Treasonous Conspiracy!

[baddog]

44 minutes ago, UT alum said:

I have a hard time listening

Agree

[Reagan]

8 hours ago, baddog said:

You are correct. It is called sedition. I will use my terms accordingly.

"Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines treason against the United States as either levying war against them or giving aid and comfort to their enemies. It also states that a person can only be convicted of treason based on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court, and Congress has the power to declare the punishment for treason."

This levying war, not only war but the courts have used rebellion also, could be with bullets are actions taken by individuals against the US (rebellion) through subterfuge.  I would think that what obama and his cronies did to sabotage a Presidency and have attempted coup against a sitting President could possibly defined an act of war.   I did a little research.  Examples:

Based on available records, treason convictions in the U.S. have almost always occurred during or in connection with recognized wars or rebellions that courts treated as equivalent to "levying war." For example:

Whiskey Rebellion (1794): Two individuals, John Mitchell and Philip Weigel, were convicted of treason for their roles in an armed uprising against federal tax collection in Pennsylvania. This was not a war with a foreign enemy but an internal rebellion, interpreted as "levying war" against the United States. Both were pardoned by President George Washington.

Aaron Burr’s Conspiracy (1807): Burr was tried for treason for allegedly plotting to seize territory and form a separate nation. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, acquitted Burr, ruling that conspiracy alone did not constitute "levying war" unless there was an actual assemblage of armed forces. This case, though not resulting in a conviction, occurred outside a formal war and clarified that treason requires overt acts, not just planning.

Shays’ Rebellion (1786-1787): John Bly and Charles Rose were convicted of treason and hanged for participating in an armed uprising in Massachusetts against state authorities. This was prosecuted under state law, not federal, and occurred before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, but it was considered "levying war" against the state.

Thomas Dorr (1844): Dorr was convicted of treason against Rhode Island for leading an armed attempt to overthrow the state government during the Dorr Rebellion, a non-war context involving a dispute over suffrage. He was sentenced to life in prison.

John Brown (1859): Brown was convicted of treason against Virginia for his raid on Harpers Ferry, an attempt to incite a slave rebellion. This was prosecuted under state law and occurred in a non-war context, though it was treated as "levying war" against the state.

While state-level convictions like those of Dorr and Brown occurred in non-war contexts (rebellions treated as "levying war" against the state), federal treason convictions have consistently been tied to wartime or rebellion scenarios.

So, yes, either treason or sedition can be used concerning obama and others.

[OlDawg]

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

"Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines treason against the United States as either levying war against them or giving aid and comfort to their enemies. It also states that a person can only be convicted of treason based on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court, and Congress has the power to declare the punishment for treason."

This levying war, not only war but the courts have used rebellion also, could be with bullets are actions taken by individuals against the US (rebellion) through subterfuge.  I would think that what obama and his cronies did to sabotage a Presidency and have attempted coup against a sitting President could possibly defined an act of war.   I did a little research.  Examples:

Based on available records, treason convictions in the U.S. have almost always occurred during or in connection with recognized wars or rebellions that courts treated as equivalent to "levying war." For example:

Whiskey Rebellion (1794): Two individuals, John Mitchell and Philip Weigel, were convicted of treason for their roles in an armed uprising against federal tax collection in Pennsylvania. This was not a war with a foreign enemy but an internal rebellion, interpreted as "levying war" against the United States. Both were pardoned by President George Washington.

Aaron Burr’s Conspiracy (1807): Burr was tried for treason for allegedly plotting to seize territory and form a separate nation. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, acquitted Burr, ruling that conspiracy alone did not constitute "levying war" unless there was an actual assemblage of armed forces. This case, though not resulting in a conviction, occurred outside a formal war and clarified that treason requires overt acts, not just planning.

Shays’ Rebellion (1786-1787): John Bly and Charles Rose were convicted of treason and hanged for participating in an armed uprising in Massachusetts against state authorities. This was prosecuted under state law, not federal, and occurred before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, but it was considered "levying war" against the state.

Thomas Dorr (1844): Dorr was convicted of treason against Rhode Island for leading an armed attempt to overthrow the state government during the Dorr Rebellion, a non-war context involving a dispute over suffrage. He was sentenced to life in prison.

John Brown (1859): Brown was convicted of treason against Virginia for his raid on Harpers Ferry, an attempt to incite a slave rebellion. This was prosecuted under state law and occurred in a non-war context, though it was treated as "levying war" against the state.

While state-level convictions like those of Dorr and Brown occurred in non-war contexts (rebellions treated as "levying war" against the state), federal treason convictions have consistently been tied to wartime or rebellion scenarios.

So, yes, either treason or sedition can be used concerning obama and others.

SCOTUS has ruled that motives can’t be questioned for official acts of a POTUS. This was an official act by Obama. It wasn’t an attack on America itself. It was a political hit job. Very different.

This doesn’t mean others are protected in the same fashion as the SCOTUS ruling only applies to POTUS. But, I still don’t see treason or sedition being applied. I could see some type of falsifying documents charge for those involved besides Obama.

Only the far right fringe would say differently. Just another flashy object that continues to help erode the people’s trust in their government.

Trump would do well to take away all their security clearances immediately which is in his authority. I believe he already has for Brennan. Not sure on others. I’d also make sure Obama (and Clinton/s) was not allowed any classified info. He’s a simple civilian now like the rest of us.