TrumPutinGate

#27,684
#27,684
volfanjustin said:
Absolutely. Trying to remove a President simply because you are a bunch of sore losers is absolutely treason. Everyone involved should be prosecuted
Click to expand...

Americans have forgotten what 'treason' actually means — and how it can be abused

For much of the pre-revolutionary period in England, the accusation was a means of suppressing political dissent and punishing political opponents for crimes as trivial as contemplating a king’s future death (what was known as “compassing”), or speaking ill of the king (“lèse majesté”). King Henry VIII even had two of his six wives executed for alleged adultery on the ground that such infidelity was, of itself, “treason.” The English abuse of treason was anathema to a nascent republic dedicated to the rule of law and the right of peaceful dissent.

Thus, to ensure that treason could not likewise be co-opted for political or personal purposes, the Constitution’s drafters not only defined it precisely (it’s the only offense specifically defined in that document), but also specified that “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.” (Article III also limits the punishment that can be inflicted, even with a conviction.)
Click to expand...

Treasonous acts may be criminal, but criminal acts are almost never treason. As Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies, “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” The Founders went out of their way to define treason narrowly because they knew how it had been repeatedly abused in the past.
Click to expand...

What country has declared war against the United States that these"traitors" are aiding?

Conduct against a government official could be criminal, but it's not treason.

Today's lesson brought to you by the strict constitutionalists of America.
 
#27,685
#27,685
Democrats in Congress feel betrayed by Adam Schiff, Gaetz says

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said Wednesday on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that there are Democrats in Congress who feel betrayed by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for saying there is actual evidence of collusion between President Trump and Russia.

“There are Democrats in Congress who feel betrayed, because like the rest of the country... they were told that there was actual evidence of collusion, that this was going to happen, and a lot of those very Democrats went out on a limb in the campaign, right, and promised their voters that this evidence would be turned up,” Gaetz told Tucker Carlson. He did not elaborate on the betrayal claim.

“Now we know the whole deal was fake. It was a lie. And really, I think a lot of the narrative has been a cover-up for the fact that under the Obama administration, our intelligence community got so politicized at the upper levels that they allowed political opposition research to justify something that should never happen in this country. And, you're right, it should never happen from either side.”

Gaetz said he filed a resolution Wednesday to remove Schiff as the chairman of the intelligence committee in reaction to Attorney General William Barr saying that "spying" on the Trump campaign occurred.

Democrats in Congress feel betrayed by Adam Schiff, Gaetz says
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL69 and BigOrangeD
#27,686
#27,686
Franklin Pierce said:
Democrats in Congress feel betrayed by Adam Schiff, Gaetz says

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said Wednesday on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that there are Democrats in Congress who feel betrayed by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for saying there is actual evidence of collusion between President Trump and Russia.

“There are Democrats in Congress who feel betrayed, because like the rest of the country... they were told that there was actual evidence of collusion, that this was going to happen, and a lot of those very Democrats went out on a limb in the campaign, right, and promised their voters that this evidence would be turned up,” Gaetz told Tucker Carlson. He did not elaborate on the betrayal claim.

“Now we know the whole deal was fake. It was a lie. And really, I think a lot of the narrative has been a cover-up for the fact that under the Obama administration, our intelligence community got so politicized at the upper levels that they allowed political opposition research to justify something that should never happen in this country. And, you're right, it should never happen from either side.”

Gaetz said he filed a resolution Wednesday to remove Schiff as the chairman of the intelligence committee in reaction to Attorney General William Barr saying that "spying" on the Trump campaign occurred.

Democrats in Congress feel betrayed by Adam Schiff, Gaetz says
Click to expand...
Seriously you people complain about anonymous sources but believe what Gaetz says about the inner workings of the Democrats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#27,692
#27,692
Sources: Anti-Trump FBI Agent Peter Strzok Could Face Serious Charges, IG Report Out In May Or June

strzok-pointing-620x413.jpg


This is a “sources say” piece, so take it with the grain of salt it’s due, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

Sara Carter is reporting that multiple sources have told her that Peter Strzok, who led the initial Trump campaign investigation, could face “serious charges” in the future.
​
Former FBI Agent Peter Strzok could face ‘serious’ charges for his involvement and actions in the bureau’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to send classified emails, as well as the FBI’s investigation into President Trump’s campaign, multiple sources with knowledge of Strzok’s actions told SaraACarter.com.​
​
The question is exactly what he’d be charged with. Though his animus toward Donald Trump wasn’t in question, FBI officials have such wide latitude (too much) that they could seemingly steer investigations in a biased manner and still not technically break any laws.

We get some hints at what that might be, although Carter’s sources are vague.
​
“There are a number of individuals who are looking at Peter Strzok’s actions and inactions and how those actions affected both of the investigations he was involved in,” said a U.S. official, with knowledge. “Further evaluation of what Peter Strzok did or did not do needs to be evaluated thoroughly.”

The official did not reveal what Strzok’s “actions or inactions” may have been but said “obstruction, is a serious concern.”

Strzok “is in hot water,” said another government official, with knowledge. “I’m certain he’s not the only one.”​
I think that’s going to be the real issue that’s tackled. Did Strzok purposely sandbag the Hillary investigation and does it rise to the level of obstruction of justice?

The public evidence says it’s pretty clear he did. Their handling of the case made no sense at all. It was like Kim Foxx was running the FBI. They gave out nonsensical immunity deals to people with no leverage, allowed the destruction of evidence, let Hillary lie to the FBI about classified markings without prosecution, and allowed Clinton to use co-conspirators as attorneys in her interview. Furthermore, the decision to let her off was made months before the end of the investigation.


Sources: Anti-Trump FBI Agent Peter Strzok Could Face Serious Charges, IG Report Out in May or June
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top