Treasonous Conspiracy!

[Big girl]

On 7/19/2025 at 4:42 AM, DCT said:

On 7/19/2025 at 4:22 AM, DCT said:

   

Wag the dog

[Big girl]

17 hours 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.

Trump is trying to take the spotlight away from himself

[Big girl]

On 7/20/2025 at 11:24 AM, baddog said:

Already answered by Epstein’s lawyer. Trump is not on any list. I knew it wouldn’t be good enough for the libs. You have trouble with facts.

Now, this is a thread about Obama. He committed a treasonous act which you care to overlook. SURPRISE

Sure he did. Did you see the AI generated video of Obama getting arrested for treason

 

 

[thetragichippy]

22 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Trump is trying to take the spotlight away from himself

Why would he do that? He loves the spotlight.  He's been winning in the Supreme Court, in Congress, Democrats has a 19% approval rate (a 19 year low) - he organized a cease fire, he eliminated Iran as a Nuclear threat, The tariffs that everyone thought would tank the market has done the complete opposite and the market has set records.....all while in June Tariff income hit 113 billion for the year,,,,,the most ever....

No wonder the Democrats want to talk about Epstein.....lol

[baddog]

30 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Sure he did. Did you see the AI generated video of Obama getting arrested for treason

 

 

Why would anyone watch an AI video?

[Boyz N Da Hood]

9 years later! Why now? 

[thetragichippy]

8 minutes ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

9 years later! Why now? 

I think we have went over this. This didn't get noticed until 1/2 way through his first term. The Durham report showed some shady stuff, but nothing he thought could he criminal. Then there was 4 years of Biden admin. No one would seriously thought they would investigate Obama when they were busy trying to make Jan 6 worse than 911.  Looks like the previous Democrat decided to investigate and founds some pretty damaging emails concerning what Obama knew.......

[baddog]

6 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

I think we have went over this. This didn't get noticed until 1/2 way through his first term. The Durham report showed some shady stuff, but nothing he thought could he criminal. Then there was 4 years of Biden admin. No one would seriously thought they would investigate Obama when they were busy trying to make Jan 6 worse than 911.  Looks like the previous Democrat decided to investigate and founds some pretty damaging emails concerning what Obama knew.......

I mentioned Hillary’s 33,000 e-mails earlier and look at this…..lmao

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Boyz N Da Hood]

17 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

I think we have went over this. This didn't get noticed until 1/2 way through his first term. The Durham report showed some shady stuff, but nothing he thought could he criminal. Then there was 4 years of Biden admin. No one would seriously thought they would investigate Obama when they were busy trying to make Jan 6 worse than 911.  Looks like the previous Democrat decided to investigate and founds some pretty damaging emails concerning what Obama knew.......

Ok cool! Can't wait to see what this brings  🍿

[baddog]

Just visited cnn home page and not single article on Obama…..and some people call that journalism. What a joke.

[Big girl]

2 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

Why would he do that? He loves the spotlight.  He's been winning in the Supreme Court, in Congress, Democrats has a 19% approval rate (a 19 year low) - he organized a cease fire, he eliminated Iran as a Nuclear threat, The tariffs that everyone thought would tank the market has done the complete opposite and the market has set records.....all while in June Tariff income hit 113 billion for the year,,,,,the most ever....

No wonder the Democrats want to talk about Epstein.....lol

Because he is trying to get people to forget about the Epstein case.

[Big girl]

1 hour ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

Ok cool! Can't wait to see what this brings  🍿

Nothing. Trump is wagging the dog, so that he can get the spotlight off of himself. He is pathetic 

[baddog]

5 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Nothing. Trump is wagging the dog, so that he can get the spotlight off of himself. He is pathetic 

What are you talking about? This wasn’t on cnn so you must have visited Fox. What if Trump did this to Obama? It would be earth shattering as it should be. You people kill me. Unthinking robots. Tell me again what Obama did for black people?

[Big girl]

4 hours ago, baddog said:

Why would anyone watch an AI video?

