Perhaps It's Time for A Fifth Indictment of Donald Trump

 Editor's Note:  This blog post was originally written on February 13, 2024, and published at that time. It is republished now.

 

Summary: speaking on February 10, at a rally of his disgraceful supporters in South Carolina, Donald Trump delivered threats to the NATO allies. He would, he said, encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member country that doesn’t meet spending guidelines on defense.Naturally, the European allies met this statement with considerable shock, and Pres. Biden clapped back against it fairly quickly. What Trump has done, however, is not an exercise of First Amendment rights. There is no right under constitutional law to betray this country. Trump has committed actual, actionable, treason, and should pay the penalty therefor.

Cathedral City, February 13, 2024 -- last Saturday, former Pres. Donald Trump addressed a number of his supporters at a "rally" in South Carolina. Now much of what is said at Trump "rallies" is foolish nonsense, the kind of thing that is designed to appeal to the poorly educated among the Trump base. But this time, Trump went considerably further than his usual boorish utterances.

Trump informed the rally-goers, incorrectly as it turns out, that the European nations of the NATO alliance were not "paying their bills," so to speak. And Trump promised his rally-goers that he would encourage Russia to do "whatever the hell they want" to any NATO nation that did not pay two percent of its gross domestic product to NATO, presumably meaning the United States, apparently to pay the United States for defending them. 

Now, the two percent figure here is not a bill due and owing from NATO nations to the United States. It is rather a guideline which the NATO nations have agreed among themselves is appropriate spending on defense. The United States, of course, spends considerably more than 2% of its gross domestic product on national defense. But there is no particular clause in the NATO treaty which requires this country, or any other NATO country, to spend two percent of its gross domestic product on defense. Nor, under the NATO treaty, is the two percent figure some sort of monetary obligation that NATO allies are required to pay to the United States. Trump's misunderstanding of this, while unfortunate, and certainly redolent of the mob boss tactics which Trump has always used, both internationally and domestically, is in and of itself not criminal.

However, what may be criminal, and gravely so, is his appeal to Russia to "do whatever the hell they want" to any NATO nation that, in Trump's mind, does not cough up what Trump expects of them.  Indeed, what Trump may have done in that rally in South Carolina is to commit treason against the United States, and indeed, treason against each of the United States.

 Treason is the only crime defined in the United States 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. 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."

18 US code § 2381 defines Treason as follows:

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 constitutional and statutory definitions of treason basically track the language of the Treason Act, 25 Edw. 3 Stat. 5. c. 2 [1351]. That enactment,the first statutory definition of treason in English history, provided that one was guilty of treason who, among other things: 

"When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his [X3Queen] or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the King’s [X3Companion,] or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife (X4) the King’s eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere...."

Both the 1351 Act and its American derivatives contain absolutely no requirement that the King's realm or the American nation be in any kind of declared state of war for treason prosecution to lie. For example, numerous treason prosecutions were held in England while the kingdom was at least nominally at peace. Granite, of course, most of these treason prosecutions occurred during the Henrician Reformation during the early 15th century, but the Treason Act still is entirely innocent of any requirement that the United Kingdom be in a state of war declared by Parliament. Similarly, in this country, both the constitutional definition of treason and its statutory equivalent in 18 U.S.C. §2381 contain absolutely no requirement that the United States be in a Congressionally declared state of war.

Nonetheless, most treason prosecutions in the United States have occurred during some kind of state of war.  Indeed, the last three treason trials to be held in the United States, those of Herbert John Burgman and Iva Toguri D'Aquino, in 1948-9, arose out of the activities of both as broadcasters for the Third German Reich and the Empire of Japan, respectively. It is worth noting that at the same time, Great Britain was prosecuting William Joyce, a quondam Brooklyn-born American for treason under the 1351 Act. All three were convicted of treason, and Joyce, better known as Lord Haw Haw, was hanged At Wandsworth Prison on January 3, 1946. 

Burgman and D'Aquino were luckier. Burgman was sentenced to six to 20 years imprisonment, and died in prison. D'Aquino served six years in Alderson prison in West Virginia, was paroled, And in 1977 received a free and unconditional pardon from Pres. Gerald Ford. The final trial for treason in this country was of Kawakita Tomoya, who was convicted of treason in the Central District of California 1947., Kawakita was sentenced to death, but his sentence was commuted and, in 1963, Pres. John F. Kennedy commuted, Kawakita's life sentence and banished him to Japan, where, as of 1993, he still lived.

Of all of the prosecutions that are taken place for treason in American history, however, none has involved a traitor of such high magnitude as Donald Trump. Of course, Trump's treason is similar to that of Joyce, Burgman and D'Aquino; all three of them have engaged in treason with the intent to serve the interests of enemies national and to rile up part of the American base.

