Ummm No. Treasonous is the wrong word. Entirely the wrong concept. In any understanding of obstruction, perjury, or felony. Doesn't treason have to be crimes against the nation, and its rulers, and ruling bodies. These are often motivated by another country, or authority, as acts of espionage, terrorism, warfare, or slander, etc.
It could perhaps be ruled as treason if they obstructed the courts or congress willfully. Again they have certain powers outside of this. Depends on the agency.
They've committed a felony at best, committed obstruction if indeed Congress had asked for the contents. Treason I don't think so? Harder subject to debate, it could be with lawyers, but I don't think any judge would grant that charge.
As agents they often have a different judicial process. As agents what oathes did they break, which institutional integrity have they compromised, acting on what orders.
I'm in no way a big specialist in US agencies, but doesn't agents give an oath to protect US constitution? If so, breaking that oath (at least about 1st amendment) could be named "treason", at least logically.
What oathes did they break, like official secrets, what institutional integrity did they compromise, like espionage, acting under what authority, foreign etc. Of course it isn't always the case, sometimes felonies. They have their own tribunals and special oversight committees. Etc.
There are also Whistle-blowers. They might have been granted other status away from past treason.
I was debating the concept here. It is strong rhetoric. I am unclear if it's applicable, Bannon is rallying the pundits. In light of kind of tit for tat. Partisan. But unless the GOP call for special committees into this. It's dead in the water. It's not treason. There was also emergency powers. It's scandalous for sure. Unelectable quite possibly. Impeachable unlikely. No such thing, an exercise of nothing much. Any protection unless proven crimes greater than the hearsay, often extend further.
Ummm No. Treasonous is the wrong word. Entirely the wrong concept. In any understanding of obstruction, perjury, or felony. Doesn't treason have to be crimes against the nation, and its rulers, and ruling bodies. These are often motivated by another country, or authority, as acts of espionage, terrorism, warfare, or slander, etc.
It could perhaps be ruled as treason if they obstructed the courts or congress willfully. Again they have certain powers outside of this. Depends on the agency.
They've committed a felony at best, committed obstruction if indeed Congress had asked for the contents. Treason I don't think so? Harder subject to debate, it could be with lawyers, but I don't think any judge would grant that charge.
As agents they often have a different judicial process. As agents what oathes did they break, which institutional integrity have they compromised, acting on what orders.
I'm in no way a big specialist in US agencies, but doesn't agents give an oath to protect US constitution? If so, breaking that oath (at least about 1st amendment) could be named "treason", at least logically.
Yes that was for treason my friend.
What oathes did they break, like official secrets, what institutional integrity did they compromise, like espionage, acting under what authority, foreign etc. Of course it isn't always the case, sometimes felonies. They have their own tribunals and special oversight committees. Etc.
There are also Whistle-blowers. They might have been granted other status away from past treason.
I was debating the concept here. It is strong rhetoric. I am unclear if it's applicable, Bannon is rallying the pundits. In light of kind of tit for tat. Partisan. But unless the GOP call for special committees into this. It's dead in the water. It's not treason. There was also emergency powers. It's scandalous for sure. Unelectable quite possibly. Impeachable unlikely. No such thing, an exercise of nothing much. Any protection unless proven crimes greater than the hearsay, often extend further.