The highlight of the hearing on Tulsi Gabbard before the Intelligence Committee was the question of treason. It was put by, among others, Senator Lankford of Oklahoma. He prefaced it with an explication of Edward Snowden’s deeds. Then he told the nominee for our top intelligence post that the American people wanted to hear “your heart” on this. “So,” he said “was Edward Snowden a traitor?”

Ms. Gabbard, a former congresswoman of Hawaii and a veteran of more than 20 years in our military, commenced to delivering a word salad worthy of Vice President Harris. “Senator, my heart is with my commitment to our constitution and our nation’s security,” she began. She noted her service in the military. She ticked off a list of actions she would take to guard our secrets and protect our whistleblower channels.

What she failed to do is mark the meaning of treason. It is a crime that is unique in our law. So much so that the Constitution itself prohibits Congress from countenancing any definition but this: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” So serious is treason that it is the only crime that is defined in the Constitution, lest Congress stray.

The Constitution then goes on to place a unique burden on our courts in cases of treason. “No Person,” it says, “shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” Treason is so serious that conviction requires two witnesses — and to the same act. It must be an overt act. Plus, too, prosecutors are prohibited from using even a confession to treason unless it is made in open court. 

Mr. Lankford’s question was an opportunity for Ms. Gabbard to mark her understanding of treason. Yet she kept “scurrying away,” as it was put by Colin Levy on WSJ.com. Ms. Gabbard left us, at least, with the sense that she’d hadn’t considered the question — or studied the parchment to which she would be sworn. Ms. Gabbard could have pointed out to the senator that, whatever she thought, Mr. Snowden hasn’t been charged with treason.

That might be because of the unique hurdles, per above, that the Constitution places on courts weighing treason. Or because there are other crimes, including other capital crimes, that could be, and have been, used to charge Mr. Snowden, who has taken Russian citizenship and lurks there. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were charged not with treason, though they were convicted of giving secrets to Soviet Russia. They went to the chair for espionage.

Had Ms. Gabbard answered Mr. Lankford’s question, it would have, in our view, helped her case. It could have given her an out. Yet it seems that she doesn’t see Mr. Snowden in the same light as Senator Lankford and the millions of other Americans shocked at the vast amount of classified documents that he made public. We thought that Mr. Lankford asked a good question and that she gave an inadequate answer, boding ill for her candidacy to be DNI.