Treason—This time the real thing—is closer than in a very long time, if not already going on
Talk Pro and Con
Join LibraryThing to post.
1proximity1
Treason—This time the real thing—is closer than it has been in a very long time, if not already going on
___________________
Treason is something quite rare in fact and practice because it is so strictly and narrowly defined in U.S. jurisprudence.
That narrow and strict definition and the rarity in its occurrence spring directly from long and troubled experience with loosely-framed charges of "treason" and trials and convictions on them over at the least the two centuries of English history which preceded the founding of the United States.
I've made a fairly regular habit of objecting to and correcting in others the only too common gross abuse and loose misstatement of what constitutes “treason” in U.S. law. This is typical of one, posted nearly two years ago to the day, simply restating the essentials in the elements of treason. I often point out that “treason” is unique in U.S. criminal offenses in its being defined, and defined with precision, in the body of the U.S. Constitution.
What's now going on in U.S. politics strikes me more and more as having become, at some point, more or less earlier in a longer chain of events, a coordinated attempt to subvert the Constitutional order itself, to undermine and overthrow the orderly and elected government of the United States by means of a now-deliberate conspiracy to achieve this ultimate end. It seems to me that there is now some very good reason to believe that this is just where things are heading if not, indeed, where they've already arrived in this culture-war turned political-war turned treasonous conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution's regular and legal order government operation.
That's in part because of what I've read in this article, by Frank Miele, (Commentary) “It's Time to Crush the New Rebellion Against Constitution” (Real Clear Politics | 27 July, 2020)
I suspect that this matter first developed as various disparate efforts which coalesced gradually into what became a more conscious and deliberate objective and that the objective(s) may have changed more or less over the period in which this took place. What I'm not at all confident of is the order in which things occurred. That is, did an effort begin as one to undermine the Trump administration and see Trump removed from office one way or another, and only then metamorphosize into a larger scheme to commit a treasonous overthrow of the government—partly because the early efforts to get Trump removed from office on a pretext of a fictitious “collusion” with a foreign power had failed to achieve their hoped-for results? Or, was it rather the other way around?: a prior design based on a more general subversion of the Constitutional order became incorporated into a parallel effort to undermine and remove Trump from office, seeing these as so completely complementary in their means and ends that they came to be virtually the same enterprise by what might be called a process of “default”?
I can't say which I think to have been the case but it seems to me that it's likely one or the other of these or something else which closely resembles one of them turning into the other as they became a combined operation.
___________________
Treason is something quite rare in fact and practice because it is so strictly and narrowly defined in U.S. jurisprudence.
That narrow and strict definition and the rarity in its occurrence spring directly from long and troubled experience with loosely-framed charges of "treason" and trials and convictions on them over at the least the two centuries of English history which preceded the founding of the United States.
I've made a fairly regular habit of objecting to and correcting in others the only too common gross abuse and loose misstatement of what constitutes “treason” in U.S. law. This is typical of one, posted nearly two years ago to the day, simply restating the essentials in the elements of treason. I often point out that “treason” is unique in U.S. criminal offenses in its being defined, and defined with precision, in the body of the U.S. Constitution.
What's now going on in U.S. politics strikes me more and more as having become, at some point, more or less earlier in a longer chain of events, a coordinated attempt to subvert the Constitutional order itself, to undermine and overthrow the orderly and elected government of the United States by means of a now-deliberate conspiracy to achieve this ultimate end. It seems to me that there is now some very good reason to believe that this is just where things are heading if not, indeed, where they've already arrived in this culture-war turned political-war turned treasonous conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution's regular and legal order government operation.
That's in part because of what I've read in this article, by Frank Miele, (Commentary) “It's Time to Crush the New Rebellion Against Constitution” (Real Clear Politics | 27 July, 2020)
I suspect that this matter first developed as various disparate efforts which coalesced gradually into what became a more conscious and deliberate objective and that the objective(s) may have changed more or less over the period in which this took place. What I'm not at all confident of is the order in which things occurred. That is, did an effort begin as one to undermine the Trump administration and see Trump removed from office one way or another, and only then metamorphosize into a larger scheme to commit a treasonous overthrow of the government—partly because the early efforts to get Trump removed from office on a pretext of a fictitious “collusion” with a foreign power had failed to achieve their hoped-for results? Or, was it rather the other way around?: a prior design based on a more general subversion of the Constitutional order became incorporated into a parallel effort to undermine and remove Trump from office, seeing these as so completely complementary in their means and ends that they came to be virtually the same enterprise by what might be called a process of “default”?
I can't say which I think to have been the case but it seems to me that it's likely one or the other of these or something else which closely resembles one of them turning into the other as they became a combined operation.
2kiparsky
Per the constitution:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Okay, so Trump's three for three. Shall we hang him from a lamp post? I think that's the usual thing, isn't it?
3proximity1 
Wrong! and you don't even see why that is. (Probably because, clearly, you either can't read or you just don't read.) It comes to the same damn thing:
"The man who won't read has no advantage over the man who can't read." --Samuel Clemens
Your comments here are both a fucking nuisance and a fucking waste of time.
Your bullshit comments consistently confirm my views of your forensic incompetence.
4kiparsky
>3 proximity1: I assume, as per usual, that the reason you present no arguments is because you have none.
5Cubby.R.S.
