It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Mr. Todd told Mediaite on Friday that Mrs. Wasserman Schultz’s email was a nonissue. “I think it’s clear what it was. Someone complaining about coverage,” Mr. Todd said. “Something that happens daily from every campaign we interact with.”
“Chuck. See below. I would like to discuss this with you today. Can you reach out to Luis (Miranda) to schedule a call? Thanks,” Wasserman wrote Todd on May 18.
There’s just no evidence that the process has been rigged.
Is this even on the same level as Sean Hannity being a part of Team Trump? Would you say that Sean Hannity's role in the last election and since should outrage people more than #RussiaGate if it turns out that there was collusion between Team Trump and the Russians?
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: JinMI
I just lost 15 pounds in the last two months, I do exercises dancing love it, but sleep is been bad, did took a vacation last December, I think you are right, I need another one but nowhere you can go to stay away from the incredible disparity of what is going in America this days, the whole word is watching.
BTW JinMI, I thing you are cool, yes you are.
Yep. Treason, at least in the US Code, requires overt war to be ongoing at the time the act or acts happened.
According to the United States Constitution, Article III, § 3, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
However, Congress has passed laws creating related offenses that punish conduct that undermines the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the Espionage Act of 1917, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. Some of these laws are still in effect. Some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.
The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore, the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695.
The elements of treason are the same under state and federal law:
the defendant owes allegiance to the government, and
the defendant intentionally betrays that allegiance by either
levying war against the government, or
giving aid or comfort to the government’s enemies.
Because treason must be intentional, someone who unintentionally aids the enemy, or is forced to by duress or coercion, isn’t guilty of treason. (See The Defense of Duress.) There can be no accomplice liability for treason; every participant is considered a principal.
Enemy is relative I would suppose. Last administration and current administration would certainly see it differently. Let alone the people's end user evidence and opinion.