Is the NYT op-ed Sedition and Treason

Here are some legal definitions for Sedition and Treason

www.law.cornell.edu...

Which includes sedition

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.

Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so;

Here is legaldictionary.net... saying the difference.

Sedition is often confused with treason, but there are distinct differences between the two. Sedition is considered to be a lesser crime than treason, as a seditionist encourages rebellion, but does not take overt actions in his attempt to interfere with, or overthrow the government. For example, a person may commit sedition by holding a meeting to discuss a rebellion or revolution in his home.

Treason, on the other hand, involves taking specific actions that betray one’s country, such as by waging war, providing aid to an enemy, or committing espionage. So if John lets enemy soldiers stay in his home, he can be charged with the crime of treason. In order for a person to be charged with treason, however, the prosecution must show that the individual actively engaged in a plan to bring down the government. Treason is treated as a more severe crime than sedition.

The NYT published a letter which talks about subverting a sitting president, because they don't like his policies.

1) This is proof of a deep state, shadow government, a reason to own a gun....take your pick

2) The Times broke the law

3) The person and his friends are seditionist at least maybe traitors.

4) How does this end?

Trump finds them and does ______ what to them?
Liberals will respond by doing _________

Trump doesn't find them and Trumps get impeached
Trump gets impeached by the deep state, will it lead to Americans using their 2nd amendment rights against the deep state?

Trump getting impeached by the deep state has to lead to a shooting war, I don't see any other way
Trump finds the traitors and punishes them, planned and unplanned mass riots?

Either way is not good, but gun ownership at this time is a good thing

a reply to: SocratesJohnson


I see it as a nasty opinion piece.

There are no verifiable facts, no second sources, nothing but opinion.

Now that being said, the ROE in politics has changed.

This says Mueller has nothing on Trump so they will attack him from a different angle.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: SocratesJohnson


I see it as a nasty opinion piece.

There are no verifiable facts, no second sources, nothing but opinion.

Now that being said, the ROE in politics has changed.

This says Mueller has nothing on Trump so they will attack him from a different angle.

The timing with the Blowhard Woodward book does make it almost have an “Onionish” feel to it doesn’t it...

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

I think this needs to be investigated as it appears to me to be someone bragging about committing serious crimes.

neither

its an election year campaign trick by Trump's opposition

most likely DNC/PAC funded

too many people automatically believing its a real insider

💥💥😎💥💥

originally posted by: xuenchen


too many people automatically believing its a real insider

Says the one that posts in Q thread on a daily basis

Why is everyone taking this so seriously?

It's an anonymous piece. I could've written the thing, FFS. There's nothing about it to suggest the writer is anywhere near the administration. It's just some asshole ranting against Trump.

Unheard of, I know.

People have lost your damn minds.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson


It they ran this opinion piece against Obama, the New York Times would be out of business in a year. Subscriptions would be cancelled. Advertisers would leave. Obama would sick every government agency on them, with crushing audits.

This op-ed was probably disseminated by the global engagement center, maybe even written by Mike pompeo himself after allowing Trump to go over it for approval.

You guys really need to just stop taking everything at face value when they have already funded programs in writing that says they will say anything you want to hear to influence targeted populations, particularly the sections where they also said they would create partnerships with media companies and journalists to achieve these goals.

Do you want to know more?? Click my signature about the funded propaganda agency.

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: xuenchen


too many people automatically believing its a real insider

Says the one that posts in Q thread on a daily basis

Says the one that is off-topic 99.9% of the time
Including this one
This is about the op-ed piece , not Q

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

As if this needs to be posted again...

United States Constitution. Article III, section 3 reads as follows: 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.

The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits the United States 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.

Since the Constitution came into effect, there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions.

Judging by the way the word is getting around around here, there should be about 400 convictions per hour...

Link

originally posted by: NthOther
Why is everyone taking this so seriously?

It's an anonymous piece. I could've written the thing, FFS. There's nothing about it to suggest the writer is anywhere near the administration. It's just some asshole ranting against Trump.

Unheard of, I know.

People have lost your damn minds.

The media will run it as fact every day for the rest of Trump's Presidency.

That's why people care.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

I've never read a law about someone voicing their opinion.

There were no crimes spoken of in the OP-ED, and even if there were, they are unverified as of now, so you're speaking of alleged crimes.

Unless something comes to light that we haven't already read, this looks nothing more than a fire-able offence, if they reveal their identity.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Speaking out against the President is sedition? That's silliness. See my sig.

Looking at the USC definitions of treason and sedition it is neither.

It’s deep-state dinner theatre. The author is a) a coward for not showing his face, for using subversion and not the constitution to settle these matters, and b) a fool who ousted himself in the biggest way possible. In other words, some foolish coward believes he is the adult in the room, when his little, self-important opinion piece suggests the opposite.

He is definitely playing with treason, he is definitely engaging in propaganda, and just admitted to subverting the same institutions of democracy he tried to blame Trump for destroying. It’s embarrassing.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

It sure triggered you. I think it is obvious why this guy wanted to stay anonymous. Because he feared retaliation by people such as yourself. Also, no it isn't playing with treason. Why? See the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No it is not treason.

Many call it opposition.

If we allowed or dictators to have full power then it would be treason.

This is not north korea china russia or any of the various other dictatorships that would view this as treason.

This is America and we speak American.

by forcea reply to: Krazysh0t

From the OPs source:

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. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Notice the "by force" stuff?

I think some posters should all maybe go read the first amendment again, and think about words, the free press, and what "by force" means.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Brutal.