Family Crest

Family Crest
Motto: I will never forget. [ Source HouseofNames ]

HUMANITY DOOMSDAY CLOCK - Moves forward to 2125 due to election of US President trump.

Estimate of the time that Humanity will go extinct or civilization will collapse. The HUMANITY DOOMSDAY CLOCK moves forward to 2125 due to US President trump's abandonment of climate change goals. Clock moved to 90 seconds to doom at December 2023. Apologies to Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for using the name.

PLEASE QUOTE, COPY and LINK

While this material is copyrighted, you are hereby granted permission and encouraged to copy and paste any excerpt and/or complete statement from any entry on this blog into any form you choose. In return, please provide explicit credit to this source and a link or URL to the publication. Email links to mckeever.mp@gmail.com

You may also wish to read and quote from these groundbreaking essays on economic topics with the same permission outlined above

The Jobs Theory of Growth [https://miepa.net/apply.html]

Moral Economics [https://miepa.net/moral.html]

Balanced Trade [https://miepa.net/essay.html]

There Are Alternatives to Free Market Capitalism [https://miepa.net/taa.html]

Specific Country Economic Policy Analyses - More Than 50 Countries from Argentina to Yemen [https://miepa.net/]




Translate

Friday, December 13, 2019

Russia Crossroads


Under Putin, Russia is facing a crossroads.

It is an historic choice facing the country today.

One road can lead to a prosperous country with a first class military, a benign influence on world affairs and a growing economy.

Another road can lead to the opposite: an economy declining into poverty, exportation of corruption and violence and an irrelevant military presence.

Several trends are leading Russia toward the choice.

The financial exploitation of the country by the Oligarchs has forced Russian households to tighten their budgets: '...[while] the economy today shows signs of stability following the financial crisis of 2014-2016....the financial crisis left its mark on Russian households—personal finances are tight and inflation has outpaced income growth. As consumers adjusted over the past decade to that new economic reality, they’ve grown more cautious, pragmatic, and value-conscious.' [https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2018/russian-consumers-new-economic-reality.aspx]

Russian family incomes are higher than China's, but lag behind both the EU and the USA.

'Economic recovery masks structural problems in the economy. Russia's  current  economic  growth  of  under  2 %  is  not  particularly impressive compared to the rates of 2.3 % and  2.7 %  registered  in  the  United  States  and  the  EU respectively, or the global average of 3.8 %; it is even further  below  the  7 %  averaged  during  Russia's  early  2000s'  economic  boom.  Anemic  growth  means  that  Russia's   share   of   the   global   economy   is   gradually   declining,  and  the  lag behind  the   more   advanced   economies,  which  had  been  narrowing  till  2014,  has started  widening  again,  causing  the  country  to  fall  further and further behind. The recession of 2015-2016 and the slowness of the recovery   since   then,   have only   partly   to   do   with   external factors (Western sanctions, a drop in the price of oil). The  fact  that  economic  growth  was  already starting to run out of steam in 2012, long before either of these two external factors came into play, suggests that Russia has longer-term internal problems holding back the economy.'[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/625138/EPRS_IDA(2018)625138_EN.pdf]

This low consumer purchasing power contributes to the country's economic weakness.

Another factor relates to the combination of weak oil markets - read under or near $50 per bbl - and Putin's choice to make the oil industry the country's sole foreign exchange earner. [BLOWOUT, Rachel Maddow, CROWN, New York, 2019] Further, Russian oil reserves are changing from easily extractable fields to fields which require advanced western technology to access. US embargoes on that technology will continue to weaken oil production and consumer incomes.

Symptoms of this weakness are the cancellation of orders for the new, but expensive, plane, the Sukhoi Su-57 as well as the cancellation of Aeroflot order for 22 Boeing 787's [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-787-orders/boeings-787-under-pressure-as-russias-aeroflot-cancels-order-idUSKBN1WO2N8]

Another symptom is the surprising Russian support for continuing the nuclear arms reduction treaty which has been opposed by trump.