Idiots. They thought  it was real Trump was trying to fool people

[Big girl]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

What are you talking about? This wasn’t on cnn so you must have visited Fox. What if Trump did this to Obama? It would be earth shattering as it should be. You people kill me. Unthinking robots. Tell me again what Obama did for black people?

Didn't feel like typing

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

5 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Idiots. They thought  it was real Trump was trying to fool people

Lots of people making videos out there. Trump made this one?

[Big girl]

Yes, the term "Redskin" is widely considered offensive by many Native Americans. While some polls have shown that a portion of Native Americans are not personally offended by the name, 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, there is a strong consensus among many Native American organizations and individuals that the term is a derogatory and racist slur. 

 

Here's why the term is considered offensive:

• Historical Context:

  The term "Redskin" has a deeply rooted history in racist portrayals of Native Americans, often associated with violence, dehumanization, and the taking of scalps for bounty. 

   

• Dehumanization:

  The term reduces individuals to a single, superficial characteristic – their skin color – ignoring their diverse cultures, languages, and identities. 

   

• Stereotyping:

  It perpetuates harmful stereotypes and caricatures of Native Americans, often associated with imagery of violence, warfare, and a romanticized, inaccurate view of their history and culture. 

   

• Impact on Self-Esteem:

  The use of such terms can negatively impact the self-esteem and cultural identity of Native American individuals and communities, especially children. 

   

• Organized Opposition:

  Many Native American organizations and tribes have actively campaigned against the use of the term "Redskins" and other derogatory mascots and names in sports. 

[Big girl]

3 minutes ago, baddog said:

Lots of people making videos out there. Trump made this one?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

5 minutes ago, Big girl said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Your own article says Trump reposted, meaning someone else made it. Use your head for something besides a hat rack. Even The Village People want to find out who made it, probably for copyright abuse. Geez, you’re so anxious to hang Trump, you don’t even read your own articles.

[OlDawg]

5 hours ago, baddog said:

Why would anyone watch an AI video?

They’re becoming so real looking now, it’s hard to tell what’s real and what’s not. Pretty soon it’ll get to where if you don’t see it live, you’ll have to really dig to find out if it’s real or AI.

Gonna’ make it even more difficult to make sure you’re getting something accurate from the direct source. Have to think about more than just ‘spin’ nowadays.

[Reagan]

 

Interesting!

[Reagan]

 

Excellent!

[tvc184]

14 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

Why would he do that? He loves the spotlight.  He's been winning in the Supreme Court, in Congress, Democrats has a 19% approval rate (a 19 year low) - he organized a cease fire, he eliminated Iran as a Nuclear threat, The tariffs that everyone thought would tank the market has done the complete opposite and the market has set records.....all while in June Tariff income hit 113 billion for the year,,,,,the most ever....

No wonder the Democrats want to talk about Epstein.....lol

Yes, that is the diversion. 
 

When it’s all you have left…..

[OlDawg]

7 hours ago, Reagan said:

 

Interesting!

So, are we taking advice from Brennan now?

Again, not disputing the seriousness of the crime. Yes, it was a crime if proven. Just disputing the characterization from a legal standpoint. SCOTUS has ruled on treason many times as you've pointed out. This doesn't appear to fit. But, it does fit numerous other felony categories that could justify SERIOUS jail time among other penalties.

I've mentioned falsifying documents already. Election subversion would also seem to be an easy one if the documented evidence proves out. Providing false testimony, and--yes--even criminal conspiracy could be other pertinent charges. These are all felonies in this circumstance.

Not quite sure what it says about us that we could have 2 POTUS/former POTUS with felony convictions.

[baddog]

Libs made fun of Trump for not “draining the swamp” his first go round. Taking down Obama, Hillary, and their evil cronies is draining the heart of the swamp. I will not make light of the hoax Obama and Hillary created to take down Trump and mislead the American people for years. The typical lib response….”nothing to see here” because they don’t care that they were duped.