• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

K.T. McFarland told transition team that Russia "has just thrown the U.S. election" to Trump

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
11,835
6,293
136
Did you even read what you said? You claim that Russia is not an enemy state which is purely false.
You're providing dictionary definitions instead of quoting the Constitution?

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.
And in case you're still not clear, "enemy" has been interpreted by the SCOTUS as meaning a country with which we are in open warfare since 1807. It's been settled law since the Marshall court.

MoS is correct here, end of story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MomentsofSanity

paperfist

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
6,329
243
106
www.the-teh.com
Reassigned to the prestigious role of ambassador to Singapore.

I remember a few month ago Maddow picking up on this and wondering WTF was up with the position shift.
She was asked to step down. McMaster wanted his own people which was a big condition of him taking the job.

She’s now awaiting senate approval as ambassador to Singapore.
Oh thanks guys. I had no idea she wasn't in that position anymore. She always seemed pretty bright on foreign affairs.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
11,835
6,293
136
I recall the White House is claiming that McFarland's statement "throwing the election" was meant to describe the way democrats view it, rather than as a statement of fact. However, it's hard to see she could possibly have meant it that way in context. What McFarland was clearly discussing, in context, was the dilemma they were in: on the one hand, wanting to help the country which aided them in winning the election and on the other, not wanting to seem too cozy with them given the allegations that were afoot.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
14,947
3,701
136
You're providing dictionary definitions instead of quoting the Constitution?
Having studied law I understand that this is buried in United States Code and not the Constitution.

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
prev | next
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
11,835
6,293
136
Having studied law I understand that this is buried in United States Code and not the Constitution.

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
prev | next
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Incorrect. It's also in Article III, Section III of the U.S. Constitution. It is, in fact, the only specific crime that is defined in the Constitution itself.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

What's in that code section is a statutory version of what was already in the Constitution, with the penalty portion added to it.

And in any event, it requires open warfare.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
14,947
3,701
136
USC spells law out in technical terms and it doesn't require warfare as anybody can commit treason at anytime.
 
Jan 25, 2011
15,991
7,369
146
USC spells law out in technical terms and it doesn't require warfare as anybody can commit treason at anytime.
Justice Field wrote the precedent of what constitutes an enemy in the application of the Treason Clause. He wrote.

The term ‘enemies,’ as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government. An enemy is always the subject of a foreign power who owes no allegiance to our government or country. We may, therefore, omit all consideration of this second clause in the constitutional definition of treason. To convict the defendants they must be brought within the first clause of the definition. They must be shown to have committed acts which amount to a levying of war against the United States. To constitute a levying of war there must be an assemblage of persons in force, to overthrow the government, or to coerce its conduct. The words embrace not only those acts by which war is brought into existence, but also those acts by which war is prosecuted. They levy war who create or carry on war. The offense is complete, whether the force be directed to the entire overthrow of the government throughout the country, or only in certain portions of the country, or to defeat the execution and compel the repeal of one of its public laws.
This is the settled law on the matter. This is why you will see war as a requirement for the application of treason.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
14,947
3,701
136
Justice Field wrote the precedent of what constitutes an enemy in the application of the Treason Clause. He wrote.



This is the settled law on the matter. This is why you will see war as a requirement for the application of treason.
Okay I can go along with that.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
4,094
1,443
136
Justice Field wrote the precedent of what constitutes an enemy in the application of the Treason Clause. He wrote.



This is the settled law on the matter. This is why you will see war as a requirement for the application of treason.
Apparently so. Well sourced.

There are still a number of conspiracy charges that can be brought forward.
 
Jan 25, 2011
15,991
7,369
146
Apparently so. Well sourced.

There are still a number of conspiracy charges that can be brought forward.
Treason is batted around far too often considering how few people have ever been charged and only a small handful convicted of treason. It is so restricted as to be unlikely to be used and even less likely to be convicted of.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,243
3,474
136
Did you even read what you said? You claim that Russia is not an enemy state which is purely false.
We have no official declaration of war with Russia, an apparently, that's a technicality in the Treason Act. Personally, I think it stinks.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
14,947
3,701
136
We have no official declaration of war with Russia, an apparently, that's a technicality in the Treason Act. Personally, I think it stinks.
That's why I went to the USC which defines federal law, however, I missed the SCOTUS precedent defining intent which does indeed specify wartime conditions. The USC as written provides for non-wartime occurrences and past SCOTUS precedents can be overturned by future justices.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,492
2,994
126
In 2013 McFarland wrote a Faux News opinion piece on Putin deserving the Nobel Peace Prize...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/10/putin-is-one-who-really-deserves-that-nobel-peace-prize.html
Do you understand the context of that moment in history?
Obama was awarded a peace prize just for being elected President.
Then Obama listened to Hillary and co and tried to engage in regime change in Syria. Putin stopped us.

McFarland's piece is one part mocking Obama the inept warmonger who holds a peace price, and one part acknowledging the absurdity of Putin the bloody tyrant acting to stop a war. What little remains of Syria today is entirely due to that moment in history when the imminent US bombing and invasion was thwarted. Unfortunately for Syria, ISIS and our rebel forces followed through with most of the destruction we had planned.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,130
13,070
136
Do you understand the context of that moment in history?
Obama was awarded a peace prize just for being elected President.
Then Obama listened to Hillary and co and tried to engage in regime change in Syria. Putin stopped us.

McFarland's piece is one part mocking Obama the inept warmonger who holds a peace price, and one part acknowledging the absurdity of Putin the bloody tyrant acting to stop a war. What little remains of Syria today is entirely due to that moment in history when the imminent US bombing and invasion was thwarted. Unfortunately for Syria, ISIS and our rebel forces followed through with most of the destruction we had planned.
What invasion?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,492
2,994
126
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,714
136
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons

Right, suppose ground forces weren't part of the sales pitch. Doesn't change the point, nor much of the other issues with the US pushing regime change in Syria through the use of force. Our rebel minions destroyed that country. They just had less support to do so after the "deal" was reached with Russia in 2013.
Yes, poor 'butcher' Assad. Just an innocent bystander.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,130
13,070
136
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons

Right, suppose ground forces weren't part of the sales pitch. Doesn't change the point, nor much of the other issues with the US pushing regime change in Syria through the use of force. Our rebel minions destroyed that country. They just had less support to do so after the "deal" was reached with Russia in 2013.
Please. It's important that characterizations be accurate. "Invasion" ala Iraq never was in the offing. We both know it.

I don't defend what's been done in Syria. The truth is ugly enough w/o the bullshit.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,130
13,070
136
Yes, poor 'butcher' Assad. Just an innocent bystander.
Assad is doing fine. Parts of the country are in complete ruin. It's not like all the people who've suffered ever were the bad guys.

Bibi loves it, of course. If it wasn't the result of the tail wagging the dog it wasn't because the tail didn't try.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,130
13,070
136
The point that all too many people are missing is that McFarland spoke the truth about just how effectively Russian psyops messed with American minds. The brilliance & audacity of it all, the exploitation of social media, their understanding of the weaknesses of the American psyche & the timing of their actions represent a triumph of propaganda. The fact that all too many people are able to deny that is truly disturbing.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY