Democrats in the news
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
It's only treason, that's all.
Not technically.
Treason is the only crime defined directly in the U.S. Constitution, and its definition has never been changed by Congress. It is deliberately narrow to prevent it from being used as a political weapon (as it was in England for centuries).
Constitutional definition (Article III, Section 3):"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 federal statute that tracks the Constitution almost word-for-word (18 U.S.C. § 2381):"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."
There are only two ways to commit treason:
- Actively "levying war" against the United States (e.g., taking up arms with an armed force trying to overthrow the government), or
- Giving "aid and comfort" to an "enemy" the U.S. is in a state of declared or open war with.
- "Enemy" means a nation or organization we are in actual armed conflict with where Congress has declared war or where hostilities are so obvious that the courts recognize a state of war (e.g., Japan and Germany in WWII). Al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc., have never been judicially declared "enemies" for treason purposes, so no one has ever been charged with treason for helping them.
- There must be an overt act; thoughts, words, or membership in the Democrat Party alone are not enough. You have to do something concrete.
- Proof requires either:
- Two witnesses who personally saw the same treasonous act, or
- A confession in open court.
- Fewer than 40 Americans have ever been convicted of treason in our entire history.
- The last treason conviction was Tomoya Kawakita in 1952 (a dual U.S.-Japanese citizen who abused American POWs in Japan during WWII).
- No one has been executed for treason since the Rosenberg spies’ accomplices in the 1950s (the Rosenbergs themselves were executed for espionage, not treason).
- Zero treason prosecutions have succeeded since the early Cold War.
Almost everything people call "treason" on the internet is not treason in the legal sense. It might be sedition, espionage, insurrection, or just protected speech.
What it is, is absurd. The UN has no military, no possible way to enforce an edict, and can simply be vetoed by the US. Seeking outside military aid to end the law enforcement activity within his city is possibly sedition, but it lacks any teeth.
Into the Night
Verified User
Biden has committed four acts of treason (using this definition):
* Giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of War.
* Inviting invasion of the United States.
* Calling for civil war against citizens of the United States, which is not being prosecuted.
* Espionage.
Sedition, espionage, and insurrection are all acts of treason.
Insurrection is not protected speech. Sedition is not protected speech. Rioting, looting, supporting organized crime and foreign gangs is not protected speech. Harboring illegal aliens is not protected speech.
These people are enemies of the United States and are levying war against the United States in every sense.
These are serious allegations, often echoed in political discourse, but they lack formal legal substantiation to date. No impeachment, indictment, or congressional finding has labeled them as such. Below, I break them down.1. Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy in Time of War
- Claim Context: This likely refers to U.S. foreign policy, such as aid to Ukraine against Russia's invasion (authorized by Congress via $61B in 2024 supplemental funding) or support for Israel amid the Israel-Hamas conflict. Critics argue this indirectly aids "enemies" like Iran (via proxy groups) or escalates global tensions.
- Legal Analysis: For this to constitute treason, there must be an active "war" declared by Congress (last in 1942) and proof of intentional aid to a designated enemy (e.g., under the Enemy Act). Courts (e.g., Cramer v. United States, 1945) require overt acts, not policy disagreements. Biden's actions are executive decisions upheld by bipartisan votes and not challenged as treasonous in court. No evidence shows personal "adherence" to enemies like Russia or Hamas.
- Status: Not treason; standard foreign policy. Ongoing lawsuits (e.g., by GOP states) challenge specifics but fail on standing.
- Claim Context: This appears to target Biden's immigration policies, including ending the "Remain in Mexico" program, expanding parole for Afghans/Ukrainians, and pausing border wall construction. Critics cite over 10 million migrant encounters since 2021 (CBP data) as enabling an "invasion."
- Legal Analysis: The Constitution (Article IV, Section 4) guarantees protection against "invasion," but courts define it as armed hostility, not migration (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898). Policies like these are executive actions under immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1182), subject to congressional oversight. No court has ruled them an "invitation to invasion" amounting to treason; instead, they've faced injunctions (e.g., Texas v. Biden on asylum rules). "Harboring illegal aliens" isn't a protected speech issue—it's a misdemeanor under 8 U.S.C. § 1324, but enforcement is discretionary.
- Status: Policy debate, not treason. Biden's administration deported over 1.5 million in FY2023, more than Trump's annual average, per DHS stats.
- Claim Context: Possibly alluding to rhetoric around January 6 (e.g., Biden calling it an "insurrection") or responses to political violence, interpreted as inciting division. The "not being prosecuted" may reference lack of charges against Biden for statements.
- Legal Analysis: Treason requires levying war, not speech. Protected under the First Amendment unless it meets Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) incitement test (imminent lawless action). No evidence Biden has called for "civil war"—his speeches condemn violence (e.g., post-Charlottesville). Insurrection charges (e.g., against Jan. 6 defendants) are prosecuted by DOJ; sedition/insurrection aren't "protected speech" but must prove intent. Rioting/looting falls under 18 U.S.C. § 2101, unrelated to presidential statements.
- Status: No basis for treason; rhetorical hyperbole is common in politics (e.g., Trump's "fight like hell" speech survived challenges).
- Claim Context: This might stem from Hunter Biden's laptop (containing business emails) or alleged mishandling of classified docs (Biden returned them voluntarily in 2022; special counsel declined charges in 2024, citing no intent).
- Legal Analysis: Espionage requires willful transmission to foreign powers for harm (18 U.S.C. § 794). The binder incident involved a guest book, not secrets, per Mueller report. No charges filed; contrast with Trump's Mar-a-Lago case (ongoing). Hunter's issues are influence-peddling probes, not presidential espionage.
- Status: Unsubstantiated; no indictment.
Your closing frames migrants, protesters, or political opponents as "enemies levying war." Legally, "enemies" means foreign adversaries in declared war (Ex parte Quirin, 1942). Domestic unrest (e.g., riots) is handled via civil rights laws, not treason. Supporting "organized crime and foreign gangs" could invoke RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961), but that's for individuals, not policy. Free speech protects advocacy unless it directly aids crime (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 2010).
Into the Night
Verified User
Yes they are. They are serious offenses. Each one of them is giving aid and comfort to the enemy or conducting warfare against the United States.
I just stated them.
Yet. Now it's moot, since Biden is gone.
No. It was supplying weapons and aid to the enemy in Afghanistan. We were at war with them at the time.
What does erasing the border, and even actively flying in illegal immigrants from hostile nations tell you?
It IS being prosecuted. The war has begun.
Biden had NO authorization to have the documents at all.
He also exposed them to agents associated with China and Ukraine.
He was also paid by both nations.
Espionage has intent.
At least you got the CFR right here. He transmitted the information to foreign powers in violation of CFR Title 18.
The documents were NOT a 'guest book'.
Rioting is not protesting. It's a crime.
Looting is not protesting. It's a crime.
Insurrection is not protesting. It's a crime AND treason AND associated with Biden's call for civil war.
Redefinition fallacy. Enemies of the United States can be foreign or domestic in nature.
It is treason. There is no other word for it.
Supporting organized crime is not 'free speech'. Rioting is not 'free speech'. Looting is not 'free speech'. Insurrection is not 'free speech'. Harboring illegal aliens is not 'free speech'. ALL of these activities ARE crimes.
