Tamper Tantrum (Mueller Thread v. 17)

[bobgeese]

Both of which are in here on a regular basis.

Yes, because I start them.

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

Yes, because I start them.

Not according to this guy...

I abandoned any hope of an actual discussion, and honed my shitposting.

 

[bobgeese]

Not according to this guy...

It is impossible to have an actual conversation the far left here (which is most of you).

There are a few moderates here, but they never argue, they make their point and move on with their life. And of course, the right here is pretty well mannered and engaging.

To make my point, the two quotes you posted have literally nothing to do with each other. You can’t even shitpost right.

Sober up and try again tomorrow.

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

It is impossible to have an actual conversation the far left here (which is most of you).

No, it's really not. That's why the threads still exist and have plenty of left leaning posters contributing to them.

There are a few moderates here, but they never argue, they make their point and move on with their life. And of course, the right here is pretty well mannered and engaging.

And right back to trolling.... How many times have you fallen back on a gorilla face in an argument bob?

To make my point, the two quotes you posted have literally nothing to do with each other. You can’t even shitpost right.

You suggested there's no good threads for intelligent discussion. I then quoted you admitting all you do is shitpost.

Apparently the problem you have with this forum, is posters like yourself.

Sober up and try again tomorrow.

bobbi you walked into admitting you're a troll. I literally set bait, you swallowed it whole, and are now on the boat flopping around saying "I'm swimming! I love swimming! Swimming is so fun! Look at all this swimming I'm doing!"


The only thing that can save you now is the illiteracy of others.

 

[bobgeese]

No, it's really not. That's why the threads still exist and have plenty of left leaning posters contributing to them.



And right back to trolling.... How many times have you fallen back on a gorilla face in an argument bob?



You suggested there's no good threads for intelligent discussion. I then quoted you admitting all you do is shitpost.

Apparently the problem you have with this forum, is posters like yourself.



bobbi you walked into admitting you're a troll. I literally set bait, you swallowed it whole, and are now on the boat flopping around saying "I'm swimming! I love swimming! Swimming is so fun! Look at all this swimming I'm doing!"


The only thing that can save you now is the illiteracy of others.

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

And right back to trolling.... How many times have you fallen back on a gorilla face in an argument bob?

My bad, I should've included all emojis and memes.

Thanks for making this all so easy bob. You can take that hook out of your cheek now.

 

[waiguoren]

Well I'm guessing you don't consider treason and organizing a conspiracy to influence an election on behalf of the head of a foreign state "wrong-doing"

First: your accusation of treason against President Donald Trump is unfounded. The founders were careful to define treason very narrowly, and treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution.

Spoiler: Definition of Treason

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.

See the spoiler above. In crafting their definition, the founders stripped away most of the provisions of the Treason Act of 1351*, leaving behind only the following offenses:

(1) Levying war against the United States

(2) "Adhering to" the “enemies” of the United States by “giving aid and comfort" to them

Even assassinating the nation’s highest officials or their family members were eliminated as treasonous acts.

If you value case law, note that even Charles Guiteau and Leon Czolgosz were charged with murder, not treason. Note also that US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall found Aaron Burr not guilty of the crime of treason despite overwhelming evidence that Burr had plotted to raise a rebellion to overtake some of the western territory of the United States.

The terms “enemies”, "levying war", "adhering to", and "aid and comfort" have specific meanings in English common law. For our purposes, the interpretation of Justice James Wilson should be sufficient. Wilson signed both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and was one of the six original Supreme Court justices. In 1791, Wilson gave a series of lectures at the College of Philadelphia. One of his lectures, available here, defined each of the above terms clearly.

What does it mean to “levy war” against the United States?

Spoiler: ”James Wilson’s Explanation of “levying war””

I now proceed to another question--what is meant by the expression "levying war?" From what has been said in answer to the former question, an answer to this is so far prepared as to inform us, that the term war cannot, in this place, mean such a one as is carried on between independent powers. The parties on one side are those who owe obedience. All the curious and extensive learning, therefore, concerning the laws of war as carried on between separate nations, must be thrown out of this question. This is such a war as is levied by those who owe obedience--by citizens; and therefore must be such a war, as, in the nature of things, citizens can levy.

