3 ms·

You don't think starting a war apparently to distract the media, then lying about peace talks solely to drain money from the markets is treasonous? How about w

You don't think starting a war apparently to distract the media, then lying about peace talks solely to drain money from the markets is treasonous? How about when combined with all the tariffs, which seem designed to be market levers and/or just vindictive acts? Pushing businesses to the edge, plunging people into poverty, so your cronies and you can drain money from the stock market? Or taking bribes using crypto? Or ... They all seem treasonous - actively harming your own country to enrich yourself. Even if you don't find them treasonous, you have to admit they're in contravention to the emoluments clause; so Congress should still impeach the evil bastard. And we haven't even started on his crimes beyond the simple financial ones from the last year!

kasey_junk 7mo ago
Treason means something very specific in the US, intentionally. It’s one of only a couple of criminal acts defined in the 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.” So no. None of those things is treason. This administration throws the word around loosely, like many authoritarian regimes, but the founders had direct experience with a dictator who used treason charges as a political weapon and tried to ensure that wouldn’t happen here.
- jfengel 7mo ago
  I do feel as if threats to apply the crime of treason while are, if not treasonous, crimes themselves. Threats are a criminal act, and there is a long precedent to disallow "I wasn't really gonna do it" as a defense.
  - tptacek 7mo ago
    Only "true threats" are criminal acts; threats broadly understood to be rhetorical or implausible are protected speech.
jfengel 7mo ago
I was referring just to this bit of profiteering. For the administration as a whole... Honestly, as disgusted as I am, I can't think of a case where a significant fraction of the country looked at a treasonous action and said "yeah, I'd vote for that again". When his supporters turn against him he will be impeached. Until then, it's just the suicide pact called the Constitution.

kasey_junk 7mo ago

Treason means something very specific in the US, intentionally. It’s one of only a couple of criminal acts defined in the 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.” So no. None of those things is treason. This administration throws the word around loosely, like many authoritarian regimes, but the founders had direct experience with a dictator who used treason charges as a political weapon and tried to ensure that wouldn’t happen here.

jfengel 7mo ago
I do feel as if threats to apply the crime of treason while are, if not treasonous, crimes themselves. Threats are a criminal act, and there is a long precedent to disallow "I wasn't really gonna do it" as a defense.
- tptacek 7mo ago
  Only "true threats" are criminal acts; threats broadly understood to be rhetorical or implausible are protected speech.

jfengel 7mo ago

I was referring just to this bit of profiteering. For the administration as a whole... Honestly, as disgusted as I am, I can't think of a case where a significant fraction of the country looked at a treasonous action and said "yeah, I'd vote for that again". When his supporters turn against him he will be impeached. Until then, it's just the suicide pact called the Constitution.