The Case for Treason
The Case for Treason
In my article Tinker. Tailor. Mogul. Spy? of a year ago in Washington Monthly, I posited the question, "Could Donald Trump actually be a Russian intel asset?" I concluded, "Whether therefore Trump is a witting or unwitting asset of the Russian Federation, the bottom line is this: by turning away intelligence briefings, by inexplicably attacking his country’s intelligence agencies and by his open bromance with Putin, the president-elect is putting the nation’s national security at grave risk."
Since then, add the following: a concerted and scurrilous effort by Trump and his allies on the Hill and in conservative media to undercut and purge the FBI, Special Prosecutor Mueller and the justice system, and refusing to enact congressionally mandated sanctions against Moscow. And now a Grand Jury indictment validating the earlier findings of the intelligence community, namely, operations by Russia "to interfere with the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election." The indictment describes a highly sophisticated, well-funded, three-year-long scheme aimed at installing President Trump in the White House, in part, by undercutting Hillary Clinton. Social media was the principal weapon of choice.
But the president has been consistently dismissing this irrefutable proof as a "hoax" and the investigation as a "witch hunt." It's akin to standing outside on a cloudless day and rejecting the existence of the sun. Why? The evidence is mounting of a conspiracy by the Trump campaign to collude with Russia. As noted intelligence expert Malcolm Nance told MSNBC's Joy Reid, "At some point, he was co-opted by Vladimir Putin. And that means he bought into and embraced the dictatorial ideology that was done by a spymaster of the KGB." Trump doesn't dare defy Putin lest the latter release to the world some serious kompromat - or dirt - on him.
So, to repeat, could Donald Trump actually be a Russian intel asset? An unwitting asset? Absolutely. Let's review some of the key facts:
Pow Wow with Russians: Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with a Kremlin-linked Russians to discuss “dirt” on Hillary Clinton which was billed as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump announced that he planned “a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons.” At no point did the Trump team report the Russian feeler to federal agencies. Trump directed a misleading response about what was discussed during the meeting.
Senior Advisors & Russkies:
Flynn. Manafort. Gates. Papadopoulos. Sessions. Page. Kushner. Cohen. Don, Jr.Kislyak. Kilimnik. Deripaska. Torshin. Veselnitskaya. Podobnyy. Sater.
Nothing further need be said.
Trump's Wisdom:
"Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
"I love Wikileaks!" (CIA Director Pompeo declared Wikileaks, "a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.")
"I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?"
"I think it was disgraceful that the intelligence agencies allowed any information [out] that turned out to be so false and fake. That's something that Nazi Germany would have done and did."
"The top Leadership and Investigators of the FBI and the Justice Department have politicized the sacred investigative process in favor of Democrats and against Republicans."
On Putin -
“Every time he sees me he says I didn’t do that, and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it.”
"He is a strong leader. I mean, you would like me to call him a weak leader, he’s a strong leader."
"I haven’t seen any evidence that he killed anybody, in terms of reporters."
Steele Dossier:
Raw, unverified intel. But veteran CIA officers place credence in at least some of it. As ex-senior CIA officer John Sipher describes it, "Although the reports were produced episodically, almost erratically, over a five-month period, they present a coherent narrative of collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign."
Counterintelligence:
What counterintelligence? “There should be no doubt that Russia perceived its past efforts as successful and views the 2018 midterm elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations,” Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee this week. All six intelligence agency heads confirmed that they had received no presidential directive to draw up plans to counteract Moscow's attacks.
And now with the Grand Jury indictment against Russian actors, President Trump continues his inaction against a proven active foreign threat. What kind of leader willingly leaves his country exposed to a foreign threat in face of overwhelming evidence that that foreign adversary is attacking it?
To some intelligence experts, the question of whether, or not, Trump is an unwitting asset of Russian intelligence is settled. Former CIA acting Director Mike Morell wrote, "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." Former DNI chief, James Clapper, said on CNN, “This past weekend is a great demonstration to me of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president."
So, the other side of the equation, i.e., could the president be a witting asset of Russian intelligence? This is why we have Robert Mueller. If he turns up incontrovertible evidence that Donald Trump is a Siberian Candidate, all hell will break loose politically. And if such evidence does surface, then the case can be made that Trump is a traitor. Malcolm Nance recently tweeted, "We can openly start using the word Treason now...in the legal sense of the word - aiding and abetting an enemy in wartime."
Ah, but not so fast. There's one hitch -
Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines 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. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
It is the only crime clearly defined by the Constitution. Under this narrow definition there only have been about 30 treason trials in the United States since 1789.
Journalist James Risen is in the process of closely examining the question of whether Trump might be proven guilty of treason in his article, Is Donald Trump a Traitor?:
How closely aligned is Mueller’s mandate with the legal definition of treason? That boils down to the rhetorical differences between giving “aid and comfort, in the United States or elsewhere” to “enemies” of the United States and “any links and/or coordination” between the Russian government and Trump campaign aides related to “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.”
Sounds similar to me.
As a practical matter, the special counsel is highly unlikely to pursue treason charges against Trump or his associates. Treason is vaguely defined in the law and very difficult to prove. To the extent that it is defined – as providing aid and comfort to an “enemy” of the United States – the question might come down to whether Russia is legally considered America’s “enemy.”
Oceans of ink and pixels will be spilled by legal scholars in the coming weeks and months on this question. I shall defer to their learned opinions. But there are two things that strike me at this point in the game:
Finally, for the first time since Trump took office, someone - Robert Mueller - is defending us against heretofore wide-open influence operations from Russia.
Whether he is driven from office through impeachment or resignation, Donald Trump's name will join that of Benedict Arnold in the history books.
And in face of the coming fusillade of further Mueller indictments, perhaps the irrepressible Donald Trump might now be thinking Butch Cassidy's last words as the Bolivian army closed in:
"For a minute I thought we were in trouble."