We’re just about to the point where liberals will start accusing President Donald Trump of treason if he’s spotted using the wrong salad fork at Mar a Lago. There hasn’t been any logic or reason to things coming out of liberals’ mouths for quite a while now, but their latest “treason” accusation – against a sitting president, no less – is sheer lunacy.

It makes you wonder what they would say if the president committed an actual crime, such as speeding or tearing off a mattress tag. What’s left after treason, a betrayal of one’s country?

President Trump’s latest act of “treason” was to answer a hypothetical question asked by a political hitman posing as a “journalist” for ABC News. George Stephanopoulos asked Trump what he would do if a foreign government offered him opposition research on his opponent in the 2020 election. Would he look at it or would he call the FBI?

Trump’s response was that he might do both. He’d look at the foreign “dirt” and call the FBI. This resulted in a 24-hour parade of cable news idiots accusing the president of a death-penalty crime. If President Trump’s enemies are willing to call for his death based on whimsical hypotheticals that are not even crimes, imagine how they must feel about the 63 million of us who voted for him!

If an American citizen takes information and provides it to a hostile foreign power, there is a very real chance that they have committed a crime – perhaps even treason, if the information is classified. There is no such statute for receiving information from a foreign government.

Imagine how stupid we would have to be as a nation if we actually made it a crime for our Chief Executive to let any foreign power tell him something in private. What if North Korea’s Kim Jong Un really wants to make a peace deal, but will only speak with the president directly on certain matters? Would it be treason for the president to pick up the phone?

According to the new standard from Democrats, it would absolutely be treason for a sitting president to receive “opposition” research from a foreign power, especially if the sitting president is a Republican and the oppo research is about a Democrat.

How ironic is it that the question about foreign oppo research was asked of Trump by former President Bill Clinton’s miniature Terminator, George Stephanopoulos?

Those of us who are old enough to remember will recall that it was George Stephanopoulos who came up with one of the cuddly Clinton administration’s most heartless political tactics: Ruthlessly smear Bill Clinton’s rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment victims. Whereas political campaigns try to dig up dirt on political opponents – you know, the people actually running for office – the Clinton administration did oppo research on private citizens who had voted for Bill Clinton.

Remember, Clinton’s victims weren’t people who were in the limelight or running for political office. They were women who had voted for Bill Clinton, and then had the misfortune to end up alone in a room with him only to discover to their horror that all of the rumors about him were true.

George Stephanopoulos was a master at opposition research and smearing anyone who dared to get in Bill and Hillary Clinton’s way.

Democrats are now acting as if opposition research is some newfangled thing that was invented by “Russia!” in the 2016 election. They’d like to pretend that FDR never bugged the offices of the Los Angeles Times back when that paper was critical of the New Deal, or that Lyndon Baines Johnson didn’t use the FBI to bug Barry Goldwater’s campaign plane.

The new standard from liberals is that it is a death penalty crime to suggest, as Trump did, that you would look at information about your opponent from a foreign power. Um… there’s no statute on the books against that. There is no law that says a president cannot look at research on an opponent when that info comes from a foreign power.

Even if you’re not the president and a foreign power offers the info, you can look at it! Plus, we even have this weird thing called the internet now.

I read a British newspaper called the Daily Mail fairly frequently. It’s edited by lefty, snooty Brit Piers Morgan. Say what you will about Morgan, but the Daily Mail frequently publishes stories about American politics on subjects that are under a total news blackout here in the US. The Daily Mail publishes well-sourced articles that you simply will not see – even on Fox News – here in the US.

Some of my favorite all-time investigative pieces in the Daily Mail are about Barack Obama’s shady Kenyan half-brother, Roy Obama. Roy served as the best man in Barack and Michelle’s wedding. Roy received preferential treatment from Lois Lerner at the IRS during the Obama presidency. He got a phony 501(c)3 charity called the “Barack Obama Foundation” approved by Lerner in 30 days flat, while Tea Party nonprofits were waiting in a never-ending bureaucratic hell for their groups to be approved for nonprofit status.

Roy then used his phony “charity” to raise money off his brother’s name from suckers in America, to pay for a personal mosque and a strip mall in Kenya.

Roy Obama also has a creative way to skirt the Sharia law rule that you can only have four wives in Islam. When Roy gets tired of a particular wife, he simply beats her until she runs back to her family. Then he trolls the local high schools and middle schools, according to the Daily Mail, until he finds a new “bride.” Resourceful!

Thanks to the Daily Mail, we also know that when the Obama administration was sending billion-dollar cash payments to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, a certain individual named Roy Obama was serving as the international financial broker for the MB.

All of this could be considered “foreign dirt” to harm the image of Barack Obama, because it A) comes from a foreign newspaper, and B) is not good for Barack Obama. But is it treason to read the Daily Mail? According to the Democrats’ new standard it absolutely is. You’ve committed a crime just by reading the above information about Obama’s shady brother!

Just don’t ask about Hillary Clinton literally paying Russians for phony dirt on Donald Trump. That’s totally different and not treason, because it’s always different when Democrats do it.