Trump can be, and Trump should be, indicted a fifth time, for treason inasmuch as his utterance gave aid and comfort to an enemy national, that is, to Russia. It does not matter that the United States was not in a declared state of war. The United States indicted Adam Yahiye Gadahn for treason in 2006, though the United States was not in a declared state of war. Now, Gadahn himself met his end in a Hellfire attack while he was in South Waziristan, in Pakistan in 2015,, actively participating in military hostilities against his own country. But, the precedent remains. By the same token, Aaron Burr was indicted and tried for treason in the year 1807. However, the procedural precedents of the borough prosecution are not persuasive. The fact of the borough prosecution, together with the indictment of Adam Yahiye Gadahn, or highly so.

Of course, one might ask whether Russia is an "enemy national" whose status as such would support a prosecution of Donald Trump. The answer, on sober reflection, must be "yes."

 

 

Facebook's Ongoing Double Standard

 Summary:  Facebook, the largest social networking apparatus in this country, and possessing a worldwide reach, makes a routine practice of censoring posts, comments, and profiles that allegedly violate its "community standards." Yet, from a 10-year-plus users perspective, Facebook's application of its community standards has become a weaponized in the service of Donald Trump and the conservative "movement." Whether this is the result of Mark Zuckerberg's personal preferences, whether it is Zuckerberg's apparent fear of Donald Trump, or whether it is the result of possible foreign actors intervening in the process, the fact remains that Facebook has become weaponized for Donald Trump.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Cathedral City, January 23, 2024 -- it is primary day in New Hampshire. The race of greatest interest is that between Nikki Haley and Donald Trump, which at this point, Trump appears to have won. President Biden is not participating in the Democratic primary in that state, partially because of the President's decision to boycott the New Hampshire primary as part of an effort to bring the Granite State to heel. Nevertheless, on both sides of the gulf between the Parties, which we can no longer call an "aisle," inasmuch as a partisan divide has opened far too wide to be crossed in the simple manner that one crosses an aisle, social media outlets are burning up with news and blogs and commentary. However, on Facebook, easily the largest social networking apparatus in this country, if not in the world, censorship of the process will be fairly heavy.

Facebook can be expected to censor posts and comments that "violate its community standards." Unfortunately, as many of us who have spent any time in "Facebook Jail" can testify, those so-called community standards are applied in anything but an evenhanded fashion. While conservatives, who traffic in a constant litany of victimhood, claims that Facebook "discriminates" against them, the truth is rather different. 

 A number of prominent news outlets in the "normal" media ecosystem (which does not include Fox News, One America, any of the Sinclair news outlets, or any other outlet in the conservative media space,) have run articles showing Facebook's conservative preferences:

"But, owing that conservative content on Facebook receives significantly greater engagement than other content. The New York Times’ Kevin Roose has shown that the top-performing link posts on U.S. Facebook pages are dominated by conservatives like President Donald Trump, conservative podcaster and Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro and Fox News contributor and conservative news aggregator Dan Bongino. In fact, the examples that conservatives give of alleged censorship are usually just examples of individuals breaking the rules or not knowing how social media works." "https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/facebook-twitter-don-t-censor-conservatives-they-hire-promote-them-ncna1245308

 NPR, for example, has noted that "If anything, there is a bias in favor of conservative content." "https://www.npr.org/2020/10/05/918520692/facebook-keeps-data-secret-letting-conservative-bias-claims-persist

In fact, Facebook's lobbyists in Washington all tend to be from conservative backgrounds. Indeed,

"Executives at Alphabet, Facebook and Twitter have all reportedly cozied up to Republicans in the last four years.... Facebook in particular has a long history of caving to right-wing pressure — going back to 2016. Facebook executives have held multiple meetings with top conservatives, made Breitbart a trusted news partner and changed the Facebook algorithm to avoid cries of censorship from the right. They even went so far as to intentionally suppress news from progressive sites like Mother Jones on the Facebook news feed in order to elevate conservative sources."

Facebook's right-leaning posture has continued even under the Biden administration. There is little doubt that Facebook and its proprietor, Mark Zuckerberg, have been putting their thumbs on the scale in favor of Donald Trump for at least the nine years since Donald Trump descended his escalator in Trump Tower to announce his candidacy for president back in 2015.There is no other rational explanation for Facebook's involvement with Cambridge Analytica and with the admitted (by Putin henchman Yevgeniy Prigozhin) Russian intervention in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump.

 Of course, in addition to Facebook's cozying up to the Russian foreign intelligence services and to Donald Trump, Facebook has also systematically sought to exclude progressive sources from its newsfeed, and to send to "Facebook Jail" users whose commentary takes an unacceptably progressive tone. Indeed, much of this can be laid squarely at the feet of Mark Zuckerberg. Brought up in the lower Hudson Valley suburbs north of New York City, Zuckerberg has apparently imbibed from that upbringing a conservative outlook of neo-Victorian prudery and Philistinism.

