I cite Trump's own foreign policy team to show that he can be accused of sharing secrets with "the principle threat" to US Security. I examine the legal issues which either make such "treason" legal or enable a President to rise above the law, which is the definition of tyranny.

::::::::

If a President can legally pass secrets to a nation his own Secretary of State has called a "dangerous adversary," does that make treason legal, if the President does it?

When Martin Luther King was reminded that segregation was legal, he responded:"Everything that Hitler did was legal."

Now President Trump is claiming that because he IS he President, he can share secrets with the nation his Secretary of Defense calls "the principle threat to our national security." In that case, for the President, treason is legal.

This essay raises the question: if President Trump has the power to share secrets with foreign countries, does that mean if he shares with an "enemy," that treason is legal because he IS the President?

The basis for this question is based not on MY views of Russia but the views of his Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Head of the CIA, and the US Ambassador to the UN, all of whom have identified Russia as our main enemy. I will cite each one to establish that the Trump Administration, by virtue of its key foreign policy advisors, has declared the nation with which Trump says he legally shared information, as the most serious threat to the US.

Secy of State Tillerson, during his confirmation hearing, stated:

"Russia today poses a danger, but it is not unpredictable in advancing its own interests," Tillerson said during his opening statement. "...Our NATO allies are right to be alarmed at a resurgent Russia."

Tillerson called Russia an "unfriendly adversary" during later testimony." foxnews

Is it legal to share top secrets with dangerous and insurgent adversaries? Here is what Secretary of State Maddog Mattis said:

"Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Russia stands as the "principal threat" to the United States's security. He said this is because of its actions and efforts to "intimidate" other countries."

Senator John McCain questioned Mattis to get his opinion on how much of a threat Russia represents. Mattis response was that "the world order is "under biggest attacks since WW2, from Russia, terrorist groups, and China's actions in the South China Sea,", agreeing with the neocon senator that Russia is trying to break up NATO.

Is it legal to share top secrets with the principle threat to US security?

Here is what CIA chief Pompeo said:

James Mattis, up for defence secretary, put Russia at the top of his "principal threat" list.

Congressman Mike Pompeo, who Mr Trump has tapped to be director of the CIA, called Russian attempts to influence the US 2016 presidential election an "aggressive action". bbc

Is it legal to share secrets with our "principal threat?"

And here is UN Ambassador Haley on Russia:

"Asked by NBC's Matt Lauer what she thinks Trump should do in response to Russia's cyber attacks meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, Haley said, "Take it seriously. We cannot trust Russia. We should never trust Russia." Washpo

Is it legal for the President to share secret intelligence with a nation we should never trust?

These statements indicate 1) that President Trump, in terms of his own appointees to key posts, is verging on treason and 2) that Trump is at loggerheads with the very people he appointed to carry out his foreign policy vision. This isolates Trump and plays into the strategy to force him to resign, possibly based on a campaign that targets him as having committed treason. The accusation alone is a dagger in his back, and it is being set up by the people he chose to help him govern but who now, most likely, see Trump as a threat to their careers.

Let us investigate the constitutional and legal questions that underly this implication of treason.

When it was revealed that President Trump shared "classified" material with Russian officials, the claims he had violated the law were quickly quenched when it was understood that he can, at will, declassify material.

However, if that is the case (and I will argue it is NOT), then the declassified material that has not even been shared with our key allies, is open to all of us. Did Trump, in fact, share information he determined was declassified, and therefore open to anyone (under the Freedom of Information Act).

So if Trump was legal in sharing information with Russia because he has the power, unilaterally to declassify material, does that mean it is now declassified and therefore accessible by any citizen? If that is his defense, the answer is yes.

Since parts of the information he shared is NOT available to the public, that means he did not declassify it but merely shared it. Can the President share classified material? There is no doubt he has the authority to declassify material and share it, but then it is available to all. That is not the issue since, clearly, he did not intend, in sharing information in a secret meeting (and which he subsequently denied before it was proven that he had), to make the information publicly available.

That means he shared classified material, and his power to declassify is beside the point. So the only relevant question is: is it legal for the President to share top secret or classified information with anyone he wishes to share it with. Could he share it with his friends, his family, a reporter?

Ironically, the Washington Post, which broke the story, defended his right to share the information by claiming he had the right to declassify it (which no one denies) but their defense falls apart because he had no intention of declassifying the material and thus making it available to anyone. The context was the informatioin was shared in a secret meeting, hardly the forum to declassify material for public access.

Here is the Post version:

" But when Trump spoke about highly classified information with Russian officials in a White House meeting last week, he did not break the law, legal analysts say."

The president is essentially the ultimate arbiter of what is classified and what is not. While the heads of particular agencies also have original classification authority -- the power to deem material classified or not classified -- their authority is limited to their departments and bound by their departments' particular rules.

The president, as the head of the executive branch, knows no such restrictions -- his power on the matter comes straight from the Constitution, legal analysts say.

[Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister, ambassador]

"When it comes to classification issues and those kinds of things, he's not above the law," said Edward B. MacMahon Jr., a criminal-defense lawyer whot has done significant work on cases involving classified information. "He basically is the law."

This argument is flawed for it assumes the sharing was legal because the President has the right to declassify material, but the material is NOT declassified. You cannot get FOIA access to all the information that was shared. And if you think you can then we can easily stop the President from sharing based on his right to declassify by using FOIA requests.

So the Post defense, that the President can legally share declassified information is without a doubt correct, but this is not what he did. He shared classified information, and that is a different matter.

Can the President share classifed material without declassifying it? Can he share it with journaliss, who are then free to publish it? We know from history that Presidents have done this, shared secret information in the form of leaks for political reasons? Is it legal? And if it is, doesn't that suggest the President has too muh power when he can share top secrets with anyone of his choosing for whatever reason, including political manipulation?

I am not a constitutonal lawyer nor do I play one on TV but the Post defense that the material was automatically declassified by being shared does not hold up. That would mean whenever a President shares a secret, it becomes declassified and accessible by the public. I know of no legal or political analyst who is arguing that is the case.

So the question remains unanswered and poses a constitutonal crisis: if Trump did not intend to make the information he shared in secret public, was it legal to share it? Does the President have the power ot share secrets with anyone for any reason?

If that is the case, we need to change the law, because Presidents are politicians an they will use the power to to keep and to share secrets for political purposes, and that is a clear betrayal of the basis of the state's right to have secrets, which is based soley on "national security."

If the President cannot share with anyone for any reason, then he has broken the law; if he can then he is above the law and acting as a tyrant and needs to be stopped by whatever means are necessary.

If we are a republic, a society ruled by law, then the President cannot be above the law. If we are not, then it is time for a revoluton to create a democratic republic where no one is above the law and the law applies equally to everyone. Anything else is tyranny.

(Article changed on May 20, 2017 at 05:21)

Authors Bio:

retired, working radical egalitarian/libertarian socialist old school independent, vegan, survivor