> Christina Marie Chapman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments in a US District Court on Tuesday.
Why not treason? Any lawyers know?
Why not treason? Any lawyers know?
The same reason almost no one is ever charged with treason, given the plethora of other criminal charges available to anything that might remotely be similar to treason: Article III, Section 3 of the US 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.”
Even where the first part (in which, it should be noted, the terms involved are interpreted very narrowly) is not problematic, the “two witnesses" rule, which is applied independently to each fact necessary to sustain the conviction, is usually quite difficult to overcome, so its usually vastly easier to get a conviction for something else.
But this is not that. This is blatant treason.
We didn't even charge Soviet spies with treason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen
The Korean war was never formally resolved, but the US hasn't declared war since WWII.
There's also no indication of adherence here.
Doing things that benefit a country and a leader that your government officically doesn't care for can be all shades of prohibited and illegal, but it's not treason.
These days, some vague tattoos will do it.
Brandeis wrote about how a lawbreaking government breeds contempt for the law and invites every man to be a lawbreaker by in 1928, but since then women have gained more rights: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1062178
> 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 last time we convicted someone for it was in 1949.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_Sta...
> The terms used in the definition derive from English legal tradition, specifically the Treason Act 1351. Levying war means the assembly of armed people to overthrow the government or to resist its laws. Enemies are subjects of a foreign government that is in open hostility with the United States.
You are right, of course, but it's not relevant to policy decisions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/01/us/texas-judge-trump-alie...
> He also found that the “plain ordinary meaning” of the act’s language, like “invasion” and “predatory incursion,” referred to an attack by “military forces” and did not line up with Mr. Trump’s claims about the activities of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan street gang, in a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act.