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.Seems to me that there are two hurdles here: 1. Is Russia technically our enemy? 2. Can we scare up two witnesses to an overt act?
The second question raises a third. Picture this: An NSA guy eavesdrops on a conversation between (say) Roger Stone and one of Putin's people. Does that NSA guy count as a witness? If the initial eavesdropper plays the tape for another NSA person, do we have two witnesses?
The Constitution was written before the invention of audio recordings, so some interpretation is necessary.
If you're listening in to someone's phone calls, that is by definition not an overt act.
ReplyDeleteInteresting distinction. If Putin arranges for a transfer of money to Trump's campaign, is that an overt act? If Trump is on record somewhere promising "You make me president and I'll do X for you" -- is that an overt act?
ReplyDeleteJoseph, are you keeping tabs on The National Enquirer, the front page is hideously pro Trump and inflammatory against Hillary Clinton.
ReplyDelete