Posted on 05/11/2020 5:18:01 AM PDT by blam
In a Sunday interview on New York 970 radio’s “The Cats Roundtable,” Rudy Giuliani, personal legal counsel for President Donald Trump, weighed in on the Department of Justice’s decision to drop charges against former National Security Adviser Ret. Gen. Michael Flynn after new evidence came to light showing FBI agents attempted to entrap Flynn into lying to them.
Giuliani said former CIA Director John Brennan, along with former FBI Director James Comey, orchestrated the Deep State’s attempt to take down Trump, which he described as “as close to treason as you can get.”
“This is now an inexperienced prosecutor’s hypothesis … I think Brennan ran this damn thing,” Giuliani told host John Catsimatidis. “I particularly think Brennan ran the Papadopoulos-Carter Page part of it because that’s a very elaborate counter-intelligence plan — kind of a stupid one. Brennan is smart, but if he goes overboard, he makes a lot of mistakes, which is why he was in trouble all his career. So, that one I’m sure is orchestrated by CIA. And who the hell would’ve done it in the CIA but a screwball like Brennan?”
He added, “I think they have Comey. And I think, despite the fact that he got let off a couple of times — and I have no inside information — I believe that Attorney General Barr was saving it for the really good case, the one that comes pretty close to treason, because what they did after [Trump] was elected, I don’t say that it’s treason, but it’s as close to treason as you can get. They wanted to take out the lawfully elected President of the United States, and they wanted to do it by lying, submitting false affidavits, using phony witnesses — in other words, they wanted to do it by illegal means.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Not sedition.
Subversion. Aid and comfort to America's enemy. China was so pissed over the billions lost in trade negotiations that they set out to destroty us.
That’s pretty good... young-uns might not get it... :)
Yes indeed, and well said. We, that being American society, might also provide a small disincentive against it as well... politely, of course, but publicly and to all parties to it...
It was widely understood to mean born here of citizen parents until a concerted effort was made to undermine the original intent.
We have quite a few freepers assisting that effort because they are fans of one ineligible or another.
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
No, certainly not at this point, would we now...
What’s it called when both parties collude to put an ineligible British subject/Kenyan/Indonesian in office as President?
Sedition Rudy, as a lawyer you should know the difference
Hmmm... seems that we're getting into a semantic argument about the crime of treason.
Would a country that will sometime in the future, after said conspiracy, commit an act of planetary bioterrorism be construed as an enemy for the purpose of defining treason?
Don't get me wrong, I my own self would have no problem seeing every person involved with this deal doing the Tyburn jig, the Spandau ballet, whatever, after the fair trials and upon conviction.
But, conviction for what?
That’s code for letting Dems off the hook as usual. Bill, close. Hillary, close. It’s gate, close. Fast n furious, close. Benghazi, close. Obama Russia gate et Al, close. Nothing ever happens.
Meant IRS gate. Lol.
I call it a FAILED Coup attempt.
As Dr. Jones, my former Political Science professor taught a coup has to have an description: a bloodless coup, for example.
This, I hope to God is a failed coup attempt.
He should have stayed quiet. Anytime he runs his mouth, the president has to answer for his remarks. How could anyone forget how muddled it all became because he was in the news all the time? Go away, Rudy. He hasn’t done the president any favors...
I think many members of the media are mixed up in it too. That’s why they act like they do. Fear of being caught with evidence to back it up.
“W”? Is that you?
It was a coup d’etat using the bureaucratic/judicial state instead of an army or violence. Stalin would be proud.
“It is not criminbal sedition, only becuase it was done without advocating or using violence.”
.... i disagree. It was done with the threat of violence, as their actions were under the color f law, which implies the power to inflict violence via arrest and imprisonment, and if you resist their efforts, deadly force.
I looked up what the Constitution said *after* making my comment.
Do you have a citation in law to add to the conversation?
I would agree that considering the provision metaphorically is ground we definitely don’t want to go to - that said, while the definition in the Constitution is narrower than I had thought, it is also broader than what you have said, in that it is not merely aiding our enemy, but also making war against the United States.
see my post 16
exactly why Obama and Harris are not NBCs At least Jindal was honest and decided not to run.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.