Congressman John Ratcliffe said,
"Absolutely it's okay to ask a foreign government to involve themselves in our election."
I keep hearing that, technically speaking, the charge of treason is only valid during war.
That said, Russia is attacking our "ally" Ukraine.
I say that in quotes thanks to our Russian operative POTUS, of course. But Russia's interference in our elections, and the work of our Russian operatives trying to solicit pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarchs in further US election interference should RIGHTLY be interpreted as "acts of war", in my humble opinion.
Fortunately quite a few top intel leaders also have normal common sense...it doesn't take a genius to recognize acts of war.
Thus they also are of the same opinion.
So while there is no shooting war happening here, these acts are distinctly provocative, and if we had an actual POTUS instead of a Russian asset, such provocations would indeed be considered seriously.
My opinion, the treason criteria is full of holes, holes large enough for several obese Russian operatives to walk through unencumbered.
Clearly our founders and framers did not imagine the extent to which the treason envelope could be pushed, but then again they also could not imagine global air travel and electronic communications either.
If Ratcliffe's words are not treason, then it is my opinion that the definition of treason is woefully inadequate as anything other than a symbolic bit of window dressing, utterly incapable of being applied in a time of universal deceit.
I am of the opinion that, had a "Congressman Ratcliffe" uttered such a thing in the 18th Century, or 19th, he would have been summarily hanged.