Even though 'Putin said Russia will start work on creating new missiles, including hypersonic ones, and told ministers not to initiate disarmament talks with Washington, accusing the United States of being slow to respond to such moves.' [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-nuclear/russia-suspends-nuclear-arms-treaty-after-u-s-says-to-pull-out-idUSKCN1PR06T]

BUT, Lavrov expressed support for continuing the treaty in his recent visit to Washington, DC. 'Washington “is evading any serious discussion, making public discouraging signals regarding the future of this treaty,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov Nov. 8 at a nonproliferation conference in Moscow. Lavrov’s deputy, Sergey Ryabkov, voiced similar criticisms at the conference saying, “[It] looks as if the United States is dragging its feet, if not downright, looking for an excuse to get rid of New START right after tearing up the [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty.”'[https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2019-11-15/us-russian-nuclear-arms-control-watch]

A possible explanation for this waffling and confusion is that the Russian economy cannot support the expensive programs it needs to keep up with Western armed forces.

Internally, Russian citizens continue demonstrating and rioting against Putin's government. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%932018_Russian_protests]. A triggering event was Putin's action to raise the retirement age for pensioners, forcing them to work longer.

The reaction of the Russian government to these protests has been to exercise even stricter control. In practice, this has meant assassination of critical journalists, assassination of Putin critics who were former Russian security employees, killing of perceived enemies in London and Paris, harsh treatment of Islamist minorities and banning social media platforms from access to Russian citizens [https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/09/13/putin-now-plans-100-facebook-instagram-and-youtube-bans-russians-warned/#730d1eaa57ff]. 

Externally, Putin has installed a comprehensive cyber war against Western democracies, seemingly in the hope that weaker Western democracies will make the West less hostile toward Russia.

History warns us that repressive regimes usually face violent revolutions. But it also suggests that non-violent means of achieving real change are more effective [https://wagingnonviolence.org/2012/03/the-more-violence-the-less-revolution/]

Regardless, the message is clear: change will be forced on Russia by popular discontent, violently or otherwise.

Putin has two choices: Choice 1 is to suppress the discontent violently while continuing to keep citizen purchasing power low through oligarch monopolization of business and profits. That course will lead, IMHO, to a likely violent effort toward social change with many casualties. This outcome will diminish both the economy and the ability of Russia to project power or influence.

Choice 2 may lead to a better outcome. This choice may involve  Putin's embrace of the change that will be forced upon Russia. Such an embrace would ensure that Putin's mark on history will be positive: tyrant changes to benign ruler.

Here are some specific actions he can take to create a real path:.

*  Remove the oligarchs from their monopolization of financial wealth,

* adopt European Style regulation and property rights and

* create real free elections.

This choice will likely lead to a better economy together with a stronger military and more benign internal and external policies. In plain words - no more invasions of foreign countries or military rule over dissidents.

It is also possible that the second path MAY, with other Russian concessions, lead to a relaxation of the Western embargo on drilling technology.

Concessions might include:

*agreement to cease, and actual cessation of,  the cyber-war currently under way against Western democracies,

* agreement to stop further armed invasions and withdrawal from Ukraine,

* auctioning of all oligarch owned properties and companies

* nationalization into a non-profit entity the entire natural gas industry and properties,

* installation of EU style property rights and protections,

* cessation of media suppression with encouragement of free press and broadcast media and,

* perhaps initially, installation of fair and free elections.

Well, one can wish, after all.




Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Resolution of Impeachment



Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE 1: ABUSE OF POWER

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". In his conduct of the office of President of the United States — and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed — Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency, in that:

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

(1) President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into —

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and

(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine — rather than Russia — interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested —

(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and

(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.

These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.

In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. He has also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.

Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States — and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed — Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its “sole Power of Impeachment”. President Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:

The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on President Trump's corrupt solicitation of the Government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United States Presidential election. As part of this impeachment inquiry, the Committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various Executive Branch agencies and offices, and current and former officials.

In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the “sole Power of Impeachment” vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees — in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees — in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.

Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representatives in the exercise of its "sole Power of Impeachment". In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. This abuse of office served to cover up the President's own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment — and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.

In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Sunday, December 8, 2019

Treason


The question arises as to whether trump has committed treason by any one or several of many of his actions which have the effect of advancing Russia's interests at the cost of United States National Interests.