The indictments for this treason generally describe the persons indicted as "arrayed in a warlike manner." As where people are assembled in great numbers, armed with offensive weapons, or weapons of war, if they march thus armed in a body, if they have chosen commanders or officers, if they march with banners displayed, or with drums or trumpets: whether the greatness of their numbers and their continuance together doing these acts may not amount to being arrayed in a warlike manner, deserves consideration. If they have no military arms, nor march or continue together in the posture of war; they may be great rioters, but their conduct does not always amount to a levying of war.

If one, with force and weapons invasive or defensive, hold and defend a castle or fort against the publick power; this is to levy war. So an actual insurrection or rebellion is a levying of war, and by that name must be expressed in the indictment.

To summarize and apply the legal term “levy war” to the present case: President Donald Trump cannot be guilty of “levying war” against the United States because there is no evidence that President Trump has been involved in an armed insurrection against the United States.

Perhaps you believe President Donald Trump to be guilty of the second part of the constitutional definition of treason: “adhering to [the United States’] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Spoiler: ”James Wilson’s Explanation of “adhering to their Enemies””

Treason consists in "adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort." By enemies, are here understood the citizens or subjects of foreign princes or states, with whom the United States are at open war. But the subjects or citizens of such states or princes, in actual hostility, though no war be solemnly declared, are such enemies. The expressions "giving them aid and comfort" are explanatory of what is meant by adherence. To give intelligence to enemies, to send provisions to them, to sell arms to them, treacherously to surrender a fort to them, to cruise in a ship with them against the United States--these are acts of adherence, aid, and comfort.

To join with rebels in a rebellion, or with enemies in acts of hostility, is treason in a citizen, by adhering to those enemies, or levying war with those rebels. But if this be done from apprehension of death, and while the party is under actual force, and he take the first opportunity which offers to make his escape; this fear and compulsion will excuse him.

In summary: at the present time, no US citizen can be guilty of “adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them comfort” by cooperating with the government of Russia because Russia is not engaged in a state of open war with the United States.

Thus, from an originalist/textualist standpoint, you are clearly wrong in your assertion that President Trump is guilty of treason with regard to any of his actions related to government of Russia.

Perhaps you do not accept a textualist/originalist view. Even so, a reading based solely on case law would still render your statement unfounded, as the case law on this issue aligns tightly with the Constitution’s text.

The few cases in US history of convictions of treason in the federal courts fall into two categories. The first is armed insurrection against the US government. Two were tried for treason at the federal level for participating in the Whiskey Rebellion and three were convicted of treason at the federal level for participating in Fries’s Rebellion. The second category is working with the Axis powers during World War II as propagandists or spies. To my knowledge, less than 10 individuals have fallen into the second category. I estimate that less than 20 people have been convicted of treason in the federal courts in the entire history of the republic.

In summary, your accusation of treason against President Trump is unfounded.






*Full text in both Norman French and English available here

 

[JosephDredd]

Lol @idiotgoose admitting to be a brainless troll, complaining that leftists are denying reality because they don't shake his dick like the fucktards where he usually posts his alt right lies

 

[Joe]

 

[Cooz]

No shit Sherlock, that’s why I laugh at you folks for feigning outrage at everything. Vote for the direction you think the country should move in. If they actually keep a promise or two, that’s a pleasant surprise. Believing their campaign slogans is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

Welcome to politics.


PS, I’m actually pleasantly surprised at how many campaign promises trump actually kept. We just keep winning.

You are NO part of “we” you insignificant bug.

Real conservatives LIKE me who voted against Trump, are the real winners, because his unfair tax policies are making me a fortune.

 

[bobgeese]

You are NO part of “we” you insignificant bug.

Real conservatives LIKE me who voted against Trump, because his unfair tax policies are making me a fortune.

How high are you right now?

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

First: your accusation of treason against President Donald Trump is unfounded. The founders were careful to define treason very narrowly, and treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution.

Spoiler: Definition of Treason

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.

