't charged with Treason.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> Why not treason? The same reason almost no one is ever charged with treason, given the plethora of other criminal charges available to anything that might remotely be similar to treason: Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution: “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.” Even where the first part (in which, it should be noted, the terms involved are interpreted very narrowly) is not problematic, the “two witnesses" rule, which is applied independently to each fact necessary to sustain the conviction, is usually quite difficult to overcome, so its usually vastly easier to get a conviction for something else.

tcdent 1y ago
It's rare that I come across a story about some questionable ethics in black hat tech and don't have some sympathy for the perpetrator. But this is not that. This is blatant treason.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  It's run-of-the-mill organized crime that happens to benefit a shitty regime. We didn't even charge Soviet spies with treason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen
- toast0 1y ago
  It's not levying war against the United States. I don't know what the legal definition of Enemies is, but I would imagine it would involve a declaration of war. The Korean war was never formally resolved, but the US hasn't declared war since WWII. There's also no indication of adherence here. Doing things that benefit a country and a leader that your government officically doesn't care for can be all shades of prohibited and illegal, but it's not treason.
  - mtVessel 1y ago
    | I don't know what the legal definition of Enemies is, but I would imagine it would involve a declaration of war. These days, some vague tattoos will do it.

rdtsc 1y ago

Too high of a bar. She would have to have an intent specifically to betray and hurt the US and act on it. Just acting or just having an intent is not enough.

cosmicgadget 1y ago

These are financial crimes against Americans. They're not attacks on the country's security unless you take very broad view of security.

burnte 1y ago

Because money laundering and trade with a banned nation isn't the same as attempting to overthrow the government.