Tulsi Gabbard: These documents detail a TREASONOUS CONSPIRACY by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House

X ^ | July 18 | Tulsi Gabbard

[RandFan]

@DNIGabbard

These documents detail a treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people and try to usurp the President from fulfilling his mandate.

This betrayal concerns every American. The integrity of our democratic republic demands that every person involved be investigated and brought to justice to prevent this from ever happening again.

I am providing all documents to the Department of Justice to deliver the accountability that President Trump, his family, and the American people deserve.

[chopperk]

Seems Tulsi was able to penetrate the shield Soros and dems put around Obozo since he did their dirty work. Sucker.

[US_MilitaryRules]

And nothing will happen again.

[metmom]

Maybe but are they valid?

Depends on whet5her people accept an autopen *signature* as valid. And then there’s proving biden authorized it.

[Carry_Okie]

Seems to me that in that context the word “enemies” specifically includes potential domestic enemies.

Look, I've read the Federal Convention Debate; Madison's notes and then some. Yours is a stretch.

Doesn’t say it has to be state actors/enemies.

"War" is capitalized for a reason.

You can "seems to me" all you want. That doesn't mean it's true.

And those who would fabricate evidence to try to oust the duly-elected President would necessarily qualify as enemies of the United States.

Certainly enemies of the President, not necessarily enemies of the United States nor its Constitution. There were plenty of those who would have given their left nut to oust Bubba, Zero, or Brandon physically, believing (correctly) that each had betrayed the Constitution and his Oath of Office. That doesn't make them traitors.

[TigersEye]

Under the statute 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES there are 10 sections, each a separate category of crimes, that are all considered permutations of treason.

2381. Treason.
2382. Misprision of treason.
2383. Rebellion or insurrection.
2384. Seditious conspiracy.
2385. Advocating overthrow of Government.
2386. Registration of certain organizations.
2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally.
2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war.
2389. Recruiting for service against United States.
2390. Enlistment to serve against United States.

[Old West Conservative]

DRINKING GAME!

“Wake me up when”

DRINK!!!!!

Courtesy of Les Miserables Freepers!

[fwdude]

Wake me up when something substantive actually happens.

[cgbg]

Good questions about the definition of treason.

My view (which has zero legal standing) is that the Deep State is real. It is a criminal enterprise. The names discussed in this case are among the key players.

The Deep State is an enemy actor.

Supporting it would be treason.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[Uncle Miltie]

An ugly house for an ugly couple.

[Dawgreg]

Rush ‘splained all of this to me years and years ago. I sure miss him. :(

Me too......good to see you Diana

[Lurker]

Yea but Epstein!!

L

[Lurker]

Go look up the requirements for a charge of Treason in America. It’s right there in the Constitution.

Then get back to me.

L

[MikelTackNailer]

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.

[Jim Noble]

The Constitutional definition of treason is there for a reason. That reason is the application of the charge to political enemies of the King’s government.

At the time (1788), the King still had the power to appoint ministers of his own choice, who acted in the King’s name - since it was, by ancient custom, treason to work against the King, it was not COMPLETELY unreasonable to suppose that working against his ministers in the normal, political way was working against the King.

The problem with any treason prosecution in the US is the use of the plural “their” enemies, “their” referring to the States.

It isn’t acceptable to me for any Federal prosecutor to charge any US citizen with “adhering to ‘their’ enemies”, or with “Levying war against ‘them’”, since the whole point of writing it in the Constitution was to create an OBJECTIVE standard.

Obviously, FR was full of “enemies” of the Clinton and Obama administrations. Just as obviously, this did not meet the definition of “adhering to the enemies of the States united”, nor the definition of “Levying war against the States united”.

The Rosenbergs were not charged with treason, because the Congress had not declared war on the USSR. Jane Fonda was not charged with treason, because the Congress had not declared war on North Vietnam. Bradley Manning was not charged with treason because the Congress had not declared war on Afghanistan or Iraq.

What Obama and his buddies did was a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government of the united States. This is a crime under the US Code, with a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

It’s not treason.

[cgbg]

Thanks.

Makes sense.

[Jim Noble]

I should have added, Constitutional “treason” is not commited against the government of the United States, which is an “it”, not a “them”.

Treason is committed against “them” - the States. When the States are united in War (as they must be, for a war to be won), then adhering to the enemy against whom the States, in Congress assembled, have declared War is treason.

Robert E. Lee was not charged with treason, for the simple reason that South Carolina and Virginia (etc, etc) were not enemies of “them”, and he did not levy War against “them”.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

*BIG SMILE* :)

[TigersEye]

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.

[butterdezillion]

We have a process to remove Presidents who break their oaths.

We also have a process to elect Presidents, and for bureaucrats to try to oust the duly-elected President through means other than impeachment or the 25th Amendment process.... is an assault on both our Constitution AND the individual states in the United States who contributed to the lawful election of that President. And ESPECIALLY when the people doing it have sworn to protect and defend the US Constitution from the very people that they themselves are.

So what, exactly, WOULD be treason as you see it?