Former CIA director John Brennan said Trump's press conference with Putin was 'treasonous' - here's what legal experts say

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Russia's President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland, July 16, 2018.

• Former CIA director John Brennan called Trump's failure to acknowledge Russian meddling in a joint press conference with Vladimir Putin "treasonous."
• Two constitutional law experts talked to Business Insider about what exactly treason means per the law, and if Trump could be guilty of it.
• They concluded that Trump's being impeached for treason is a long shot, but his conduct at the Helsinki summit could have other legal implications later on.

After a joint press conference on Monday in which President Donald Trump refused to endorse the US intelligence community's consensus of Russian interference in the 2016 election while standing next to President Vladimir Putin, former CIA director John Brennan accused Trump of treason.

"Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes & misdemeanors.' It was nothing short of treasonous," Brennan wrote on Twitter.

#Traitor then became a trending hashtag on Twitter, with thousands of users expressing outrage over Trump's comments and accusing Trump of treason.

Here's what exactly treason means and the potential legal consequences of Trump's comments, according to two constitutional law experts.

Legal definition of treason:

Treason is the only crime explicitly defined in the US Constitution, in section three of Article III.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court," the Constitution says.

This definition of treason is narrow and requires a high burden of proof. Someone can only commit treason against the US in favor of another nation if the US is at war with said country. It also requires at least two witnesses, or for the alleged traitor to confess.

In order for Trump to have committed true treason, it must first be proven that the US is at war with Russia. But the terms "aid and comfort" are deliberately ambiguous, giving courts plenty of room to interpret what exactly those conditions mean.

What the experts say:

Andrew Wright, former assistant White House counsel to President Barack Obama and associate professor at Savannah Law School, told Business Insider on Monday that he doesn't believe the US and Russia are at war, or that Trump's conduct at the summit alone amounts to treason.

"It's quite clear he's selling out important American national security interests by not standing up to Russian aggression," Wright said. "That's why you see some people using the term traitor. It's not a term I prefer to use...it's the kind of thing I'd like to see after more investigative processes and legal findings."

But Jens David Ohlin, vice dean and professor of constitutional law at Cornell Law School, told Business Insider that even without a formal declaration, there is a case to be made that Russia and the US are indeed at war.

"One argument would be that Russia has engaged in a covert cyber-intervention against US interests, including election meddling, that rises to the level of hostilities," he wrote. "However, an even better argument would be that Russia and the United States are on the opposite sides of various armed confrontations in Syria," he continued, referencing Russia's backing of the Syrian regime in opposition to the US' backing of anti-Assad rebel groups.

What's next for Trump:

Wright and Ohlin both agreed Trump's comments open himself to greater legal liability, but to differing degrees. While Ohlin said the president's conduct at the summit increases the chances of him being impeached, Wright argued those chances will only increase if Trump is proven to have been blackmailed in some way by Russia.

"Trump is clearly helping Russia - whether it rises to the level of 'aid and comfort' would be for a jury to decide or for the House of Representatives to decide if it pursues articles of impeachment," Ohlin wrote. He added that Trump's latest defense of Russia at the expense of the US makes it "more likely" for the House to pursue impeachment if the Democrats win back a majority in this year's midterm elections.

Even if Congress doesn't impeach Trump, Ohlin said that Trump's siding with Russia over his own intelligence forces will certainly be scrutinized by special counsel Robert Mueller's team.

"It looks like the "quo" of a "quid pro quo" - Putin helped Trump get elected and now Trump is rewarding Putin with a favorable foreign policy. If Trump gets listed as an un-indicted co-conspirator, this arrangement might be relevant," Ohlin said.

Wright was slightly more skeptical about the scope of legal implications stemming from Trump's comments.

"I don't think the president's conduct of foreign policy, even if I think it's misconduct of foreign policy, is going to itself have legal liability," he said. "It'll all really depend on what the findings [of Mueller's probe] are."

Wright argued that Trump's behavior in the press conference is unlikely to lead to criminal consequences unless it is proven that his defense of Russia was the result of him being blackmailed or extorted in some way by Putin or other Russian operatives.

With that said, Wright noted that the unprecedented level of backlash against Trump's remarks from leaders in his own party will likely "lead to an uptick in oversight activity" in Congress and could signal that the Republican Party's patience for Trump is wearing thin.

"As one of my colleagues put it, every political figure has a candle of goodwill that they slowly burn down and it eventually gets to a point where they can't keep the flame alive," Wright said.