Treason and the Modern Author: A Comparative Analysis of Trump and Benedict Arnold

Recent discussions and critiques regarding former president Donald Trump have often drawn comparisons between his actions and historical figures such as Benedict Arnold and even Vidkun Quisling. These analogies raise important questions about treason, sedition, and the legal boundaries when it comes to the presidency and its role in national security.

The Case Against Treason

Bob Mumford, in his reference to 'Tiny Hands' (a nickname for Trump), highlights a common misconception regarding Treason. According to the reputable Merriam-Webster Dictionary, treason is defined as 'the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family.' At present, the United States is not at war with Russia, and President Trump has taken significant actions to address Russia economically, further complicating the justification for such a charge.

While the term 'Treason' carries dramatic weight, a more appropriate term might be 'Sedition.' As per the definition, 'Sedition is incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.' Given that President Trump has won the presidency through the democratic process, it would be challenging to categorize his actions as sedition, especially without clear evidence of inciting resistance against his lawful authority.

The Importance of Legal Evidence

The debate over potential sedition or treason against President Trump centers around the gathering and presentation of evidence. Much of the opposition, including media, voters, and political figures, feels that evidence is being misused to taint the sitting president. However, it is crucial to remember the threshold of 'innocence until proven guilty.' Evidence plays a pivotal role in the legal process, and there has been little concrete evidence presented so far that would definitively implicate President Trump in either sedition or treason.

Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz, in his book and interviews on "The Case Against Impeaching Trump," emphasizes the lack of substantial evidence, particularly in cases of obstruction of justice involving the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. Dershowitz argues that without clear and convincing evidence, the accusations do not stack up to the legal threshold required for indictment or impeachment.

The Jenga Game of Political Allegiances

Some critics liken the current political climate to a Jenga game, with each piece representing different political allies, agencies, and individuals. At the core of this analogy is the idea that legal and ethical standards are being manipulated to fit a preconceived narrative. For instance, controversies surrounding the Justice Department, FBI, and intelligence officials like Carter Page, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and George Papadopoulos reflect the intricate web of relationships within and outside the administration.

Additionally, the release of Christopher Steele's dossier and allegations of Democrat financing further complicate the picture. While these actions might be seen as attempts to collect evidence against foreign interference or the Trump administration, they raise questions about ethical boundaries and the potential for bias in gathering intelligence. The allegations, if true, would indeed indicate collusion, but the evidence must be robust to support such a claim.

Conclusion

The comparison between President Trump and historical figures like Benedict Arnold and Quisling is a complex and nuanced issue. While it is tempting to draw parallels based on strong emotions, it is essential to rely on legal and factual evidence when making such serious accusations. Treason and sedition carry immense legal and political implications, necessitating rigorous scrutiny and substantial evidence.

As the legal and political climate continues to evolve, it is crucial for all parties to uphold the principles of due process and the rule of law, ensuring that accusations are based on concrete evidence rather than speculation or conjecture.