or more on car insurance.
DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN MAKING or more on car insurance.
DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN MAKING ACCUSATIONS OF TREASON FOR
MONTHS BUT IT APPEARS THE
PRESIDENT IS FINALLY FACING
WIDESPREAD CRITICISM FOR SAYING
THAT FORMER FBI OFFICIALS NAMING
THEM SPECIFICALLY WERE INVOLVED
WITH INVESTIGATING HIS CAMPAIGN
AND COMMITTED TREASON.
HE DID IT AGAIN ON THURSDAY.
BUT IT ISN’T CLEAR THAT THE
PRESIDENT UNDERSTANDS WHAT
TREASON ACTUALLY IS.
OR JUST HOW SERIOUS THE
ACCUSATION IS ESPECIALLY WHEN IT
COMES FROM THE PRESIDENT.
HERE IS THE EXCHANGE THE
PRESIDENT HAD WITH NBC’S PETER
ALEXANDER ON THURSDAY.
>> SIR, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS
TREASON IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.
YOU’VE ACCUSED YOUR ADVERSARIES
OF TREASON.
OF TREASON. WHO SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU
ACCUSING OF TREASON.
>> I THINK A NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
I THINK WHAT YOU LOOK IS THAT
THEY HAVE UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED
TO TAKE DOWN THE WRONG PERSON.
IF YOU LOOK AT COMEY, IF YOU
LOOK AT McCABE, IF YOU LOOK AT
PROBABLY PEOPLE HIGHER THAN
THAT, IF YOU LOOK AT STRZOK,
THEY WANT AN INSURANCE POLICY SO
THAT SHOULD SHE FOR ANY REASON
LOSE, REMEMBER 100 MILLIONTON
ONE, MAYBE HE SAID 100
MILLIONTON NOTHING BUT SHOULD
SHE LOSE WE’LL HAVE AN INSURANCE
POLICY AND WE’LL GET THIS GUY
OUT OF OFFICE.
THAT’S WHAT THEY SAID AND THAT’S
WHAT THEY MEANT.
THAT’S TREASON.
THAT’S TREASON. THAT’S TREASON.
THAT’S TREASON. >> NO, THAT’S NOT TREASON.
AS VIEWERS OF THIS PROGRAM KNOW
FOR MONTHS, LAWRENCE O’DONNELL
HAS CHALLENGED THE PRESIDENT’S
ACCUSATIONS OF TREASON.
HERE’S LAWRENCE BACK IN
FEBRUARY.
FEBRUARY. >> IT IS ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO
COMMIT TREASON AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TODAY.
TODAY. BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A
SPECIFIED ENEMY IN A DECLARED
WAR.
WAR. THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFIED
"TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES SHALL CONSIST ONLY IN
LEVYING WAR AGAINST THEM OR IN
ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES GIVING
THEM AID AND COMFORT."
THE SUPREME COURT HAS
INTERPRETED THAT TO MEAN THAT IT
IS ONLY POSSIBLE TO COMMIT
TREASON DURING A WAR THAT IS
AUTHORIZED BY A CONGRESSIONAL
DECLARATION OF WAR.
THE LAST TIME THE UNITED STATES
FOUGHT A DECLARED WAR, DECLARED
BY CONGRESS WAS WORLD WAR II.
AND THAT IS WHY THE LAST TIME AN
AMERICAN WAS CHARGED WITH AND
CONVICTED OF TREASON WAS WORD
WAR II.
WAR II. >> THIS IS A PERFECT NIGHT FOR A
HISTORIAN.
HISTORIAN. JON MEACHAM IS ONE OF THE BEST,
WITH TIM McGRAW OF "SONGS OF
AMERICA."
AMERICA." TO BE PUBLISHED JUNE 10th AND
COUNTLESS OTHER BOOKS.
NOTWITHSTANDING, ANOTHER NIGHT
THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FACT
THAT AMERICA IS NOT AT WAR AND
HAS NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY AT WAR
SINCE WORLD WAR II.
WE GET OURSELVES INTO A LOT OF
FIGHTS IN THE WORLD WITHOUT
HAVING ACTUALLY DECLARED WAR.
LAWRENCE’S POINT IS WELL TAKEN.
CONNER FREEDERS DORF WROTE HOW
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION
WERE PARTICULARLY WORRIED ABOUT
PRESIDENTS FALSELY CHARGING
TREASON AND IN IT HE WRITES THE
FRAMERS WERE GUARDING AGAINST
THE POSSIBILITY THAT AMERICANS
WOULD ONE DAY ELECT A MAN SO
MORALLY WEAK AND CORRUPT THAT HE
WOULD FALSELY ACCUSE POLITICAL
ENEMIES OF TREASON.
CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIARY HAVE
A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO CHECK
HIS ABUSES OF POWER AND THE
PUBLIC HAS A PATRIOTIC DUTY TO
OUST HIM FROM OFFICE.
THE FACT IS, TREASON IS NOT
MEANT FOR YOUR POLITICAL
OPPONENTS.
OPPONENTS. >> NO, AND THIS IS A CASE WHERE
ONCE AGAIN, THE FOUNDERS FOR ALL
OF THEIR SINS FOR ALL OF THEIR
OMISSIONS FOR ALL OF THEIR
DERELICTIONS, THE JOURNEY THEY
PUT US ON TOWARD A MORE PERFECT
UNION IS VINDICATED EXACTLY BY
THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT.
THE REASON TREASON IS THE ONLY
CRIME SPECIFICALLY DEFINED IN
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SECOND
PART OF THAT ARTICLE OF THAT
LEAPT IS THAT IT REQUIRES
WITNESSES TO AN OVERT ACT OR A
CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT.
SO WHY SO SPEC?
BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF
KINGS OR MONARCHS DOING EXACTLY
WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S DOING
BECAUSE THEY HAD DONE IT.
IT WAS BASED ON EXPERIENCE.
IT WAS BASED ON ANXIETY ABOUT
THE WORST PARTS OF THE ENGLISH
EXPERIMENT.
EXPERIMENT. THE OTHER THING TO REMEMBER IS
ALL THE FOLKS WHO WERE DOING THE
FRAMING IN PHILADELPHIA IN 1787
AND THE DEBATING MOST OF THEM
OVER THE RATIFICATION, COULD
HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF TREASON BY
EXACTLY BY THE YOU KNOW, KING
DONALD III IF HE HAD BEEN AROUND
AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF
HANOVER IN THE 1th CENTURY.
SO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, IF
YOU WILL, THE THINKING THAT LED
INTO THIS WAS PRECISELY ABOUT
THIS KIND OF MOMENT.
NOW, YOU SORT OF ASKED
RHETORICALLY DOES THE PRESIDENT
OR MAYBE LAWRENCE DID, DOES THE
PRESIDENT KNOW WHAT HE’S TALKING
ABOUT?
ABOUT? NO, HE DOESN’T.
HE’S USING AN THE TERM VERY
LOOSELY.
LOOSELY. I’VE USED THE TERM LOOSELY
INACCURATELY.
INACCURATELY. AND I SPEND TIME THINKING ABOUT
THIS STUFF.
THIS STUFF. THAT’S EASY TO DO IF YOU’RE JUST
WITH A SLIP OF THE TONGUE.
WHAT DONALD TRUMP HAS DONE THIS
WEEK AND IN MANY OTHER CASES IS
NOT A SLIP OF THE TONGUE.
IT’S AN ATTEMPT TO STOKE FEAR,
IT’S AN ATTEMPT TO TAKE HIS
OPPONENTS AND PUT THEM IN THE
UN-AMERICAN CATEGORY.
UN-AMERICAN CATEGORY. AND THE LAST TIME WE WENT
THROUGH A SYSTEM A MOMENT WHERE
WE PUT PEOPLE IN AN UN-AMERICAN
CATEGORY WAS THE McCARTHY ERA.
WE KNOW HOW WELL THAT TURNED
OUT.
OUT. >> SO IT WAS UN-AMERICAN THEN
AND WHAT THE LANGUAGE THE
PRESIDENT IS USING IN ADDITION
TO TREASON IS COUP AND ATTEMPTED
OVERTHROW.
OVERTHROW. SO THERE’S A LANGUAGE HERE THAT
IS MEANT TO IMPLY AND SUGGEST
THAT PEOPLE WHO EITHER WERE
DOING THEIR JOB AS MEMBERS OF
THE FBI OR EVEN IF YOU TAKE THE
PRESIDENT AT HIS WORD AND WERE
AGAINST HIM AND POLITICAL
OPPONENTS HE CONTINUES TO SAY
THAT, AND OTHERS CAN DEBATE
THAT, BUT THE FACT IS EVEN IF
YOU TOOK HIM AT HIS WORD, THE
PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES
CODE SECTION 2381 FOR TREASON
FIVE YEARS IN PRISON UP TO THE
DEATH PENALTY, $10,000 PLUS AND
A FINE AND DISQUALIFIED FROM
HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE.