There appear to be two components to approaching an answer to that question.

First, are there actions taken by the President which harm the National Interests of the United States and benefit the interests of other states?

And, is the country which is helped by his actions an enemy of the United Sates?

This discussion will limit itself to discussion of some of the President's actions which affect the national interests of Russia. While presidential actions may involve countries other than Russia, one or two actions benefitting Russia at the expense of the United States which began more or less immediately on the president's inauguration and have continued to date will illustrate the point. A longer list of issues is available here: [https://danger-clearandpresent.blogspot.com/2019/07/beating-trump.html]

CONCLUSION

Some of trump's acts and omissions appear to harm the National Interests of the United States and benefit the National Interests of Russia.

Russia is not formally recognized as an enemy of the United States even though it is conducting an active cyber war against our vital interests.

TREASON

An introduction to the concept and law of treason will be useful here.

In law, treason is criminal disloyalty, typically to the state. It is a crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's nation or sovereign. This usually includes things such as participating in a war against one's native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor...

At times, the term traitor has been used as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term traitor is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In certain cases, as with the Dolchstoßlegende (Stab-in-the-back myth), the accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a unifying political message. Treason is considered to be different and on many occasions a separate charge from "treasonable felony" in many parts of the world. [wikipedia]

CONSTITUTION

To avoid the abuses of the English law, the scope of treason was specifically restricted in the United States Constitution. Article III, section 3 reads as follows:

    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 Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits the United States Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore, the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states:

    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.

The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695.

FURTHER U. S. CONGRESS LAWS

However, Congress has passed additional laws creating related offenses that punish conduct that undermines the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the Espionage Act of 1917, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. Some of these laws are still in effect. The well-known spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were charged with conspiracy to commit espionage, rather than treason. [wikipedia]

NATO - POTENTIALLY TREASONOUS ACTS

Any list of presidential or administrative acts which benefit Russia's national interests would include the immediate sacking of several State Department employees who were charged with coordinating NATO activities as a counter to Russian actions. Russia, and especially Putin, dislikes NATO intensely; they consider it a hostile power devoted to encircling Russian territory and preventing Russia from taking actions in its interests.

Since Russia has borne the brunt of two European invasions of its territories, Russia considers its Western borders to be its most vulnerable areas and devotes much of its military activities to protecting that border.

Any activity which weakens or divides NATO helps Russia directly. trump has taken actions which weaken NATO during his  administration to date. These actions seem to merit a charge of treasonous activity.

ELECTIONS - POTENTIALLY TREASONOUS ACTS

Fair and free elections are the lifeblood of the United States political system. One of our political lodestones is that interference in the election process will damage the vital interests of the United States and, perhaps, pave the way for corruption and tyranny.

Our intelligence community as seconded by the United States Senate has concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in favor of trump and that it will continue that interference with the 2020 election with the objective of returning trump to a second term.

The Bi-Partisan Senate Report provides further bipartisan evidence of Russia's election meddling in 2016; it finds "the IRA [Russian Internet Research Agency] sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton’s chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin." It also says that the IRA's activities were "part of a broader, sophisticated, and ongoing information warfare campaign designed to sow discord in American politics and society" and that IRA activity increased, rather than decreased, after Election Day 2016.

[Read the report here - https://www.axios.com/senate-intelligence-committee-russian-interference-report-425274e8-1780-44c3-963a-cd839ef1cbe5.html]

In order to counter this election meddling, both houses of Congress have passed several laws designed to secure our election process. trump has refused to sign or consider these laws or other measures with the same objective. By his failure to act, trump probably has committed treason against the United States.

IS RUSSIA OUR ENEMY?

Some of trump's acts have damaged the national interests of the United States and helped the national interests of Russia. And, Russia has built up its armed forces in the last few years even though it is a financial burden. See this site for a discussion of the relative strength of Russian and United States armed forces: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBapU_C76t0]


But, is Russia an enemy?

There has been conflict between the United States and Russia for many generations. While there was a time of tension relaxation during the dissolution of the USSR, Russia under Putin has re-activated hostility toward the USA with an extensive campaign of cyber warfare designed to weaken and exploit the United States.

