A recent social media post from user "i/o" asserts that former President Barack Obama has not been formally charged with treason because he has not committed the crime, directly referencing the specific definition outlined in the U.S. Constitution. The tweet clarifies that there is no evidence of Obama "levying war against the United States... or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort." This statement serves as a direct rebuttal to political rhetoric suggesting otherwise.
The U.S. Constitution, in Article III, Section 3, uniquely defines treason as consisting "only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." This explicit definition was intentionally narrow, designed by the framers to prevent the charge from being used as a tool for political persecution. Conviction for treason requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court, setting a remarkably high legal bar.
The tweet's clarification comes amidst a history of political figures, notably former President Donald Trump, employing the term "treason" in public discourse without formal legal basis. In May 2020, Trump repeatedly used the word "treason" to describe what he termed "Obamagate," a vague conspiracy theory alleging unspecified crimes by the Obama administration related to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump did not provide specific evidence to substantiate these claims or detail what crimes he believed Obama had committed.
According to the "i/o" tweet, the absence of formal charges against Obama for treason directly stems from a lack of any actions that meet the stringent constitutional criteria. The constitutional definition deliberately limits the scope of what can be considered treason, distinguishing it from broader interpretations or political grievances. The framers' intent was to protect political dissent and ensure the charge could not be easily weaponized.