Have Republicans, right-wing media, and mainstream media so normalized Trump that, even after his surrender in Hamburg, few will say what seems so frighteningly obvious?  

Senator Schumer declared Trump’s actions in Hamburg “disgraceful” and a "dereliction of duty."  Strong and welcome words, but they still sound as if we are talking about simple misfeasance or nonfeasance.  

This is about the President of the United States giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  The charge is serious.  Demanding a preponderance of evidence is appropriate.  But we are there.  

Putin’s Russia is the enemy.  It is the enemy of the West and the enemy of Democracy.  It is the enemy in Syria, in North Korea, and in Ukraine.  Putin, himself, kills with nonchalance.  He is corruption made flesh, and that is the deadliest poison one can introduce into the body of a democracy.

But the most damning evidence that Russia is the enemy, the only evidence needed, is the continuing string of cyber-attacks both here and in Europe.  James Lewis has written an eye-opening piece about Chinese and Russian hacking.  Some excerpts:  

“Russia isn't just spying -- it's trying to wreak havoc.”

“… the Russians … [are] looking to disrupt elections in the United States and Europe, break NATO, and undermine democratic values….”

“Russia has become the biggest threat in cyberspace, ….”

“European intelligence services say the Russians are more active and more dangerous than at any other time since the Cold War.”

“This is what Russia calls a “new generation of warfare….”

“They’re aggressively working to destabilize and destroy democracy.”

Masha Gressen, a Russian-American journalist, says flatly, “Russia is effectively in a state of war with the U.S.”

Yet, when Trump sat down with the murderous tyrant who is currently engaged in cyber warfare against us, he said it was “an honor” to do so.  

This followed more than a year of Trump obscuring Russia’s role in the election despite unequivocal warnings from the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the DNI that Russian had interfered extensively and in Trump’s favor.  

It followed a year of Trump insisting that Putin was a leader worthy of admiration.

It followed a year of Trump insulting, belittling, and undermining American intelligence agencies.

So, did Trump, in that meeting, at least confront Putin about attacking the heart of our democracy?  

The only one saying “yes” is Trump’s White House, and its credibility is in ashes.  Eclipse and obfuscation says an associate of Rex Tillerson, Tillerson being the only US representative in the room besides Trump.  Putin has claimed that Trump accepted Putin’s word on the matter.  It took days for the White House to send someone out to deny  that, and Trump never has denied it that I know of.

What we do know is that Trump chose to “move forward” rather than relitigate the past or, apparently,  prepare for future attacks.  

Trump continually has taken Russia’s side against the American intelligence community, preferring the word of a foreign autocrat, murderer, and the man who very well may have tipped an American election.  Trump sowed doubt about our democracy’s electoral process.  Trump has warred against the free press, even inciting violence against it.  Trump denounced NATO and single-handedly forced a wedge between the United States and most of our allies.  Trump allowed Russian photographers into the Oval Office, apparently to document his giving state secrets to the Russians.  

But Trump’s most hostile act against the United States, against us, is his refusal to acknowledge the Russian attack on our election and on our infrastructure.  That refusal necessitates his next refusal: to do anything to protect the country against future or still on-going attacks.  

Maybe it’s the money he has invested in Russia.  Maybe it’s money yet to be made in Russia.  Maybe it’s debt he owes Russia.  Maybe it’s whatever Putin has on him from the campaign.  Maybe it’s whatever Putin has on him from years of dealing with Russian oligarchs and banks.  Maybe he wants his Russian machine oiled and ready for 2020.  Maybe he’s just caged in by his own disordered and disturbed ego.  It doesn’t matter.  Motivation is for a criminal investigation to consider after Trump is removed from office.

I’m past worrying about “President Pence” – and that’s coming from an atheist.  As strong and sustained as the resistance has been, if we don’t retake either the House or the Senate in 2018, I fear the republic may be lost, regardless.

Look at how compliant the Republican Party has become.  Just five years ago, Russia was "our number one geopolitical foe” to Republicans.  Now, in a race to see who can abandon the most principles the quickest, the extreme right and the religious right are virtually exuding warmth for (and propaganda in favor of) Russia.  

I cannot watch or read or listen to anything today without wondering, “Where is the outrage?”  I wrote most of this diary the day after Trump’s surrender in Hamburg then relegated it to the digital dust-bin as I saw other “treason” diaries appear.  Now, though, I have decided that we cannot say it often enough.  It is up to sites like this one to keep focus as the mainstream media fall over themselves being “fair” and as Trump’s team goes into overdrive to distract, to mislead, to lie, and to disparage.  

It is up to us to keep posting about treason, to keep the word in front of as many people as we can.  It is up to us to keep asking how this could be allowed to happen.  How is this not giving aid and comfort to the enemy?  How is Trump not a clear and present danger to this country?  How is this not treason?

Correction.

Thanks to VClib for a full explanation of treason in the comments below.  The answer to how this is not treason is that it takes a hot war, declared or not, for Trump’s acts legally to come up to treason.  It might be interesting to see how the courts would rule on treason in the case of cyberwarfare.  It may not be too long before the effects of cyberwarfare are sufficiently devastating to redefine “hot” war.  

For the moment, though, I was inclined, at first, to stand by my advice that we keep the word “treason” first and foremost.  As GrouchySquirrel pointed out in the comments, the word has impact.  However, as often as I argue for aggressively attacking the right, we have the advantage of being able to attack on the merits of our arguments and not deflection, misdirection, misleading, misrepresentations, and just lies. We should not give that up.

The problem though, is that Trump’s acts, as laid out above, are certainly treasonous in spirit – or in intent or in effect or in anything short of law.  We still need to keep that in front of everybody.  Treachery, then, or betrayal or disloyalty will have to do, and we will have to be a little louder and, unfortunately, a little wordier to have the same impact.  But we still need to try.  

I strongly suspect that there are any number of financial crimes for which Pence will have to pardon Trump, assuming Pence isn’t under his own indictments.  Justice might still be done.  In the meantime, keep the questions in the public mind.  How is this not a betrayal of our country, and how long will Republicans continue to shield such treachery?