See the spoiler above. In crafting their definition, the founders stripped away most of the provisions of the Treason Act of 1351*, leaving behind only the following offenses:

(1) Levying war against the United States

(2) "Adhering to" the “enemies” of the United States by “giving aid and comfort" to them

I'll just go ahead and skip pointing out how (2) is completely applicable in the event of Trump being found to have offered Russia anything in compensation for election interference and help.... and ask you this:

How does the constitution define an act of war? You say it's very clear on what exactly treason is, so it must be incredibly clear on it's definition of war.

Even assassinating the nation’s highest officials or their family members were eliminated as treasonous acts.

Not if they were committed for the benefit of foreign enemies. Did you even read what you cited?

If you value case law, note that even Charles Guiteau and Leon Czolgosz were charged with murder, not treason. Note also that US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall found Aaron Burr not guilty of the crime of treason despite overwhelming evidence that Burr had plotted to raise a rebellion to overtake some of the western territory of the United States.

1. Can you clearly demonstrate a murder charge wasn't pursued over a charge of treason because it was more likely to garner a guilty verdict?

2. What was Aaron Burr found guilty of?

The terms “enemies”, "levying war", "adhering to", and "aid and comfort" have specific meanings in English common law. For our purposes, the interpretation of Justice James Wilson should be sufficient.

I'm sorry, did you just imply you were about to produce "specific meanings" and follow it up with the interpretation of one man? I'm not question the man or what he's saying yet, I'm just asking if you really just did that. Because that would be using words wrong. Something having a specific meaning wouldn't be up to interpretation.

Wilson signed both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and was one of the six original Supreme Court justices. In 1791, Wilson gave a series of lectures at the College of Philadelphia. One of his lectures, available here, defined each of the above terms clearly.

What does it mean to “levy war” against the United States?

Spoiler: ”James Wilson’s Explanation of “levying war””

I now proceed to another question--what is meant by the expression "levying war?" From what has been said in answer to the former question, an answer to this is so far prepared as to inform us, that the term war cannot, in this place, mean such a one as is carried on between independent powers. The parties on one side are those who owe obedience. All the curious and extensive learning, therefore, concerning the laws of war as carried on between separate nations, must be thrown out of this question. This is such a war as is levied by those who owe obedience--by citizens; and therefore must be such a war, as, in the nature of things, citizens can levy.

The indictments for this treason generally describe the persons indicted as "arrayed in a warlike manner." As where people are assembled in great numbers, armed with offensive weapons, or weapons of war, if they march thus armed in a body, if they have chosen commanders or officers, if they march with banners displayed, or with drums or trumpets: whether the greatness of their numbers and their continuance together doing these acts may not amount to being arrayed in a warlike manner, deserves consideration. If they have no military arms, nor march or continue together in the posture of war; they may be great rioters, but their conduct does not always amount to a levying of war.

If one, with force and weapons invasive or defensive, hold and defend a castle or fort against the publick power; this is to levy war. So an actual insurrection or rebellion is a levying of war, and by that name must be expressed in the indictment.

To summarize and apply the legal term “levy war” to the present case: President Donald Trump cannot be guilty of “levying war” against the United States because there is no evidence that President Trump has been involved in an armed insurrection against the United States.

So just to be perfectly clear, you don't believe trade wars or cyberwarfare are things that actually exist? According to this, anything that isn't an armed insurgency isn't an act of war. So If China hacks out military defense systems and shuts down our missile defenses, that would NOT be an act of war in your eyes, correct?

I'll go ahead and completely cede that point, just for fun. (2) is still entirely applicable if it's revealed he was working with Russia to interfere in our elections.

Perhaps you believe President Donald Trump to be guilty of the second part of the constitutional definition of treason: “adhering to [the United States’] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Spoiler: ”James Wilson’s Explanation of “adhering to their Enemies””

Treason consists in "adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort." By enemies, are here understood the citizens or subjects of foreign princes or states, with whom the United States are at open war. But the subjects or citizens of such states or princes, in actual hostility, though no war be solemnly declared, are such enemies. The expressions "giving them aid and comfort" are explanatory of what is meant by adherence. To give intelligence to enemies, to send provisions to them, to sell arms to them, treacherously to surrender a fort to them, to cruise in a ship with them against the United States--these are acts of adherence, aid, and comfort.

