Last week, when Steve Bannon published his alleged insider tell-all book “Fire and Fury”written by Michael Wolff, about the Trump Maladministration, I was reading the news and came across this article, Trump Lawyer Seeks to Block Release of Insider Book, by The Washington Post, among what I’m sure will be many articles on the issue. Of course, being of a legal mind by training and generally as a good civic practice, (I am not an attorney and cannot accept clients or give legal advice), there are several important issues that immediately struck me about this situation, including the incredible, monumentally vast extravagant stupidity of the whole affair, especially not least of all on the part of Hair DrumpfsterFire Gropenlimpdick and Company on a massive, staggering scale.
Firstly, the credibility of the people involved comes into play, because we’ve all seen multiple times from Thrump and Crew that they are definitely not paragons of honesty and accuracy, and indeed they intentionally not only play fast and lose with the truth, but also warp and distort it fulsomely in a most disgusting fashion that should be alarming to anybody with a functional brain. This is absolutely of utmost importance to establish the credibility of our sources of information in these terrifyingly dark days for our Republic because the very survival of our nation and the entire world depends on it, not least of all because our nuclear arsenal is in the hands of a raving lunatic, a madman, like few if any others we’ve seen in our country’s history, and we have never had a truly insane President. It turns out that Michael Wolff is not a particularly credible author by any stretch of the imagination. For evidence, see here: Michael Wolff. Also see here: Michael Wolff: Five things to Know about the Author of Fire and Fury. Mr. Wolff has written for USA Today, which tends to have a conservative slant, as well as the Hollywood Reporter, among others, his main credentials include being a business man and an author. He is also a billionaire, according to Forbes’ Most Powerful People list, ranking at 35 on the list. This may tend to slant his views.
Secondly, what stood out even further was the fact that Steven Bannon, the one time chief strategist of Donald Trump, used a particular set of words to describe a meeting between Russian government lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akmetshin, a Russian-American lobbyist, Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner and other campaign officials occurring on June 9th, 2016, as established by e-mail records held by the FBI. From The Washington Post article, Politics Trump lawyer seeks to block insider book on White House, these are the words Bannon used to describe the meeting:
“Bannon is quoted describing a Trump Tower meeting during the campaign between Donald Trump Jr.; Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law; and a Russian lawyer as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic.””
These two words, “Treasonous” and “Unpatriotic” are extremely problematic for both Donald Trump and Steve Bannon, especially the word “Treasonous”, because this is effectively a tacit admission by Steve Bannon that he either knew about a crime committed against the United States and didn’t report it to the appropriate authorities, he knew about a capital offense, that being Treason, or it makes him guilty of obstruction of justice among others. A man, i.e. Mr. Bannon, goes to a meeting with his boss, Mr. Trump, who is running for the Presidency of the United States; at this meeting are a lawyer, Ms. Veselnitskaya, who works for the government of Russia with ties to Vladimir V. Putin, and a lobbyist with ties to Russia. At this meeting, they discuss using hacked e-mails from the campaign of their opponent, provided by Russia. The kicker of course, is that this is no ordinary act, no mere act of opposition research, because Russia has been considered a known enemy of the United States for over 50 years now. All valid and logical evidence we have to date suggests that Vladimir V. Putin is very much a Statist and that he is highly interested in interfering with the democracies of other countries by information warfare, specifically by *hacking* computers of opponents and using microtargeted releases of information at strategic times. Now if Mr. Bannon was at this meeting, that would mean by default that he knew about it, and knew the nature of what was going on there, because he could not possibly be logically able to be both not at a meeting, and still know what happened there, without someone else telling him. And if Mr. Bannon was actually not there and was informed of the specifics later, that means he could still be in substantial legal trouble for not reporting the crimes taking place therein. One need not be a practicing attorney with Ivy League credentials to infer that Mr. Bannon was very interested in Donald Trump winning the Presidency even if he didn’t win, and that this would be a potent motive for not reporting the clear conspiracy to cooperate with a foreign enemy to sabotage the most fundamental of all functions of our government. This leads me to review the law.
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land on U.S. soil, and by any definition, New York City, where the meeting in question took place is obviously on U.S. soil beyond any reasonable doubt, and the Constitution has this to say about the crime of Treason:
Article III, Section III“
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.” See here:Article III, Section 3, U.S. Constitution
This language is actually not such an onerous barrier to Mr. Bannon and others involved being prosecuted because it isn’t actually a statement that war must be levied against the United States, only that a person has given aid and comfort to their enemies, with the operative phrase being “Or, in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” This is a conditional statement that sets two specific parameters, one of which being that a person has waged war agains t the United States. A person need not meet both of them by the legal principle of Expressio unius res, alterius est (Latin for “the express mention of a thing, excludes all others”). In other words, if you don’t consider something important, you don’t put it in writing in a binding legal document, and if the Founding Fathers had considered it only important for a person to have actually waged war against the United States, they would have specifically written exactly this principle into the U.S. Constitution, which is the ultimate binding document in U.S. law, and not included the part about aiding and comforting enemies; and the Founders, being lawyers of arguably exceptional skill and foresight, would have certainly known this principle well. And secundus, if the United States were to be at war for Treason to apply, we are actually at war with North Korea, and we have been for close to 50 years now, because the U.S. Government signed a Truce Agreement with their government at the time, as opposed to an Armistice Agreement or an Instrument of Surrender. A Truce is not an ultimate, official end to a war, it is merely a brief halt to the action of uniformed military forces and is not the official end of hostilities altogether. And by this argument, since Russia is known to be allied with North Korea, and is giving them rocket engine technology, fuel, and other aid, we are technically at war with Russia right now. Also, the mere act of interfering with the fundamental governance of a sovereign nation whether by elections or by covert political means or by assassinations is an inherent act of war, as it stifles the sovereignty of the other nations’ people. It is obvious prima facie that Russia interfered in our elections. In fact, this is a recognized mechanism of warfare, and indeed the United States Central Intelligence Agency maintains Special Forces/Special Warfare units, referred to as Specialized Skills Officers or Paramilitary Officers, to do exactly this as part of the Special Activities Division/Special Operations Group. We, the U.S, have been doing this to other nations since the 1950’s. See here: U.S. CIA Special Covert Activities.
So even if Donald Trump does not file his ill thought out lawsuit against Mr. Bannon over the contents of “Fire and Fury”, Mr. Bannon has still put himself in significantly hot legal water by making his statements about treasonous meetings. A talented prosecutor would cross examine him under oath and ask him why, if he was at that meeting, and he thought it treasonous then, that he did not report it, since it would be a crime. And a good prosecutor would also ask him why if he knew that meeting could possibly meet the elements of the crime of treason, he still was part of the campaign thereafter. Which means in making this admission, Mr. Bannon is either dumber than dog shit, or playing multiple dimension Chess. I doubt severely the latter, since he chose Roy Moore as a candidate in Alabama, so he may not be all that intelligent. He may also be wearing a wire and cooperating with Robert S. Mueller III to spare himself prison time and/or the death penalty. So aside from tearing the GOP apart, this book and associated statements may take down a large number of people associated with both Bannon and Thump.