Replies

Throughout this discussion, I've been taking the position of, "If the Constitution doesn't specifically qualify these deeds as treason, then it isn't treason." We must then look to statutory law, which must therefore remain bounded as specified in the Constitution.

Accordingly, the reason I'm adverse to incorporating acts undermining or intended to depose an elected official is because the Constitution is a limiting document; i.e., if it isn't there it isn't Constitutional. Hence, what Tulsi Gabbard is calling treason isn't, because the Constitution sets its definition narrowly. Zero, Clapper, Brennan, and Comey certainly deserve 20 years in prison at least (public hanging would be my preference), but we can't call it "treason" because that deprecates respect for the limiting functions prescribed in the Constitution.

Where this gets legally sticky is the idea that whatever the Constitution doesn't specify is therefore not a legitimate power of the government, and when it comes to punishing officers of the government the document is horribly weak. Patrick Henry had a cow about it at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, and he was certainly right. Hence, I think we need an amendment here; else the Supreme Law isn't law from a constructionist perspective. Needless to say, we don't have many within the clown show of Congress capable of even conceptualizing such measures much less to make them air tight (Zero being an exemplar of the ultimate in weasels) but it is where we are, and demonstrates WHY we have such a hard time holding officers of the government responsible for what they do.

Yet if we did institute such measures, whom of those with any talent would want to assume such an office? Answer: Either from among the vast population of the totally craven or those likely few who would risk their lives in public service.

It's an interesting problem.

Antifa, BLM, ICE protesters, etc have engaged in seditious conspiracy, according to the statute you cited:

“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.”

I say that because it doesn’t require any involvement with a foreign country and since it involves hindering the execution of federal that applies to all of the States. In the same way, what Brennan, Clapper, etc have done all fit the prohibition on seditious conspiracy. And so do all of the “sanctuary cities”.

We never declare War any more so treason is impossible for anybody, if the upper-case War means declared war against a country. We have declared war on terrorism through the Authorization to Use Force, but I suppose that probably doesn’t mean War because it is not specifically a declaration of War on a country.

So technically, a person could give support to Iran who has a fatwa against our President and constantly says it wants to destroy the Great Satan (US) - and in fact could use any force it wanted against us but it would still not be treason because the US Congress will never declare War on any given country. So for all practical purposes there is no such thing as technical treason. Even giving China, Iran, etc our military secrets and technology can’t be called treason. And because it doesn’t involve the direct use of force it can’t even be called seditious conspiracy. There is thus no Constitutional prohibition against outright giving away all our secrets, technology, or even our military equipment to hostile countries. Those things could only be prosecuted using lesser statutes.

The Constitutional solution for officers who break their oaths of office (is it the same language as reasons to impeach a President - “high crimes and misdemeanors” and for seditious conspiracy?) is impeachment and removal but because of the Cloward-Piven Plan’s use of motor voter and illegal immigration to change the balance of the House - by counting illegals as those to be represented - until that situation is changed (at least 5 years from now) there are enough seditious conspiracists in the legislative branch to make conviction of those people impossible. The black-robed tyrants are trying to make it impossible to even FIRE them, much less convict them in the Senate for seditious conspiracy.

And IMHO all of these people could accurately be described as “treasonous” even though not guilty of actual treason since seditious conspiracy is included among what is called the treason laws, as TigersEye says. If the Constitution not saying exactly who has the job of prosecuting seditious conspiracy means the feds can’t do it, then by the Constitution it would fall to the States to do it, right? Can States have the responsibility and right to enforce the US Constitution? Then again, SCOTUS is expressly given the task of DECIDING all matters arising out of the Constitution, so maybe the States would have to prosecute seditious conspiracy but it would have to be decided by SCOTUS? Does that fit the original meaning of the US Constitution?

There are a LOT of people who could/should be brought up on seditious conspiracy - probably including most of the former leadership of the CIA since they HAVE been doing black ops (use of force) inside the country. Most of the DNC should be brought up for conspiring with the likes of that guy who was exposed by James O’Keefe for what was called “diabolical” conspiracies including some we know include violence/force (wish I could remember his name). No doubt that Bill Ayers should be in prison for 20 years, and since he was constantly visiting Obama in the White House and because Obama was in the same group at Columbia (IIRC) an investigation into whether Obama was a co-conspirator would be in order.

I will be more exact in my language. Thank you for bringing up the technicalities and finer points.

Excellent post! I understand exactly where you’re coming from and in essence agree with you.

When it comes to Gabbard’s statements I am not inclined to apply such a rigid standard. She is not indicting anyone or submitting legal filings she is just expressing her opinion to the news services and the public on the evidence she has found and declassified and now referred to Justice.

I look at her comments as a negotiating tactic. She is setting the narrative high. Trump does it all the time and he seems fairly competent at negotiating things. It will now be up to Pam Bondi to find the specific crimes per the specific persons and when she announces indictments she should, and I expect will, be very legally precise as to what statutes are involved and characterize them in the proper legal terms.

She can say, for example, “We charging Barack Hussein 0bama with sedition. It is not treason, as some have said his crimes rise to, but sedition is only a hair’s breadth lesser crime than treason and very much in the same category. It is a heinous act that greatly damages the foundations of our nation. We intend to prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt.”