Treason:

Violation of the allegiance owed to one’s sovereign or state; betrayal of one’s country: the Constitution of of the United States (Article III, Section 3 declares, “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
Any betraying, treachery, breach of faith, or betrayal of trust.

Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged; Second Edition 1968

Assumption:
1. John Kerry represents the government of Barrack Hussein Obama
2. either John Kerry obeys his master or John Kerry is rogue.

Inferences: If John Kerry is obedient, he is spouting the party line
If John Kerry is a rogue, why hasn't spineless Obama fired him?

The logical conclusion, if such logic can be said to be applicable to the American dysfunctional political system, is that most likely Kerry is Obama's mouthpiece.

With this line of thinking, I was intrigued when surfing YouTube to find this: John Kerry's mistakenly revealing the truth of Obama's Syrian misadventure(s). (3 minute video)

Further research, yielded this article appearing in an unlikely location: the New York Times

You may find one of Kerry's quotes either humorous or maddening, perhaps both:

“The problem is the Russians don’t care about international law, and we do.”

But the Times, as may be expected by now, gutted a critical portion of the audio, leaked from a September, 2016 meeting between Kerry and approximately two dozen Syrians attending the United Nations meeting.

The following contains the leaked audio, the vocal quality of which is variable. Note some speakers are using Arabic, hence the need for a translator. Duration is 36:50. The key part is at about 26:00 but there are lesser bon mots at about 18:00 and 21:00.
I am unable to get the video to mount but this is the URL: Obama's policy in Syria

The nugget here is that Kerry says that Obama knew, prior to Russian intervention, that ISIL was growing stronger but wanted to wait until Assad was willing to talk to these "moderate" rebels, you know: ISIL, Al-Qaeda, Nusra front,etc.
Then Vladimir had finally had enough of Obama's dithering and acted strongly by directly entering the battle.

Whether or not "the red line in the sand" was a good idea or not, this is yet another case of Obama's many misjudgments about Syria (and Libya, and Afghanistan, etc.).

Obama, with Killary's connivance abetted arms shipments from Libya to these "moderate" terrorists and did so knowingly. A somewhat more indirect route to accomplish the arming of rebels was through military equipment sent to Saudi, Qatar, etc., which were known to be trans-shipped to Syria.

Let's get back to the Treason definition quoted above, but this time with added emphasis:

“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Why is this treason? Has Assad's Syrian government ever attacked the United States? NO.
Has ISIL ever attacked the United States? YES.
Has Al-Qaeda ever attacked the United States? YES.

Are we not allegedly at war with both Al-Qaeda and ISIL? YES. Does this then not make them our enemies? Most people would say YES.

Does directly and indirectly aiding our enemies constitute treason? If not, please enlighten me as to what acts would qualify.

In my opinion, part of Obama's shameful legacy will be treason. And a failed treason at that, in the same manner as Benedict Arnold's treason failed to produce his desired results.

Patrick Henry, Revolutionary firebrand said it best: If this be treason, make the most of it". Bumbling, fumbling, stumbling Obama could not even pull his own treason off!

Barack Obama, a president who will live in infamy.