If This Be Treason, Make The Most Of It!

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one of the definitions for treason is the betrayal of trust.  On that basis therefore, Donald Trump is guilty of treason, at least in the literal sense of the word.  To his many fans and followers this, of course, would be a lot of nonsense.  However, I believe that when you hold the highest governmental office this country has to offer you must be held to the highest standards possible.  The American people bestowed on Donald J. Trump their faith and trust that he would, above all else, make the best interests of the United States his highest priority.  This means that the interest of the country should stand above all else, even enlightened self-interest.  President Trump has betrayed that trust and thereby his country.

The sad fact is that the President’s flirtation with the Russian Federation was born out of a desire for self-advancement, not patriotism.  There came a moment when Donald Trump realized he could profit himself and his family by becoming President of the United States.  He became obsessed with the idea of assuming the Presidency so that he could open the door to the possibility that he could manipulate the government in such a way as to reap tremendous financial rewards for his financial empire.  He became so obsessed with this idea that he sought the aid of our most formidable foreign adversary, even if that meant jeopardizing the integrity of the American political system.  Thus he betrayed the great trust the American people bestowed on him by making him their President.

Is President Trump guilty of the crime of treason?  Technically, probably not.  The law places a high standard of proof in order to be convicted of the actual crime of treason.  But that doesn’t mean he hasn’t betrayed our trust.  Throughout history, individuals have placed self-interest above their patriotic duty.  Richard Nixon conspired with the government of South Vietnam in order to block the end of the Vietnam War so that he could be elected President of the United States, for instance.  You can go back to the Italian Renaissance and Niccolo Machiavelli to see a blueprint for such political self-aggrandizement which can be summed up in just a few words: “the end justifies the means!”.  I think it’s safe to say that Donald Trump is a thoroughgoing Machiavellian.

In 2016 he realized that he couldn’t win the Presidency on his own.  His radically nationalist philosophy went against the grain of most of the American people.  The Republican Party was not nearly strong enough to carry him across the finish line as the winner of the 2016 election.  And so he felt compelled to seek a pathway to victory wherever he could find one.  And thus he fell into a conspiracy with Vladimir Putin to find some way in which even a candidate as odious as himself could actually be elected President of the United States.  Of course, Comrade Putin put a high price on such cooperation, specifically that Donald Trump work for the best interests of the Russian Federation above those of the United States.  And thus the history of the Trump Administration has been replete with instances where our President has looked to advance the cause of Russia above that of his own country.  As such, the President has not acted in the best interests of his country and has betrayed the trust the American people placed in him when they made him their President.  While the American legal system may not be brought to bear against him for this betrayal, there can be little doubt that he has acted treasonously.  And that is why, as we look forward to another Presidential election in 2020, it would be altogether fitting and proper that the American people reward Donald Trump for his perfidy by quickly and decisively booting him out of the White House!

Filed under: Politics


Leave a comment
  • An interesting theory, but I don't think it would hold up. Under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution a president can be removed by impeachment and conviction for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Using Marriam-Webster you conclude that Donald Trump may have committed treason, thus be subject to removal.

    However, treason as used in the Constitution is defined in the Constitution. In fact, it is the only one of the crimes defined there. Article III, Section 3 says, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Notice the word "only."

    Therefore, I don't think you can use Marriam-Webster to get Trump for treason. However, "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" are not defined in the Constitution, so Trump's derelictions of duty may
    be enough to remove him--if the House and Senate say so.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    " in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"

    If Trump sufficiently colluded with Putin, he would have given an enemy aid and comfort. But, Mueller concluded that the Justice Dept. can't or won't prosecute him criminally for that.

    I'm more concerned that he's now best friends with Kim Jung Un, despite what some Bannonite troll said. Maybe Kim told him "you know what I did to my uncle with an antiaircraft gun. I can do the same to you."

  • In reply to jack:

    You cannot isolate the word "Enemies" in the second clause from the words "levying War" in the first. We may be enemies of Russia, but we are not at war with them.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    There is an "or" in the clause you originally quoted.

    Also, I don't think it could be argued that Russia didn't wage cyber war on us.

    But, anyway, as I said above, Mueller wasn't willing to indict the orange one, even though he did indict sundry Russians over which he couldn't obtain personal jurisdiction.

  • In reply to jack:

    Sorry for the delay--I've been out of town.

    As to the "or," look up the term "ejusdem generis." Courts use it often.

    As to cyber war, that is one of the hyperbolic metaphors we are all so fond of. Remember the War on Poverty? The War on Drugs? The War on Crime? The Trade War?

Leave a comment