Enemies there refers to during war in which the USA is not, and giving “Aid and Comfort” there means material aid and has literally no relation in the text to whether you receive something for such aid in return. By interpreting “giving them aid” as promoting foreign policy that helps a rival nation as “treason” using that text, you have to completely ignore the part about “bribes” and assume that it applies even in peacetime, which means that every foreign policy decision that helps a rival would be “treason”. I’m sure the USA has some other backwards law that prevents lobbying but only if the lobbyist is not white or is a foreigner (and would be happy to have anybody who actually reads laws send it to me), but it is not in the text of the constitution and to claim it is is just either blatantly false or some Ouija-board-level spirit of the law shit. You should definitely read before you write.
You’re willfully dancing around the actual point OP is making. You can’t be a grown adult and think this concretely without doing so in bad faith.
The point is that opposing this is directly showing support for Russia…
Which guess what: isn’t high treason. If you’ll notice, I havent offered my opinion here or participated elsewhere in the thread.
I was simply pointing out that using the term “high treason” here is rather silly and nonfactual.
deleted by creator
It literally doesn’t. RTFC.
deleted by creator
Enemies there refers to during war in which the USA is not, and giving “Aid and Comfort” there means material aid and has literally no relation in the text to whether you receive something for such aid in return. By interpreting “giving them aid” as promoting foreign policy that helps a rival nation as “treason” using that text, you have to completely ignore the part about “bribes” and assume that it applies even in peacetime, which means that every foreign policy decision that helps a rival would be “treason”. I’m sure the USA has some other backwards law that prevents lobbying but only if the lobbyist is not white or is a foreigner (and would be happy to have anybody who actually reads laws send it to me), but it is not in the text of the constitution and to claim it is is just either blatantly false or some Ouija-board-level spirit of the law shit. You should definitely read before you write.
So you aren’t making any argument at all, and are just saying “everyone look at my bold linguistic castle. It is very cromulent.”