THE POINT IS, THE PRESIDENT IS
TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK THAT
POLITICAL OPPONENTS ARE
CRIMINALS WHO ARE ATTEMPTING TO
OVERTHROW THE ELECTED PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES IN
SOMETHING THAT FEELS LIKE A
COUP.
COUP. >> HE’S CRIMINALIZING DISSENT.
AND ON ONE LEVEL.
WITH THE FBI FOLKS, HE’S
ATTEMPTING RHETORICALLY TO
CRIMINALIZE THE EXECUTION AND
THE MECHANICS OF THE RULE OF
LAW.
LAW. IT’S NOT A HECK OF A LOT MORE
COMPLICATED THAN THAT.
THE FOLKS HE MENTIONED THIS
WEEK, COMEY AND McCABE, THESE
ARE FBI AGENTS.
THESE ARE SWORN OFFICERS OF THE
UNITED STATES WHO WE CAN DEBATE
WHETHER THEY DID THE RIGHT THING
OR NOT.
OR NOT. BUT WHAT HE’S TRYING TO DO AND
IT’S FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND
IT HAS WORKED SO FAR, HE IS THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
IS HE’S USING A CHARGED TERM TO
CREATE A SENSE OF ANXIETY AND
PARANOIA IN ORDER TO GET HIS
SUPPORTERS IN A PLACE WHERE
ASCENT FOR TRUMP IS A PATRIOTIC
ACT.
ACT. AND BY DOING SO, HE IS -- HE’S
THROWING 243 YEARS OR SO OF
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY AWAY.
AND THAT’S A PRECIOUS THING.
AND THE FRAMERS HAD THIS RIGHT,
THE FRAMERS HAD THIS RIGHT.
THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUTDEMAGOGUE
EXACTLY THIS KIND OF PERSON.
>> DO YOU HAVE EXAMPLES, YOU
MENTIONED WHEN WE MADE DISSENT
UN-AMERICAN.
UN-AMERICAN. DO YOU HAVE EXAMPLES WHERE
PRESIDENTS WENT THIS FAR IN
SUGGESTING THAT THING THAT WERE
POLITICAL INHERENTLY POLITICAL
OR INVESTIGATIVE ACTS WERE
POTENTIALLY CRIMINAL OR
TREASONOUS?
TREASONOUS? THERE’S ALWAYS BEEN PRESIDENT
WHO HAVE THOUGHT PEOPLE ARE
AGAINST THEM AND IN SOME CASES
THEY’VE BEEN RIGHT.
BUT DO WE HAVE EXAMPLES OF HOW
TO DEAL WITH THIS?
>> THE BEST EXAMPLE I THINK IS
FROM THE EARLY RECONSTRUCTION
ERA.
ERA. IT WAS THE IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW
JOHNSON.
JOHNSON. I’M NOT TRYING TO MAKE THIS A
NEAT PACKAGE HERE, BUT IN FACT,
THE WAY THE COUNTRY HANDLED IT
IN 1867, ’68 WHEN YOU HAD A
PRESIDENT WHO WAS TRYING TO UNDO
THE VERDICT OF THE CIVIL WAR WHO
WAS LASHED OUT AS CONGRESSIONAL
OPPONENTS, TRACKED IN CONSPIRACY
THEORIES.
THEORIES. ANDREW JOHNSON GAVE A SPEECH I
THINK IT WAS ON WASHINGTON’S
BIRTHDAY SHORTLY AFTER HE BECAME
PRESIDENT WHERE HE JUST LASHES
OUT AT EVERYONE.
IT’S EERILY RESONANT WITH WHAT
WE’RE SEEING NOW.
AND THE ANSWER FOR THE
REPUBLICANS THEN, THE PARTY OF
LINCOLN, REMEMBER JOHNSON HAD
GONE ON THE TICKET AS A WARTIME
ACTIVE CONCILIATION.
ACTIVE CONCILIATION. HE WAS REALLY A DEMOCRAT.
THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS IN
THE FROM 1865 TO 1868 WERE
TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO UNDO THE
WORK OF JOHNSON WHO OPPOSED THE
14th AND 15th APES WHO VETOED
CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, WHO RETOTED
THE FRIEDMANS BILL, INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT LEGISLATION TRYING TO
APPLY THE VERDICT OF THE CIVIL
WAR.
WAR. HE WAS TRYING TO UNDO THAT.
AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS CONGRESS
DECIDED THAT IMPEACHMENT WAS IN
FACT THE WAY TO GO FORWARD.
I SUSPECT AS MARK TWAIN IS
REPUTED TO HAVE SAID, HISTORY
MAY NOT REPEAT ITSELF BUT IT