Tag Archive for: collusion

Treason is a word we often see in the news and social media and, unfortunately, its use is often, well, absolutely incorrect. Therefore, to save writers the trouble and embarrassment of using the term incorrectly in a work of fiction, here’s the definition of treason, a definition that is quite easily found in the U.S. Constitution.

Treason and Espionage

“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.”

Please note the use of the word “only” in the first sentence. It’s there for a reason, to make certain there’s no misunderstanding. The treason law ONLY applies to those individuals who are levying War against them (the U.S.), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. That’s specific. Quite specific. There’s no wiggle room whatsoever.

Tried and Convicted

So how does one commit treason against the U.S.? Here are examples:

  • In June 1947, Tomoya Kawakita, a U.S. citizen, was tried and convicted for the mistreatment  and abuse of American POWs held by the Japanese during World War II.
  • Mildred Elizabeth Gillars (aka Axis Sally) was convicted of assisting the Nazis by broadcasting propaganda on her radio show. She was an American employed by the Third Reich in Nazi Germany.
  • Iva Ikuko Toguri D’Aquino (aka Tokyo Rose), was tried and convicted of treason for her propaganda radio broadcasts to American troops where American POWs were forced to participate in on-air propaganda messages.
  • In 1948, Robert Henry Best, an American foreign news correspondent who covered events in Europe, was tried and convicted of treason after it was discovered he was a Nazi supporter and broadcaster of Nazi propaganda during World War II.
  • Aaron Burr, third vice president of the United States, was charged with treason after the discovery of his plan to invade Mexico for the purpose of establishing an empire. Now that was an ambitious plan, for sure. However, Burr was a acquitted by Chief Justice John Marshall. In his ruling, Marshall said that to prove treason, “war must actually be levied against the United States … conspiracy (to levy war) is not treason.”

Spies often commit espionage.

Espionage

Remember Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the couple who were prosecuted for giving atomic secrets to the  Soviet Union? The pair was tried and convicted for their crimes, but they weren’t charged with treason because the U.S. and Russia were not at war when they committed their traitorous acts.

Again, the Rosenburgs were NOT charged with treason because the U.S. was NOT at war with Russia at the time. Sure, this occurred during the Cold War, but that’s not an actual war with bombs and missiles and soldiers fighting the enemy. Therefore, the Rosenburgs were instead charged with espionage (spying and/or transferring state secrets to a foreign government). The Rosenburgs were convicted and executed.

So, without going into a lot of detail (especially since details are not in any way available to any of us) and to help writers avoid a mistake, the charge of treason requires far more than a brief meeting to discuss juicy gossip. On the other hand, if Boris and Natasha were present and the U.S. was at actual war with another country, any country, and IF someone aided that country with their efforts against us in that war, well …

Collusion

To continue today’s lesson, Collusion is … click here to read the details.

*I ask that you please reserve political comments for another website or blog because this article is strictly for informational purposes. This is not an op ed piece about politics or politicians. Actually, I’m sick of seeing even one single word about politics (I avoid it at every turn. I do not read political blogs, articles, social media posts, etc.). I delete political comments, by the way. However, I absolutely welcome and encourage discussion. Just not about politics, religion, race, and any of the other hot button topics du jour.

Spies, they’re everywhere!

Collusion is a word we’ve all come to hear on a regular basis, if not  weekly daily hourly minute-by minute … okay, practically every second. But what is collusion? Is it the proper terminology when speaking about an incident involving two people, one of whom is seeking political office? Well …

Please, this is not a political statement, nor am I supporting or not supporting anyone. This is strictly a factual piece. There is nothing hidden between the lines!! NO political comments, please. 

According to Black’s Law Dictionary (a standard): Collusion. n. where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating.

*The above definition could be used to to describe nearly ALL political campaigns and campaigners throughout history!

The crime of collusion is associated with illegal business practices and does not apply to elections. Instead, this particular crime (collusion) falls under the heading of Antitrust laws (also called competition laws), the statutes developed by the U.S. Government to protect consumers from shady business practices, thus ensuring that just and fair competition exists in the marketplace.

The Sherman Act, 1890  (click to read)

*Note that I highlighted the word “crime” above, because that’s what we’re talking about here today, a crime, such as Price-Fixing, or Bribery of Public Officials. These two are indeed Crimes of collusion.

So, is collusion a crime when it involves elections? Well …

  • Taking advantage of what another person or group does during an election is not illegal. Sure, it’s a bit of political “not-so-niceness,” but it is not a federal crime to do so.
  • Asking someone to release information about a political opponent is not illegal unless the party asking was involved in illegally obtaining the information in question (wiretaps, illegally recorded conversations, etc.). Still, the act of asking to release information is not in itself a federal crime.
  • A person or group of people supporting a political candidate is not a federal crime, even if that person(s) releases potentially damaging information about politicians running for office (favoring one above the other). Not illegal = no crime. For example, you’re running for the office of county sheriff and a person you encounter tells you they have possibly damaging information about your political opponent. You ask them to show the dirt to the world and they do. After all is said and done, you win the election. Asking the person to release the information is not a crime. Doing so is no different than a political party digging up dirt on their opponents and then running the juicy tidbits in TV or media ads and articles. Again, no crime, and definitely not collusion as it relates to federal law.

Remember, we’re addressing the specific definition of collusion as it relates to elections, not a matter of, well, stuff I do not discuss here. So please don’t make this into something it’s not!

The word collusion has sort of evolved to loosely and unofficially encompass a variety of non-related offenses. It’s so watered down that it’s almost reached the point of being a slang term, much like the word “Mace”is often used to incorrectly identify all chemical sprays used by police. Not so. Mace is a trademarked name of a company that manufactures a variety of merchandise under the same name.

*To those of you who’ve asked … yes, I’m behind the goofy drawings. And yes, I purposely make them crude and and a bit off-kilter. Why? Because I, too, am goofy.

Again, I’m begging you to please not make this political or a discussion or argument about anything outside the text above. I’m merely pointing out the law as it relates to a specific topic. I take no sides. My goal and purpose for much of what I do—I’m dedicated to helping writers write believable make-believe.

*All factors in a criminal case are considered. Sometimes, in order to achieve a conviction, it takes the piecing together of multiple pieces of evidence—the totality of circumstances. This may include circumstantial evidence, if related.