April 11, 2018

Just a reminder: Mueller's investigation is not about poitics; it's about potential treason

Sam Smith - Even much of the liberal media covers the potential firing of Robert Mueller by Donald Trump as a merely political matter. It is not. Using Russians to change American election results is not "collusion;" it is treason. Trump is a subject of interest in this investigation as are a number of his aides. For a subject in such an investigation to fire the prosecutor, or his superiors, would be a major crime in itself.


5 comments:

KZeese said...

Is it treason? The Constitution defines treason as:

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.

Is the US at war with Russia? Is Trump accused of giving aid and comfort to an enemy the US is at war with?

KZeese said...

Whether it is legally treason or not (and it does not seem to be), Trump firing Mueller in the midst of this investigation would be politically disastrous and the system would find a way to hold him legally accountable.

Alan Nasser said...

Is “using Russians to change American election results” really “treason”? Actually, there is no reason in principal why any non-American entity should not try to affect the results of an American election. If some such entity, e.g. a person, a nation state, a company, a bank, an American citizen, has a significant stake in the outcome of an American election, we should expect that entity to do what it can to influence the outcome. Hillary Clinton pledged to make Syrian skies into a no-fly zone. She was clear: this means Russian planes would be targeted. Were Washington to order the destruction of a Russian plane over Syria, could this cause a military confrontation with Russia? And Syria is an ally of Russia. Therefore, Russia had a substantial stake in the outcome of the last election. Why then should Russia not try to influence the outcome? Russia’s interest in influencing the outcome of the election is legitimate. So, therefore, is its attempt to influence the outcome. (Let’s assume there was such an attempt.) Now suppose Trump -or anyone else- aids Russia in this legitimate attempt. There can be no objection to that. Treason? I don’t think so.

Anonymous said...

Although Sanders Dems well understood Hillary could lose, few others did. The Russian infowar was perhaps a show of intelligence presence to deter the Clinton administration's expected attack on Russia, much as AIPAC demonstrably controls US policy regardless of who wins. It was never considered that Trump might be elected or should be assisted, only that Russia should appear to have political allies in the US that might have Clinton rethink her war against Russia. In the context of an election this violates laws selectively applied probably only against BRICS.

Anonymous said...

Treason was definitely committed by LBJ when he refused to support the USS Liberty. Arguably also by LeMay, Hoover et al in Dallas. It is not unheard of, but not so much in recent years.