Thread by @ggreenwald

Mitt Romney's "Treason" Smear of Tulsi Gabbard is False and Noxious, But Now Typifies U.S. Discourse

greenwald.substack.com/p/romneys-trea…

The Founders limited "treason" in the Constitution due to concerns it would be abused to criminalize dissent: what is now routine.

Neocons weaponized it during the War on Terror. It was the dominant theme of the Trump years. The war in Ukraine has brought it to all new levels.

In the past 48 hours:

-- The Daily Beast tabloid implied Gabbard is a Kremlin asset.

-- Romney accused Gabbard of "treason."

-- The View hosts called on DOJ to criminally investigate her and Tucker Carlson.

-- Keith Olbermann said the duo should be "militarily detained."

As Gabbard herself explains here, the media is blatantly lying about what she said. She didn't say there were biological *weapons* labs in Ukraine. She said what WHO & US officials, including Nuland, have warned: there are dangerous unsecured bio labs.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1503691519483543552

Either way, "treason" is insanely inapplicable to expressing *political views* about Russia. The US isn't at war with Russia. And the Constitution was designed to *protect*, not criminalize* dissent. And yet this "treason" mania consumes idiots across the political spectrum:

It is difficult, if not impossible, to find any despot in history who does not weaponize accusations of “treason" against dissidents as a central instrument for control. That U.S. discourse has now descended completely to that level is barely debatable:

greenwald.substack.com/p/romneys-trea…

It's extra repulsive to watch those who demand US wars fought only by others' kids -- such as @MittRomney and @HillaryClinton -- smear those who volunteered to fight their wars (like @TulsiGabbard) as "traitors." There's a difference between "criticism" and *treason accusations*.