Kushner wanted secure line with Kremlin (Vs sect 3 = Treason?)

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-line-with-kremlin-before-inauguration-report

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

One has to ask if the possible line to Russia using Russian communications links unwatchable by the US security services was an act of treason.
Ignoring all the debate on the other threads and sticking purely to one issue, that of this act constituting treason or not, I'd like opinions on the subject.

The wording of the law suggests he did adhere to a state that could be considered an enemy of the US and his intention was mutual aid between the two parties, but the covering up of the communications suggested it could well be against US interests or some other illegal activity was in motion.

Assuming the allegation is true (and I know some reject it), would that be treason?

 

I think you would struggle to argue that opening a line of communication is, in and of itself, "adhering" to another country. I suspect it would very much depend on what the content of those communications were, rather than just opening a channel.

I could be wrong, though. I believe that may have happened once or twice in the past.

 

He sure seems to be a prairie dog, doing all of his spying in the open. He must be exempt from being spied on by the spy agencies who spy on everyone else.

 

So when are you going to be demanding members of the Obama campaign team to be arrested for treason?

 

Howsabout a month after Kushner is convicted of same, and Trump is unseated?

 

Dig up Bobby Kennedy, and arrest him for treason, because he opened up a secret back channel to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and prevented a Nuclear War..

Leftist partisan hacks crapping their diapers over a common diplomatic method of communicating with a adversary.

Yes, this is how dumb you have become.

 

Distraction? Weak. Trump Admin is beholden to Putin......everyday Trump is one step closer to issuing pardons to his team and resigning. The alt-right are blind to the writing on the wall. Kushner will have to be pardoned.....................treason is not something the Trump Admin runs from but embraces.

 

Treason, no!

More akin to a Seditious Conspiracy!

What Kushner and Flynn were doing as private citizens with the Russians falls under the category of a Seditious Conspiracy to circumvent the Law of the Land.

 

You don't even know what treason is, pound sand.

 

Not the question I asked. The thread is about the legal situation if someone did this.

 

The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind but that was a president not a private citizen and the events were very different.

To topic, is this a potential treason?

 

Obama had back channels to Iran. It's pretty common.

Is there ANY evidence Trump's team colluded? Any at all? If not, libs need to shut up.

 

It's very common for incoming administrations to establish back channels. This is not new.

 

Not at all the same thing . You see Barack Hussain Obama was a Democrat, nobody in the media cared what he did or how much cash he gave Iran. He is a Democrat after all.

 

Russia Russia russia.

This is more boring than baseball.

 

As I answered in my first post:

I think you misunderstood my first post:

 

Private individuals set up back channels to Russia using Russian secure tech .. are you sure?
However, that still doesn't answer the question regarding treason.

 

Back channels that were created specifically to ensure that no other agency was aware of what was going on? I don't think so.

 

YUP!

 

Dude, you don't even know what the **** you're talking about? Who set up what? Oh wait, nobody, the left's fake outrage is about Kushner talking about setting up a back channel to Russia. How the **** is that a crime, and how are you so uninformed?

 

I'll have what ^^^HE'S^^^ having. lol

 

They were concerned about leaks from the Deep State. And what happened? There were leaks from the Deep State.

 

To level this charge of treason, you have to first establish that Russia is "the enemy". The word "enemy", in the context of international law, has a specific meaning: "ENEMY (international law). By this term is understood the whole body of a nation at war with another." By this definition, Russia is not "the enemy", because we are not at war with them, and therefore the prerequisites for charge of "treason" cannot be met.

 

Read my lips..


IF someone did as is suggested, would that be treason.

I'n not asking if he did it, just what would be the legal situation if he did.
Learn to ****ing read

 

Could be as the definition doesn't say they must be at war to be an enemy.