[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Christopher Calvin Reid [@ReidFirm](/creator/twitter/ReidFirm) on x 23.3K followers Created: 2025-07-19 13:16:08 UTC The Legal Threshold for Treason: Could Barack Obama Face Charges for Allegedly Altering Intelligence to Undermine the Trump Administration, Even If Benefiting China Without Direct Collusion? Thoughts from a Retired Attorney. RETWEET The crime of treason, as defined in Article III, Section X of the U.S. Constitution, is a narrowly construed offense, reflecting its gravity and historical weight. To convict someone of treason, two elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the accused levied war against the United States or adhered to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; and (2) an overt act was committed with intent to betray, supported by two witnesses or a confession in open court. This high bar, rooted in the Founders’ fear of abuse, ensures treason is not lightly charged. In the hypothetical case of former President Barack Obama allegedly altering intelligence to subvert the Trump administration, with China benefiting, could these elements be met, even absent direct work for a foreign power? Let’s unpack this complex legal question. Treason’s first prong—levying war or adhering to enemies—requires a clear enemy of the United States. China, while a geopolitical rival, is not a declared enemy in the legal sense, as no state of war exists. Historical cases, like *Cramer v. United States* (1945), clarify that “enemies” are entities with which the U.S. is in open or declared conflict. Thus, benefiting China indirectly would not satisfy this element unless evidence showed Obama actively adhered to a recognized enemy’s cause, a steep hurdle given China’s status. The second prong demands an overt act, such as falsifying intelligence reports, with the intent to betray. If Obama knowingly altered intelligence to undermine Trump’s administration, and this act demonstrably aided China—say, by weakening U.S. policy or exposing secrets—prosecutors would need to prove intent to harm the U.S. Mere knowledge of China’s benefit, without intent to aid an enemy, falls short. For example, if Obama’s actions aimed to disrupt Trump but foreseeably strengthened China’s strategic position, this might suggest recklessness but not treasonous intent. Two witnesses to the act, or a confession, would also be required, a procedural safeguard rarely met in modern cases. Could Obama be charged despite not acting on China’s behalf? The Constitution’s text and precedent, like *Haupt v. United States* (1947), emphasize intent to betray the U.S., not just benefiting a rival. If evidence showed Obama knew his actions would aid China and proceeded with indifference to U.S. security, prosecutors might argue this meets the “aid and comfort” standard. However, without direct collusion or a declared enemy, the charge would likely fail. Other statutes, like XX U.S.C. § XXX (Espionage Act), might apply if classified information were mishandled, but these lack treason’s unique stigma and penalties. However many other federal laws may apply if evidence is uncovered and that evidence is presented in court and a jury convicts. @charliekirk11 @OliLondonTV @elizabethpipko (Note: this is just a general discussion on this matter and in no way is to be considered as legal advice, it is a personal opinion) RETWEET  XXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [china](/topic/china) [donald trump](/topic/donald-trump) [barack obama](/topic/barack-obama) [threshold](/topic/threshold) [calvin](/topic/calvin) [Post Link](https://x.com/ReidFirm/status/1946559682694598742)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Christopher Calvin Reid @ReidFirm on x 23.3K followers
Created: 2025-07-19 13:16:08 UTC
The Legal Threshold for Treason: Could Barack Obama Face Charges for Allegedly Altering Intelligence to Undermine the Trump Administration, Even If Benefiting China Without Direct Collusion? Thoughts from a Retired Attorney. RETWEET
The crime of treason, as defined in Article III, Section X of the U.S. Constitution, is a narrowly construed offense, reflecting its gravity and historical weight. To convict someone of treason, two elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the accused levied war against the United States or adhered to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; and (2) an overt act was committed with intent to betray, supported by two witnesses or a confession in open court. This high bar, rooted in the Founders’ fear of abuse, ensures treason is not lightly charged. In the hypothetical case of former President Barack Obama allegedly altering intelligence to subvert the Trump administration, with China benefiting, could these elements be met, even absent direct work for a foreign power? Let’s unpack this complex legal question.
Treason’s first prong—levying war or adhering to enemies—requires a clear enemy of the United States. China, while a geopolitical rival, is not a declared enemy in the legal sense, as no state of war exists. Historical cases, like Cramer v. United States (1945), clarify that “enemies” are entities with which the U.S. is in open or declared conflict. Thus, benefiting China indirectly would not satisfy this element unless evidence showed Obama actively adhered to a recognized enemy’s cause, a steep hurdle given China’s status.
The second prong demands an overt act, such as falsifying intelligence reports, with the intent to betray. If Obama knowingly altered intelligence to undermine Trump’s administration, and this act demonstrably aided China—say, by weakening U.S. policy or exposing secrets—prosecutors would need to prove intent to harm the U.S. Mere knowledge of China’s benefit, without intent to aid an enemy, falls short. For example, if Obama’s actions aimed to disrupt Trump but foreseeably strengthened China’s strategic position, this might suggest recklessness but not treasonous intent. Two witnesses to the act, or a confession, would also be required, a procedural safeguard rarely met in modern cases.
Could Obama be charged despite not acting on China’s behalf? The Constitution’s text and precedent, like Haupt v. United States (1947), emphasize intent to betray the U.S., not just benefiting a rival. If evidence showed Obama knew his actions would aid China and proceeded with indifference to U.S. security, prosecutors might argue this meets the “aid and comfort” standard. However, without direct collusion or a declared enemy, the charge would likely fail. Other statutes, like XX U.S.C. § XXX (Espionage Act), might apply if classified information were mishandled, but these lack treason’s unique stigma and penalties. However many other federal laws may apply if evidence is uncovered and that evidence is presented in court and a jury convicts. @charliekirk11 @OliLondonTV @elizabethpipko
(Note: this is just a general discussion on this matter and in no way is to be considered as legal advice, it is a personal opinion)
RETWEET
XXXXX engagements
Related Topics china donald trump barack obama threshold calvin