This campaign seems to have hit its stride in about 2015 and it is fair to say that Russia today is an enemy of the United States. However, the formal foreign relation apparatus of the State Department has lagged behind the current reality and still considers Russia to be a potential partner.

Here is the official statement from the State Department on Russia:

U.S. Relations With Russia - Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet - Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

June 25, 2019

More information about Russia is available on the Russia Page and from other Department of State publications and other sources listed at the end of this fact sheet.

U.S.-RUSSIA RELATIONS

Russia recognized the United States on October 28, 1803, and diplomatic relations between the United States and Russia were formally established in 1809. Diplomatic relations were interrupted following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. On December 6, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson instructed all American diplomatic representatives in Russia to refrain from any direct communication with representatives of the Bolshevik Government. Although diplomatic relations were never formally severed, the United States refused to recognize or have any formal relations with the Bolshevik/Soviet governments until 1933. Normal diplomatic relations were resumed on November 16, 1933, when President Franklin Roosevelt informed Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov that the United States recognized the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. On December 25, 1991, the United States recognized the Russian Federation as the successor to the Soviet Union and established diplomatic relations on December 31, 1991.

The United States has long sought a full and constructive relationship with Russia. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States adopted a bipartisan strategy to facilitate cooperation on global issues and promote foreign investment and trade. The United States supported Russia’s integration into European and global institutions and a deepened bilateral partnership in security cooperation to reinforce the foundations of stability and predictability. In response to the Russian violation in 2014 of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, however, the United States downgraded the bilateral political and military relationship and suspended the Bilateral Presidential Commission, a body jointly founded in 2009 by the United States and Russia to promote cooperation between the two countries. In addition to ongoing Russian aggression in Georgia and Ukraine, Russia has demonstrated its willingness to undermine norms within the existing international system beyond traditional military campaigns to encompass a suite of “hybrid” tools that are used to gain influence. Russia’s campaign aims to undermine core institutions of the West, such as NATO and the EU, and to weaken faith in the democratic and free-market system. The United States has sought to deter further Russian aggression through the projection of strength and unity with U.S. allies, and by building resilience and reducing vulnerability among allies facing Russian pressure and coercion. The United States would like to move beyond the current low level of trust with Russia, stabilize our relationship, and cooperate where possible and when in core U.S. national security interests. To achieve this, Russia must take demonstrable steps to show it is willing to be a responsible global actor, starting with a cessation of efforts to interfere in democratic processes. The long-term goal of the United States is to see Russia become a constructive stakeholder in the global community.

Bilateral Economic Relations

In response to Russia’s ongoing violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, including Russia’s occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, the United States has suspended bilateral engagement with the Russian government on most economic issues. The United States continues to investigate allegations of mistreatment of or discrimination against U.S. investors in Russia and to urge Russia to improve its investment climate, adherence to the rule of law, and transparency. In Russia, the U.S. Commercial Service continues to assist U.S. firms interested in developing market opportunities that do not violate sanctions.

Since 2014, the United States and our European and G-7 partners imposed sanctions on Russia for its aggressive actions in eastern Ukraine, occupation of Crimea, and interference in U.S. elections. Sectoral sanctions have reduced Russia’s ability to access financing in the financial, energy, and defense sectors, as well as limited its access to certain technologies in those sectors.

A combination of low oil prices, structural limitations, and sanctions pushed Russia into a deep recession in 2015, with the economy contracting by four percent and one percent in 2016. Russia’s economy has returned to modest growth since 2017, owing to a global rebound in oil prices.  The World Bank projects that GDP growth will remain modest, at approximately 1.5-1.8 percent in the period 2018-2020.  In 2018, Russia’s oil production reached a post-Soviet high, averaging 11.6 barrels/day.

United States State Department.

HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF TREASON

United States

In the 1790s, opposition political parties were new and not fully accepted. Government leaders often considered their opponents to be traitors. Historian Ron Chernow reports that Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and President George Washington "regarded much of the criticism fired at their administration as disloyal, even treasonous, in nature."When an undeclared Quasi-War broke out with France in 1797–98, "Hamilton increasingly mistook dissent for treason and engaged in hyperbole." Furthermore, the Jeffersonian opposition party behaved the same way.  After 1801, with a peaceful transition in the political party in power, the rhetoric of "treason" against political opponents diminished. [wikipedia}

Historical cases

In the United States, Benedict Arnold's name is considered synonymous with treason due to his collaboration with the British during the American Revolutionary War. This, however, occurred before the Constitution was written. Arnold became a general in the British Army, which protected him.

