Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you believe that Trump levied an army on Jan 6, and went to war against the US government at the Capitol, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.
If you believe that he gave aid and comfort (in the form of national defense information) to Russia and/or North Korea, and that these nations are enemies of the US, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.
I think these two actions of his could be construed as traitorous acts, but I understand that to others they might not meet that definition.
There have to be open hostilities according to US Code. The US is involved in a lot of conflict zones, but not directly NK or Russia.
Yup, open hostilities in the U.S. Capitol incited by Donald Trump, recorded and broadcast for the whole world to see.
Debatable (and you also need to look at US Code). He did not "set foot" although he attempted to, he may have incited but he had enough training by Mob lawyer Cohn to be careful how he phrased things. Plus insurrection has its own definition in the US Code separate from that of treason, so there is a distinction between treason an dinsurrectionn.
In any event there have to be two witnesses or confession in open court.
Anonymous wrote:Jack Smith, didn’t the Supreme Court rebuke him 9-0 in a past case?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you believe that Trump levied an army on Jan 6, and went to war against the US government at the Capitol, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.
If you believe that he gave aid and comfort (in the form of national defense information) to Russia and/or North Korea, and that these nations are enemies of the US, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.
I think these two actions of his could be construed as traitorous acts, but I understand that to others they might not meet that definition.
There have to be open hostilities according to US Code. The US is involved in a lot of conflict zones, but not directly NK or Russia.
Yup, open hostilities in the U.S. Capitol incited by Donald Trump, recorded and broadcast for the whole world to see.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's like the founding fathers were thinking of Trump and his January 6 insurrection when writing the Constitution.
They were afraid of tyrants who flouted the law.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you believe that Trump levied an army on Jan 6, and went to war against the US government at the Capitol, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.
If you believe that he gave aid and comfort (in the form of national defense information) to Russia and/or North Korea, and that these nations are enemies of the US, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.
I think these two actions of his could be construed as traitorous acts, but I understand that to others they might not meet that definition.
There have to be open hostilities according to US Code. The US is involved in a lot of conflict zones, but not directly NK or Russia.
Anonymous wrote:It looks like the elements fit the crime.
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39
The offense of “levying war” against the United States was interpreted narrowly in Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout (1807), a case stemming from the infamous alleged plot led by former Vice President Aaron Burr to overthrow the American government in New Orleans. The Supreme Court dismissed charges of treason that had been brought against two of Burr’s associates—Bollman and Swarthout—on the grounds that their alleged conduct did not constitute levying war against the United States within the meaning of the Treason Clause. It was not enough, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion emphasized, merely to conspire “to subvert by force the government of our country” by recruiting troops, procuring maps, and drawing up plans. Conspiring to levy war was distinct from actually levying war. Rather, a person could be convicted of treason for levying war only if there was an “actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design.” In so holding, the Court sharply confined the scope of the offense of treason by levying war against the United States.
Anonymous wrote:If you believe that Trump levied an army on Jan 6, and went to war against the US government at the Capitol, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.
If you believe that he gave aid and comfort (in the form of national defense information) to Russia and/or North Korea, and that these nations are enemies of the US, then yes, he is by definition of a traitor.
I think these two actions of his could be construed as traitorous acts, but I understand that to others they might not meet that definition.
Anonymous wrote:I have confidence in Jack Smith after what he showed in round 1.
without representationAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's like the founding fathers were thinking of Trump and his January 6 insurrection when writing the Constitution.
They were afraid of tyrants who flouted the law.
There was a revolution on a 1.5 percent tax rate.