Search
Close this search box.

Top Democrats Shy Away From Using Word ‘Treason’ With Trump


Democrats are happy to say President Donald Trump undermined American democracy. That he patted Vladimir Putin on the back for interfering in U.S. elections. That he’s being blackmailed by Russia.

But that he committed treason? That’s too far for some leading Democrats worried about sending the wrong message during an election year.

“The bottom line is, different people will characterize it differently,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer told reporters this week of Trump’s conduct toward Russia. He slammed Trump in every way but that one, accusing him of weakness and lame and contradictory walk backs. “President Trump undercut our intelligence, elevated a brutal dictator who’s taking advantage of the United States. And maybe, most importantly, refused to confront President Putin.”

A debate has raged in Democratic circles this week over how strongly to condemn Trump’s comments in Helsinki, where, standing by Putin’s side, the U.S. president refused to say he believed American intelligence over Putin’s denials about Russian election interference. Trump later sought to walk back his stance, saying he misspoke using a double negative.

There was a burst of condemnation in the 48 hours after Trump’s performance that elevated the discussion of “treason” by a president to a level not seen in generations. Former CIA Director John Brennan, who has worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations, quickly tweeted that Trump’s conduct in Helsinki was “nothing short of treasonous.” Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., used #TreasonSummit in her post about the meeting. Protesters gathered in front of the White House on Tuesday chanted, “Traitor! Traitor! Traitor!”

But Democratic leaders, along with some activists and strategists, warn that such rhetoric could backfire.

Trump responded Wednesday by casting his critics as victims of “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” a term coined to describe a fury so deep it renders the afflicted blind to the president’s accomplishments. It’s a theme he’s set out before, when he labeled critical comments by Democratic women “crazy rants” and other unflattering analysis as “hysterical.” And it’s designed to undermine the Democrats’ midterm election argument that they can govern more steadily than the Republican majorities of the House and Senate.

The legal definition of treason is providing “aid and comfort” to enemies of the U.S., a high crime. If Democrats align behind the term, it raises the question of what they plan to do about it. The party, according to two congressional aides who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss strategy, doesn’t have an answer.

The language also risks alienating swing voters who don’t appreciate over-the-top rhetoric. After all, treason is a crime so serious that the convicted can be executed.

Polls taken before the Helsinki summit suggest the public is split over how each party is treating Trump. A Washington Post-Schar School poll conducted in late June and early July found that nearly half of registered voters — 48 percent — think Democrats running for Congress have been too critical of Trump. Forty-four percent think Democrats are striking the right balance and 7 percent think they’ve been too supportive.

Other strategists say Democrats generally are better off backing special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of whether Trump or his associates colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 elections in Trump’s favor.

“I’m not sure it’s going to be beneficial to get into a political argument over whether Trump’s behavior meets the legal standard of treason,” said Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. “What’s important about this is it burnishes other things that people worried about regarding Trump, including how he is focused always on what’s in it for him as opposed to what’s in it for the country. That’s a framework that applies to a whole host of things Democrats can be talking about between now and the election.”

Jim Kessler, the senior vice president for policy at Third Way, a think tank that backs center-left ideas, said Democrats are “getting toward 100 percent unity between likely Democratic and swing voters that the Mueller investigation must go forward in full force.”

Michael Avenatti, the outspoken lawyer for adult-film actress Stormy Daniels who is suing Trump, said he deliberately did not use the word “treason” or “traitor” when he spoke at the White House protest Tuesday night.

“The reason why I did not use that word is because it may be a bridge too far,” Avenatti said Wednesday in a telephone interview. “My role revolves around evidence and facts that then lead me to conclusions. And I don’t have yet enough facts and evidence to use the word ‘treason.'”

But not all Democrats see the treason charge as necessarily harmful to their election-year prospects. Indeed, there’s evidence of some ambivalence. Though Watson Coleman used the #TreasonSummit hashtag, she has chosen not to say the word in public yet, her spokeswoman said.

And Rep. Jan Shakowsky, D-Ill., was the only one of 10 Democrats at a Tuesday news conference on Trump’s Helsinki summit to mention the word “treason.” But even she didn’t directly accuse Trump of that offense. Instead, she thanked Brennan for “using the word that is starting to pop up now, and that word is treason.” She noted that her own statement said Trump’s conduct “borders on treason.”

Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, called Trump a “traitor” at Tuesday’s protest in front of the White House.

“I believe that (Trump’s) behavior is commonly understood as treasonous,” said Tanden, who served as policy aide to President Barack Obama.

And several Democrats quoted Brennan’s statement.

