Care to provide a source to all those nuke threats or should I roam the informational warzone on my own? And also explain how that would be one-sided Russian aggression rather than escalation between two great power as has been tradition for 70 years now? Even if what you say is true, mere threats of warfare don't equate to training terrorists and backing Al-Qaeda, which the Taliban is known to have done. Those were literally United Stadia's enemies, one of which even did a successful attack on USA soil that killed 3 thousand, as you'll never forget. If not financing a foreign country's war with Russia is treason, then everybody (in and out of government) who advocated for pulling out of Afghanistan should be tried first. Obviously I don't believe that either of those actually are treason, just pointing out how nonsensical this notion is.

"Cyber attacks" and "information warfare" are just hyperbolic terms for things every non-allied powerful country engages in. Even allies like the USA and EU spy on each other.

It’s not the same as supporting pulling out of Afghanistan because Taliban is no threat to the US.

You're going to have to provide some source as to how much more threatening Russia is to the USA compared to Taliban, since the USA explicitly fought a war "of self defence" against those ones. Conceding defeat in a war on foreign land being considered "high treason" because you don't like it would make most freedomnian military adventures since the 60s very dubyous as well. Russia doing whatever it is you think they're doing still doesn't make them your explicit enemy until you actually declare on war on them, which even the most hawkish Democrat will caution against.

Russia is a global threat with its disinformation, blackmail and bribery campaigns that interfere with US and global politics. That makes it much more of a threat to the US than the Taliban.

Virgin literal terrorist training Vs Chad news website and "bribery"

Edit: someone down thread says that selling votes to foreign governments is treason in the US. Sounds reasonable but I don’t know.

I doubt that is true and you shouldn't trust hearsay on the internet, but if that's the case then your whole lobbying industry should treasonous as well. You can go read the law to see that is not the case, but you'd have to be very naïve to think such law could even be applied properly in the USA anyways. Pre-empting your knee-jerk response, "giving them aid" does not apply to "stopping the giving of aid to the enemies of our enemies".