It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
I have to disagree with the New York Times.
"B-Movie plot line" is far too generous; this ridiculous dumb-show is pure third-rate Reality TV.
"If Trump survives this crisis --- which may mean that American democracy doesn't --- tax cuts will have a lot to do with it."
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Traitors are those who lie and support the lies which are tearing down our governmental infrastructure for no other reason than political advantage. There are traitors of every political stripe. Their calling card is constant lies and promulgation of lies.
In the United States, there are both federal and state laws prohibiting treason.[1] It was defined in Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution. Most state constitutions include similar definitions of treason, specifically limited to levying war against the state, "adhering to the enemies" of the state, or aiding the enemies of the state, and requiring two witnesses or a confession in open court.[2] However, fewer than thirty people have ever been charged with treason under these laws.[3] Constitutionally, citizens of the United States owe allegiance to at least two sovereigns. One is the United States, and the other is their state. They can therefore potentially commit treason against either, or against both.[4] At least fourteen people have been charged with treason against various states; at least six were convicted, five of whom were executed. However, no person has ever been executed for treason against the federal government.[5]
dont see any levving of war charges ,they seemed to be asking for info not giving aid and comfort , "adhearing to the enemies part" is a bit more vague politics.stackexchange.com... as they apparently dont have a set legal definition of note the following crimes are not considered treason ,from above link
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
so thats why none of the past presidential assassins were ever charged with treason
So what isn't it? The Founders implicitly chose not to include these as treason: Planning to kill a political leader 'Violating' the wife or virgin daughter of the executive Counterfeiting the national seal Counterfeiting coinage Actually killing a political leader
originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
you guys are something else- are you okay? LOL puss tactic.
court documents unsealed monday describe emails between Papadopoulos and an unnamed "campaign supervisor." turns out that supervisor is sam clovis. sam was questioned last week by Mueller's team. he's trumps pick to become agriculture scientist - he is not a scientist.
The Mueller team has chosen to base its work out of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, impaneling a grand jury there and filing its charges with the court. Manafort and Gates appeared at the courthouse Monday to enter not-guilty pleas, and Papadopoulos pleaded guilty there Oct. 5.
An investigative reporter for USA Today, looking through the court's docket in the wake of the Mueller news, noticed four more sealed cases whose case numbers fall between those involving Papadopoulos and Manafort.
Moreover, the indictment naming Manafort and Gates is labeled "Indictment (B)" – suggesting to some that there's an "Indictment (A)" yet to be released.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas
I would say not. When there is an organized, consistent, intentional and direct attempt to undermine and ultimately destroy our government and institutions and way of life, particularly in concert with foreign actors who also wish that destruction, then we are at war, and those responsible for such acts, no matter when or where, or what f-ing political party they are part of should be fought against with everything we have within us.
It's my belief that we now face one of those choke-points in our history. What we are seeing right now is a culmination of a couple of decades of efforts to undermine and obliterate everything it means to be American.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
Ok, so handing down these indictments on Manafort (who this thread is about), is to put pressure on them to give up what they know about Russian attempts to influence the election?
I'm curious as to why this particular indictment (Manafort's) was leaked when it was.
As far as the indictments that were unsealed against Papadopolous, that's really a discussion for another thread. I will say this here regarding this guy, he just doesn't seem like someone who would be high enough up in the Trump campaign to have had any real effect whatsoever.
Manafort, however had a position of importance in the campaign albeit for a relatively short period of time and, as has been pointed out, is no stranger to political filth.
A bad personnel decision?
Certainly.
Proof of a willingness of Trump to be influenced by Russians?
Need a bit more convincing than what I've seen so far.
so as were not at war with Russia i think that rules treason out ,this is one of the few pretty welly defined laws in the Constitution and nothing alleged so far for either democrats or republicans would fit the bill it even seems that accidental or treason through idiocy do not even fit the bill ,even the confeds weren't charged with treason for civil war (aforementioned pardon from Johnson) and if none of them swung for it i doubt any of the people who members have posted about fit the bill at all
The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, julius and ethel rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II. Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty. The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.
seems its pretty clear treason is not on the table
Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]). On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of leaflets protesting the draft during World War I was not constitutionally protected speech (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).
originally posted by: Erno86
originally posted by: Gryphon66
I have to disagree with the New York Times.
"B-Movie plot line" is far too generous; this ridiculous dumb-show is pure third-rate Reality TV.
May I add...DJT's (most likely) treasonous activity against the United States as well.
"If Trump survives this crisis --- which may mean that American democracy doesn't --- tax cuts will have a lot to do with it."
quote: Paul Krugman - "Trump Won't Bring Joy to Moolaville" - NYT's OP-ED Tuesday, October 31, 2017
www.nytimes.com...