Replies

Agreed. Swifts have been talking about BETRAYAL since at least the third ad. This one is the most serious of course because it IMPLIES treason. O'Neil stopped short of calling it treason, too--emphasizing betrayal. I thought because he was a lawyer he'd have to be more careful than laymen. Nevertheless: Treason is the ONLY crime defined in the Constitution, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy is part of that definition. It requires two witnesses, must meet all sorts of conditions, and is near-impossible TODAY to prosecute. It's also time-consuming to have to educate the public as to what constitutes it, impossible in a 30-sec. spot.

But the whole thing is strangely familiar: Joe McCarthy's name has come up recently of late. More circularity: the danger as he saw it was that communists were in the state department which was met with how could they be communists if they were IN the state department. Kerry's a traitor and a U. S. Senator :: U. S. senators can't be traitors?

It's preposterous.

When the charges are brought before a court, both sides get to present their side of the case. There may be unknown exculpatory evidence that is not knowable by someone without both access & clearance. We've seen a portion of redacted released FBI docs, but we have no idea if there are some more which have current national security implication...

There has been a lot of things being tossed about implying treason by George Bush & people in his administration long before the recounts began. Thing is, in this instance, there quite a bit of proof to back up the implications.

I'm not going to get into speculation about a VLWC, cuz I think most of the travelers (if not all) just act like commies cuz it's a natural progression from the kind of elitist thinking prevalent in even the dumbest representatives on the left.