Since the Constitution came into effect, there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. Several men were convicted of treason in connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were pardoned by President George Washington.

Burr trial

The most famous treason trial, that of Aaron Burr in 1807, resulted in acquittal. In 1807, on a charge of treason, Burr was brought to trial before the United States Circuit Court at Richmond, Virginia. The only physical evidence presented to the grand jury was General James Wilkinson's so-called letter from Burr, which proposed the idea of stealing land in the Louisiana Purchase. The trial was presided over by Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall, acting as a circuit judge. Since no witnesses testified, Burr was acquitted in spite of the full force of Jefferson's political influence thrown against him. Immediately afterward, Burr was tried on a misdemeanor charge and was again acquitted.

Civil War

During the American Civil War, treason trials were held in Indianapolis against Copperheads for conspiring with the Confederacy against the United States. After the war the question was whether the United States government would make indictments for treason against leaders of the Confederate States of America, as many people demanded. Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, was indicted and held in prison for two years. The indictment was dropped in 1869 when the political scene had changed and it was possible he would be acquitted by a jury in Virginia. When accepting Lee's surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, at Appomattox, in April 1865, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant assured all Confederate soldiers and officers a blanket amnesty, provided they returned to their homes and refrained from any further acts of hostility, and subsequently other Union generals issued similar terms of amnesty when accepting Confederate surrenders. All Confederate officials received a blanket amnesty issued by President Andrew Johnson as he left office in 1869.

World War II

Iva Toguri, known as Tokyo Rose, was tried for treason after World War II for her broadcasts to American troops.

In 1949 Iva Toguri D'Aquino was convicted of treason for wartime radio broadcasts (under the name of "Tokyo Rose") and sentenced to ten years, of which she served six. As a result of prosecution witnesses having lied under oath, she was pardoned in 1977.

In 1952 Tomoya Kawakita, a Japanese-American dual citizen was convicted of treason and sentenced to death for having worked as an interpreter at a Japanese POW camp and having mistreated American prisoners. He was recognized by a former prisoner at a department store in 1946 after having returned to the United States. The sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. He was released and deported in 1963.

Cold War and after

The Cold War saw frequent talk linking treason with support for Communist-led causes. The most memorable of these came from Senator Joseph McCarthy, who used rhetoric about the Democrats as guilty of "twenty years of treason". As chosen chair of the Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee, McCarthy also investigated various government agencies for Soviet spy rings (see the Venona project); however, he acted as a political fact-finder rather than a criminal prosecutor. The Cold War period saw no prosecutions for explicit treason, but there were convictions and even executions for conspiracy to commit espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union, such as in the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg case.

On October 11, 2006, the United States government charged Adam Yahiye Gadahn for videos in which he appeared as a spokesman for al-Qaeda and threatened attacks on American soil. He was killed on January 19, 2015 in an unmanned aircraft (drone) strike in Waziristan, Pakistan.

Treason against U.S. states

Most states have treason provisions in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. The Extradition Clause specifically defines treason as an extraditable offense.

Thomas Jefferson in 1791 said that any Virginia official who cooperated with the federal Bank of the United States proposed by Alexander Hamilton was guilty of "treason" against the state of Virginia and should be executed. The Bank opened and no one was prosecuted.

Several persons have been prosecuted for treason on the state level. Thomas Dorr was convicted for treason against the state of Rhode Island for his part in the Dorr Rebellion, but was eventually granted amnesty. John Brown was convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia for his part in the raid on Harpers Ferry, and was hanged. The Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, was charged with treason against Missouri along with five others, at first in front of a state military court, but Smith was allowed to escape to Illinois after his case was transferred to a civilian court for trial on charges of treason and other crimes. Smith was then later imprisoned for trial on charges of treason against Illinois, but was murdered by a lynch mob while in jail awaiting trial. [wikipedia]