To join with rebels in a rebellion, or with enemies in acts of hostility, is treason in a citizen, by adhering to those enemies, or levying war with those rebels. But if this be done from apprehension of death, and while the party is under actual force, and he take the first opportunity which offers to make his escape; this fear and compulsion will excuse him.

In summary: at the present time, no US citizen can be guilty of “adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them comfort” by cooperating with the government of Russia because Russia is not engaged in a state of open war with the United States.

So you're saying treason simply cannot be committed unless we're at war? And the only war that exists is a physical war.

Is there any reason to infer you're doing nothing but grasping at semantics here? You're citing interpretations so old they literally can't account for the current reality of war. So why should I find these interpretations applicable to the events taking place today?

Just please answer this one question so I can see what's actually motivating your positions here: is cyberwarfare a form of warfare?

Thus, from an originalist/textualist standpoint

How about from the standpoint of a lawyer alive in 2018 who exists in a world with an internet?

you are clearly wrong in your assertion that President Trump is guilty of treason with regard to any of his actions related to government of Russia.

This cannot be said with any certainty until the investigation is over, unless you're suggesting the interpretations you presented stand as infallible mandates on the topic.

Is that what you're implying?

Perhaps you do not accept a textualist/originalist view. Even so, a reading based solely on case law would still render your statement unfounded, as the case law on this issue aligns tightly with the Constitution’s text.

You're basing this off single interpretations of the constitution that at no point address the realities of the current situation. Furthermore, you seem to be implying that these interpretations are infallible mandates any charge of treason would immediately die in the face of. We both know that's not the case, so why are you pretending it is?

The few cases in US history of convictions of treason in the federal courts fall into two categories. The first is armed insurrection against the US government.

So basically if it doesn't involve a weapon during an active war, it can't be treason? That's the summary of the point you're making?

Two were tried for treason at the federal level for participating in the Whiskey Rebellion and three were convicted of treason at the federal level for participating in Fries’s Rebellion. The second category is working with the Axis powers during World War II as propagandists or spies. To my knowledge, less than 10 individuals have fallen into the second category. I estimate that less than 20 people have been convicted of treason in the federal courts in the entire history of the republic.

When was the last time an elected official was under investigation for actively cooperating with a foreign head of state to interfere in our election process? That'd probably be a good precedent to reference so we know how the courts would interpret it.

In summary, your accusation of treason against President Trump is unfounded.

Well when you all you've got is semantics and pretending it's 1803, I can't put much stock in what you say.

*Full text in both Norman French and English available here

Can I get the full text of you replying to everything else I said? Oh wait, forget it. Just realized you only responded to a select portion of my post simply to argue the semantics of what I said.

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

How high are you right now?

LOL, bobgeese gets confused when someone gives him a bobgeese reply. Epic.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

You realize no matter how much Russia wanted it, the PEOPLE had to vote for it, right?


That’s how this works.

You realize how propaganda works on PEOPLE? Yes, elections have consequences, so let's see how things go in November. Now that we see what Trump and Russia bring to the table our midterm votes will determine if in fact Americans endorse Trump's policies.

 

[bobgeese]

You realize how propaganda works on PEOPLE? Yes, elections have consequences, so let's see how things go in November. Now that we see what Trump and Russia bring to the table our midterm votes will determine if in fact Americans endorse Trump's policies.

You realize half of America has hated Hillary for decades, right?

 

[Rational Poster]

You realize half of America has hated Hillary for decades, right?

You guys just invented hating her that much last campaign season.

 

[bobgeese]

You guys just invented hating her that much last campaign season.

1993 is awfully early for “last campaign season”


38% is awfully awful....

 

[Rational Poster]

1993 is awfully early for “last campaign season”


38% is awfully awful....

 

[PolishHeadlock]

 

[waiguoren]

In crafting their definition, the founders stripped away most of the provisions of the Treason Act of 1351*, leaving behind only the following offenses:

(1) Levying war against the United States

(2) "Adhering to" the “enemies” of the United States by “giving aid and comfort" to them

(2) is completely applicable in the event of Trump being found to have offered Russia anything in compensation for election interference and help

Incorrect. Please see my previous post. (2) refers only to "enemies" with which the United States is in a state of open war. If one would like to expand the definition of treason to redefine "enemies" to encompass more kinds of actors, then one would need to amend Article Three of the US Constitution. The founders believed that England had abused treason law and were thus careful to restrict the definition of treason.

