Replies

Good reply, thank you, albeit one wonders if the statute goes beyond its Constitutional limits. Certainly these vicious monsters are guilty of 2384... or are they?

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. It does get a little vague in application. Yet in every one of the above areas, the crime involves the use of force. The Russia Hoax, for example, was hardly that. Hence, I think it hyperbolic to apply the term with its implied ultimate penalty, however deserved it might be in my estimation.

A new term I was vague on! "Misprision of Treason". From Wikipedia:

Misprision of treason is an offense found in many common law jurisdictions around the world, having been inherited from English law. It is committed by someone who knows a treason is being or is about to be committed but does not report it[1] to a proper authority.

In the United States misprision of treason is a federal offense, committed where someone who has knowledge of the commission of any treason against the United States, conceals such knowledge and does not inform the President, a federal judge, a State governor, or a State judge (18 U.S.C. § 2382). It is punishable by a fine and up to seven years in federal prison. It is also a crime punishable under the criminal laws of many states.

On a down side I learned that, due to the U.S. never formally declaring war on Vietnam, Hanoi Jane is technically innocent of Treason - so her appointment will have to wait for the Afterlife before THE Judge. I take comfort that at 87 years old that won't be long now.

Thank you. I’d say it definitely fits parts of 2384. From a quick glance at it I don’t think all parts of it have to have been committed to be in violation of that section.

My take is that only the first, treason, sec. 2381, and maybe 2382, are literally treason as defined by the Constitution. The other eight sections are violations of statute laws that are Constitutional because Congress enacted them but are not specifically described in the Constitution.

They may not fit the Constitutions definition of treason, and thus are separate sections, but in character they are addressing acts that directly harm the U.S. in intent as well as in reasonable and potential consequences.

So, while it may not be “Constitutionally correct” to call the crimes ‘treason’ they are, by character, treasonous and can be called such in the popular vernacular. I believe even lawyers and legal experts refer to the entire statute, 18 USC Ch. 115, as the “treason statutes” as a matter of reference although not as a strict legal term of art.

Since Tulsi Gabbard was speaking ad hoc and not addressing a legal proceeding I think she was correct in that context.

Do Antifa, BLM, and the ICE protesters attempt by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States? Have these characters who have tried by extra-Constitutional means to oust a duly-elected President also conspired with these belligerent groups?