A few examples should suffice:

In September, 2016, smack in the middle of its efforts to tip the scales in favor of Donald Trump, Facebook got into a spat with the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, which escalated into a row involving the Royal Norwegian government. Specifically, Aftenposten had published a copy of Nick Ut's Pulitzer prize-winning photograph of a nine-year-old girl, Phan Thi Kim Phuc, running, naked, napalmed, and terrified, down a country road in South Vietnam, As part of a piece on the terrors of war. Facebook, apparently acting on direct orders from Zuckerberg himself, not only removed the photograph, but contumaciously doubled down on its position, even going so far as to delete a Facebook post from the Norwegian Prime Minister and banishing her to "Facebook Jail." Facebook and Zuckerberg caught a great deal of well-justified flak for doing so, Zuckerberg also included in his banishment list the Norwegian author Tom Egeland, who had posted an entry on Facebook about, and including, seven photographs that changed the history of warfare, among them the photograph of Kim Phuc.  

The following day, according to British newspaper The Guardian,

"[...] Following widespread criticisms from news organizations and media experts across the globe, Facebook reversed its decision, saying in a statement to the Guardian: 'After hearing from our community, we looked again at how our Community Standards were applied in this case. An image of a naked child would normally be presumed to violate our Community Standards, and in some countries might even qualify as child pornography. In this case, we recognize the history and global importance of this image in documenting a particular moment in time.'"

In short, Facebook and Zuckerberg, appreciating that they had laid a public-relations egg, backed down, rather than face potential retaliation from an angry Norwegian government, and possibly even from King Harald V, and potential ramifications from other Nordic monarchies, including possible tax consequences which Mark Zuckerberg and his accountants did not -- and do not-- want to face.

In addition to their public relations gaffe with the image of a terrified Vietnamese girl, Facebook also committed another series of public relations faux pas described in Wikipedia:

[Examples cited include]: Venus of Willendorf, (c. 28,000–25,000 BC), Naturhistorisches Museum (Vienna); Giambologna's bronze statue of Neptune (1560s), the symbol of the city of Bologna; Caravaggio's painting Amor Vincit Omnia (Love conquers all,1602), Berlin, Gemäldegalerie, (2016); Edvard Eriksen's The Little Mermaid (1913), which is the most photographed artwork in Denmark. [citation] The most famous case is that of French educator Frédéric Durand, whose account was deleted "without warning" because he posted Gustave Courbet’s painting The Origin of the World (1886). [,which depicts from an oblique angle, a woman's genitalia.] After seven years of deliberations, a French court ruled against Facebook, though it granted no damages to Durand, [citation]. Art Historian Ruben C. Cordova's account was "permanently deleted" after he posted 16 images of John De Andrea's hyperrealist Self-Portrait with Sculpture (1980), featured in the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s exhibition Like Life: Sculpture, Color, and the Body, though his account was ultimately restored. ^[[citations]

In 2019, Facebook invited twenty artists and curators to discuss a 'reconsideration' of Facebook and Instagram guidelines, but three years later, artists think nothing has improved. Moreover, instead of 'Nudity' violations, some artist have received 'Adult Sexual Solicitation' notices, which means 'that artists are now not only trying to defend their subject matter, but the premise of their practice.' [citation]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Facebook

Moreover, aside from its remarkably neo-Victorian prudery with respect to allegedly "nude" images, Facebook has been remarkably disingenuous, even duplicitous, in the application of its content moderation policies, also known as "community standards." Indeed, Facebook, and/or its "artificial intelligence" instrumentalities have been remarkably inconsistent in their content moderation.  For example, Facebook turns a blind eye to the most lurid and threatening rhetoric from the American right, while routinely censoring content from progressive users, and "Facebook Jailing" or banning those users altogether for commentary that is not nearly as over-the-top as that which emanates from many Republican accounts. Moreover, Facebook has an apparent, but unstated, policy of ignoring referrals for violations of "community standards" from users whose accounts manifest progressive tendencies. Put another way, if a progressive-appearing user comments badly on Donald Trump, he or she can expect an immediate 30 day suspension, while if a conservative-appearing user comments in a fashion that is laudatory of Donald Trump, or contains threatening, harassing, or just spam rhetoric, that user will not be touched, no matter how many reports or referrals Facebook receives concerning that users' content. Similarly, Facebook will readily delete progressive -appearing commentary or accounts, while taking no action at all against right-wing trolls or bots.

Facebook also turns a blind eye to certain types of live-streaming content that harms people whom Zuckerberg does not like. During the Mosque Massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand, In March, 2019, Facebook ran live-stream video of the shootings, and had to be threatened with criminal prosecution by Her Majesty's New Zealand Government if Facebook did not take down the video, which it finally did. That, however, has not prevented a number of Islamic organizations from suing Facebook for having live-streamed the attack. Zuckerberg's hostility toward the Islamic ummah also was on full display in Facebook's complicity with the military junta in Burma (Myanmar) in encouraging genocidal violence on Facebook against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar's Rakhine State.

What we can see from Facebook's behavior is little more than a reflection of Zuckerberg's upbringing. His remarkable philistinism, and his remarkable hostility toward American progressives, toward the Islamic ummah, and toward American Democrats has resulted in an unfortunate combination of events and trends which may ultimately lead not merely to Congressional regulation of Facebook, but to its ultimate demise.

Facebook, in short, may be the single best and largest argument against the kind of social media that it, Twitter (now known by the single letter X,) and Reddit have come to represent.