How does the constitution define an act of war?

"Act of war" is not specified in the Constitution's definition of treason. In fact, that term appears nowhere in the US Constitution.

"Levying war" is the relevant term. Please read Justice Wilson's explanation in the second spoiler of my previous post---it is impossible to apply this term to President Donald Trump in good faith.

In crafting their definition, the founders stripped away most of the provisions of the Treason Act of 1351. Even assassinating the nation’s highest officials or their family members were eliminated as treasonous acts.

Not if they were committed for the benefit of foreign enemies.

Assassinating a US public official on behalf of an "enemy" would fall under category (2). But an "enemy" in this context refers only to a nation with which the United States is engaged in a state of open war. Therefore, even if President Donald Trump were to assassinate a US government official in exchange for payment from the Russian government, the president could not be guilty of treason at the federal level unless the United States and Russia had already entered into a state of open war at the time the assassination were planned.

If you value case law, note that even Charles Guiteau and Leon Czolgosz were charged with murder, not treason. Note also that US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall found Aaron Burr not guilty of the crime of treason despite overwhelming evidence that Burr had plotted to raise a rebellion to overtake some of the western territory of the United States.

1. Can you clearly demonstrate a murder charge wasn't pursued over a charge of treason because it was more likely to garner a guilty verdict?

2. What was Aaron Burr found guilty of?

1. Of course I can't, and you can't demonstrate that a charge of treason was even considered by the prosecutors in the cases of Guiteau or Czolgosz. Typically, however, prosecutors attempt to pursue all available serious charges against a defendant. Prosecutors did not pursue treason charges against Guiteau or Czolgosz despite the fact that both men assassinated the President of the United States.

2. Aaron Burr was acquitted on the charge of treason, which was the only charge brought against him.

The terms “enemies”, "levying war", "adhering to", and "aid and comfort" have specific meanings in English common law. For our purposes, the interpretation of Justice James Wilson should be sufficient. Wilson signed both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and was one of the six original Supreme Court justices. In 1791, Wilson gave a series of lectures at the College of Philadelphia. One of his lectures, available here, defined each of the above terms clearly.

I'm sorry, did you just imply you were about to produce "specific meanings" and follow it up with the interpretation of one man? I'm not question the man or what he's saying yet, I'm just asking if you really just did that. Because that would be using words wrong. Something having a specific meaning wouldn't be up to interpretation.

I think you should re-read what you wrote there. The "one man" whose interpretation you are questioning is one of the major authors of the document you accused President Donald Trump of violating.

“Enemies”, "levying war", "adhering to", and "aid and comfort" have specific meanings in English common law and, by extension, in US law. Among legal scholars in the United States, there is little to no legal controversy about the meaning of these terms. I chose Justice Wilson's statements as a reference for my conversation with you because

1) Justice Wilson's interpretation agrees with the interpretations of Chief Justice John Marshall, Judge William Blackstone and all other other relevant founding-era and pre-founding-era scholars I am aware of.

2) Justice Wilson was a highly respected jurist, one of the original six Supreme Court justices and one of the major authors of the US Constitution.

If you would like to offer a different interpretation of the above terms from a different legal scholar, I will be happy to consider it. However, I doubt you can find such an interpretation produced by a quality scholar which contradicts Justice Wilson's explanation. Therefore, I believe my introduction of Justice Wilson's explanatory material into this conversation was justified.

So just to be perfectly clear, you don't believe trade wars or cyberwarfare are things that actually exist?

Trade disputes and computer hacking do exist. Assuming our nation is one based on the rule of law, to apply Article Three, Section Three of the US Constitution to trade disputes or computer hacking would be unjustifiable.

According to this, anything that isn't an armed insurgency isn't an act of war.

Incorrect. The term "act of war" has no relevance to a discussion about the definition of "treason" at the federal level in the United States. "To levy war" is the term you should be analyzing here. This term has at least 650 years of history in English common law. Please read the contents of the spoilers in my first post to you. In US v Burr, Chief Justice John Marshall went to extraordinary lengths to specify what constituted "levying war" and what did not. Marshall's opinion was built upon the previous legal work done by Judges Iredell, Foster, Coke and Hale. Thus, Marshall wrote: to levy war there must be an assemblage of men in a condition and with an intention to employ force. Has President Donald Trump assembled men with an intention to employ force against the US government?