“I agree with John Brennan, who said that it was ‘nothing short of treasonous,'” House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer told reporters Wednesday. “It is the duty of every patriot who loves their country to stand up and speak out against this dangerous and dishonest behavior.”

(AP)



5 Responses

  1. treason is defined explicitly in 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.”

    So just what are they accusing Trump of? Levying War? Or are they calling Russia “their Enemies”. I am sure Russia will respond with love when they are labelled as the ENEMY. (I do have to wonder why this same Democratic party trashed President Reagan for calling Russia EVIL – seems weird that Russia must be defended against being called EVIL but certainly they are an ENEMY?) On the other hand, just how was (is) the Ayatollah’s Iran that openly declared the U.S. its ENEMY, somehow magically not its ENEMY when Obama gave them all that loot to continue to LEVY WAR against the U.S.?

    Really, 1984 has nothing compared to the reality regarding the Democrat’s assault on Trump.

  2. Georgeg – who are you trolling for? Why are you defending Russia? Maybe you’ve got a friend or two who vacations in the Kremlin? Or is Ms. Butina just an old fellow-student?

    I grew up during the Cold War, and I can tell you that Vlad Putin is not our friend. Repeat after me: he was a KGB spy working for a Communist country, and tasked with helping destroy the United States. He is currently repeating his performance of interfering with our elections in 2016. Incidentally, he was part of the government that provided the Arabs with their arms and technical guidance during the 1967 and 1973 wars, enabling them kill quite a few of us. Not exactly a friend of Israel, either.

    If you’re honest, read some history. If you’re a troll, go away – before the FBI catches you too.

  3. Midwest2

    “before the FBI catches you too.” Perhaps that language tells more about you than about me.

    “I can tell you that Vlad Putin is not our friend”

    Yeah, during the period of time that (in the majority) it was the Democrat allies who defended Russia and the Republicans who trashed Russia. Reagan was trashed mercilessly for his anti-Russia remarks. Then there is Obama in his debate with Romney and Obama’s pure ridicule over Romney’s concerns about Russia. For your information – Obama was Democrat, Romney was Republican.

    “read some history’

    Let’s try Wikipedia. It gives Putin as born in 1952. So ignoring months, Putin was 15 years old in 1967. You claim he was part of the government? Putin did not join the KGB unjtil 1975. My computer tells me that 1975 was after 1973.

    But in any case, I don’t care about the past. The question is the present. Simply put, Prime Minister Netanyahu is able to reason with Putin. That matters more than anything you brought up. You think if you get rid of Putin his replacement would be better? You see – understand this – anyone else would be WORSE.

    So my question to you is why are you trying to start WWIII with nuclear weapons?

  4. Don’t answer a different question. Putin was not the Communist government. That was a long-standing institution that began after the revolution in 1917 and continued until 1991. It was replaced by Yeltsin and then Putin. Remember that when he was an adult Putin signed on to an organization that was dedicated to overthrowing all non-Communist governments, especially the US. The KGB did not play nice in those days, and as the people who were poisoned by Russian spies in the UK just this year will tell you, they don’t play nice now. The label has changed, the method of operation hasn’t.

    And reason with Putin? Putin is a Russian nationalist. He wants what’s good for Russia. Israel is just a convenient tool, as we will find out once we’re no longer useful.

    I repeat: who are you trolling for? If you’re trolling for Russia, go back to Moskva (unless you’re posting from there now).

  5. > Midwest2

    “He wants what’s good for Russia. Israel is just a convenient tool”

    That is the point. The same holds true when replacing Russia with the U.S. As is clear, the Dems in the U.S. are well on their way to try to dismantle every (Western) country they can, but especially Israel. All of this, whether U.S. or Russia is ephemeral.

    So the difference between Putin and the Dems is that Putin is rational while the Dems live in a fantasy.

    So replacing Trump with Dems is headed to a world-wide disaster.

    Do you even know what you are saying? I certainly don’t. You fist state explicitly that :

    > Incidentally, he was part of the government that provided the Arabs with their arms and technical guidance during the 1967 and 1973 wars

    and after I show how ridiculous that statement is you come up with :

    > Don’t answer a different question. Putin was not the Communist government

    And it is rather self-evident how meaningless a complaint it is that Putin “joined” the Communist government, though apparently not to you (or are you just hoping the readers are stupid). It was a requirement to join the party before any higher education or level of employment was permitted. And what did Putin do in the KGB? He clipped news reports and filed them. Really nasty, isn’t it. He was an “outsider” recruited simply because the KGB head wanted young blood. In later years he matured into doing what China does so much of – spy on technology.

Leave a Reply


Popular Posts