On Treason (and Trump)

I added a book On Treason to the book side panel. It's an interesting look at the Treason Clause, breaking down its specific parts and discussing various treason trials (John Brown was executed under a state law; ironically, his citizenship being key allowed at least two blacks to escape the same fate).  Each aspect of the clause warrants review, including the need for an "overt act" (an actual event, not just a conspiracy or plan). 

The author recently suggested that the invasion of the Capitol very well might be treason, a crime that under modern constitutional law covers limited ground.  As early as the 1850s, and probably much earlier, it was already clear merely interfering with the execution of federal law was not treason. Timothy McVeigh was not a "traitor" in a legal sense though he might have once been treated as such.  But, this was about the transfer of power, much closer to the core concern of the treason provision.  

(The word "treason" is tossed around a lot, but the constitutional provision is much more narrow.  Other crimes are usually prosecuted and other than the symbolic meaning of "treason" (including to get a sense of what other impeachment counts are warranted) -- the crime historically meant more such as very harsh punishment - an argument can be made it is at least somewhat antiquated.  Note though that on some level, it is okay to loosely use terms, everyone not required to talk like lawyers.) 

The author repeatedly wrote that things that very well could be wrong and even criminal is not "treason."  He cites, for instance, negative pushback when noting that a conspiracy with Russia to interfere with a presidential election would not be treason based on what we know.  This, however, came pretty close.  Imagine if slave supporters tried to stop the electoral count of Abraham Lincoln in 1861, deeming his election a grave threat to the South, hoping the result was Stephen Douglas would be chosen.

Terms like "insurrection" are even easier to apply here, the Fourteenth Amendment using it separate from "rebellion."  Consider one dictionary definition: "a violent uprising against an authority or government."  And, this is specifically what the second impeachment (Trump has been impeached ... the issue at hand next week is conviction) is about. 

Query how far to take this -- Trump basically had at least three instances in which he tried to interfere with the normal transfer of power. This one is most directly aiding and abetting an insurrection.  But, the basic mulligan involved in the Mueller Report and the attempt to interfere with the election involved in the first impeachment as a whole is rather comparable.

An impeachment is also a specific constitutional institution that is separate from the disqualification at issue in that amendment, even if the impeachment count does reference it. Without repeating myself, see here, e.g., for why I think the impeachment is appropriate.  One thing there is the concern about Leahy presiding, which I find a bit asinine. It's at best a sort of interesting dispute that at the end of the day is really not that important.

We shall see how the trial goes. Anyway, the book is very interesting, ending with modern day questions such as involving be charged with treason for things like sending videos as part of terrorist groups. It touches upon drones, which is a whole other matter in my opinion that led me to have disputes with people I usually agree with on most matters. Either way, treason still has some applications and not only as a symbolic label.