So If China hacks out military defense systems and shuts down our missile defenses, that would NOT be an act of war in your eyes, correct?

Incorrect. In my view, that would be a belligerent act that might justify a military response. However, such an act is not an incidence of "levying war" under the statutory definition of that term.

I'll go ahead and completely cede that point, just for fun. (2) is still entirely applicable if it's revealed he was working with Russia to interfere in our elections.

Again, please review the definition of "enemies" in this context (for example, in my last post) and reconsider your opinion.

So you're saying treason simply cannot be committed unless we're at war? And the only war that exists is a physical war.

No, that is not what I wrote. Perhaps I should use even simpler language.

Treason at the federal level can take the form of 1) participating in an armed uprising against the US federal government (see: the Whiskey Rebellion) 2) Willfully cooperating with a nation which is in a state of open war with the United States at the time the cooperation occurs.

For an example of 2), see for instance the conviction for treason of Nazi propagandist Robert Best.

Is there any reason to infer you're doing nothing but grasping at semantics here? Is there any reason to infer you're doing nothing but grasping at semantics here? You're citing interpretations so old they literally can't account for the current reality of war. So why should I find these interpretations applicable to the events taking place today?

This conversation began with you accusing the sitting US president of treason. I countered that this accusation was unfounded because the actions you claim are treasonous do not fit the definition of treason in United States law. Your position appears to be that you know treason when you see it, and therefore we should throw out 231 years of legal precedent and prosecute the president for treason anyway. Assuming you accept this characterization, can you see any reason why someone might be uncomfortable with this line of argument?

As for the US Constitution not accounting for the "current reality of war": please specify precisely the manner in which you would modify the Article Three definition of treason to account for that "current reality". For example, you might wish to change the definition of "enemies of the United States" in (2) to include some language about computer hacking. But be careful. The mainstream media has reported that our NSA has hacked EU computer systems. Is the US an "enemy" to the EU?

Just please answer this one question so I can see what's actually motivating your positions here: is cyberwarfare a form of warfare?

This is close to tautological territory. Define "cyberwarfare" so that I can respond using your definitions.

Did the US carry out an act of war against the EU when it hacked EU computer systems?

You are clearly wrong in your assertion that President Trump is guilty of treason with regard to any of his actions related to government of Russia.

This cannot be said with any certainty until the investigation is over, unless you're suggesting the interpretations you presented stand as infallible mandates on the topic.

Is that what you're implying?

I would like to better understand your view of treason at the federal level. If I, a US citizen, were to steal our nation's nuclear secrets and transmit them to the government of Russia, would I be guilty of treason? What if I were to hang a Russian flag in my front yard?

As for President Donald Trump: there is a 0% chance that Robert Mueller will bring a charge of treason against him. My interpretation of the treason statute is rooted deeply in US law, and Robert Mueller is a lawyer trained in that same body of law.

Perhaps you do not accept a textualist/originalist view. Even so, a reading based solely on case law would still render your statement unfounded, as the case law on this issue aligns tightly with the Constitution’s text.

You're basing this off single interpretations of the constitution that at no point address the realities of the current situation. Furthermore, you seem to be implying that these interpretations are infallible mandates any charge of treason would immediately die in the face of. We both know that's not the case, so why are you pretending it is?

You have provided no evidence that any action of President Donald Trump meets the Constitution's definition of treason. Again, treason was restricted in the US Constitution to be applicable only in cases of levying war against the US and providing aid and comfort to nations that the US is at open war with. It would take great creativity on your part to come up with a means by which to assert convincingly that any action of President Donald Trump's meets this definition, and that's why I expect you will be unable to do so.

Can I get the full text of you replying to everything else I said? Oh wait, forget it. Just realized you only responded to a select portion of my post simply to argue the semantics of what I said.

Accusing President Donald Trump of treason was the first of many unfounded accusations that you made. I started from the top. I will proceed stepwise through to the bottom.