>1 proximity1:
Based on Kiparsky's definition, I'm not sure. But, it was likely a loose grab to poke fun at Trump.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i...
However; law-breaking is at hand, and how deep into the folds we might go to see what lies beneath, there could certainly be some treasonous actions. I know we'll most likely be finding out just how wicked the Obama administration really was come late September.
I just hope that Trump allows Biden to have the pardon. Biden is close enough to losing his mind and living a tortured existence, might as well use him for political gain.
Based on Kiparsky's definition, I'm not sure. But, it was likely a loose grab to poke fun at Trump.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i...
However; law-breaking is at hand, and how deep into the folds we might go to see what lies beneath, there could certainly be some treasonous actions. I know we'll most likely be finding out just how wicked the Obama administration really was come late September.
I just hope that Trump allows Biden to have the pardon. Biden is close enough to losing his mind and living a tortured existence, might as well use him for political gain.
6proximity1
>5 Cubby.R.S.:
"Based on Kiparsky's definition, ..."
But you can't reliably base anything on K's definition or interpretations or anything else he says or believes because he "DKS".
..."However; law-breaking is at hand,"...
i.e., probable cause for criminal indictments on Obama's-Clinton's criminal acts is, yes, of course, now beyond a reasonable doubt; it only remains to bring those indictments, try them and prove them in court.
? Means what? You hope Trump issues a presidential pardon to Biden?
If Biden is--and he may very well be!--as mentally incompetent as you suggest, then he'd have available to his criminal defense the claim of "not guilty by reason of insanity". In which case, he wouldn't need a president's pardon.
I foresee no circumstances in which one should expect any pardon of Biden by Trump.
A U.S. Attorney might, on the other hand, offer Biden a plea-bargain which went so far as to drop all charges in return for full cooperation which led to the indictments of others at or above Biden's level of responsibility. Thus, he'd have to give sworn testimony against, say, Obama, Clinton, Comey, Clapper, Brennan and other like defendants, with good prospects for their conviction as a result.
The more urgent and practical question shall be resolved in November: Shall the American electorate "pardon" Biden (i.e. "elect him to office")?
"Based on Kiparsky's definition, ..."
But you can't reliably base anything on K's definition or interpretations or anything else he says or believes because he "DKS".
..."However; law-breaking is at hand,"...
i.e., probable cause for criminal indictments on Obama's-Clinton's criminal acts is, yes, of course, now beyond a reasonable doubt; it only remains to bring those indictments, try them and prove them in court.
"I just hope that Trump allows Biden to have the pardon."
? Means what? You hope Trump issues a presidential pardon to Biden?
If Biden is--and he may very well be!--as mentally incompetent as you suggest, then he'd have available to his criminal defense the claim of "not guilty by reason of insanity". In which case, he wouldn't need a president's pardon.
I foresee no circumstances in which one should expect any pardon of Biden by Trump.
A U.S. Attorney might, on the other hand, offer Biden a plea-bargain which went so far as to drop all charges in return for full cooperation which led to the indictments of others at or above Biden's level of responsibility. Thus, he'd have to give sworn testimony against, say, Obama, Clinton, Comey, Clapper, Brennan and other like defendants, with good prospects for their conviction as a result.
The more urgent and practical question shall be resolved in November: Shall the American electorate "pardon" Biden (i.e. "elect him to office")?
7Cubby.R.S.
>6 proximity1:
Well, pardoning Biden should then be put up for a vote. They could have an independent third party, such as the Boogaloo boys run a poll? muhahahaha.
Well, pardoning Biden should then be put up for a vote. They could have an independent third party, such as the Boogaloo boys run a poll? muhahahaha.
8kiparsky
>5 Cubby.R.S.:, >6 proximity1:
My definition? LOL, neither of you even recognize the definition of treason from the Constitution? That's too funny...
And of course, with the invasion of (levying war against) the state of Oregon, Trump has in fact completed the trifecta. Whether you want to see him taking a starring role on an upcoming episode of Lamppost Danceoff is up to you. What do you think is a fair penalty for treason at the highest level of our government?
My definition? LOL, neither of you even recognize the definition of treason from the Constitution? That's too funny...
And of course, with the invasion of (levying war against) the state of Oregon, Trump has in fact completed the trifecta. Whether you want to see him taking a starring role on an upcoming episode of Lamppost Danceoff is up to you. What do you think is a fair penalty for treason at the highest level of our government?
9Cubby.R.S.
>8 kiparsky:
Well, I was not meaning that your definition was wrong, only that you cited it and that I wasn't sure if you could convict the groups associated with the article as treasonous.
I suppose attacking a Federal building might be the ticket.
Well, I was not meaning that your definition was wrong, only that you cited it and that I wasn't sure if you could convict the groups associated with the article as treasonous.
I suppose attacking a Federal building might be the ticket.
10kiparsky
>9 Cubby.R.S.: I was thinking more about attacking a state. That's definitely in there, and it's definitely something that numbnuts is doing right now. We already know about him adhering to our enemies and giving them aid and comfort, there's no serious doubt on those counts. So, if you're into that whole constitution thing, you're on board with treason charges for Trump. Either now, as an impeachment, or in three months when he loses the election and we can do it for realsies.
11Cubby.R.S.
>10 kiparsky:
I think these strange news sources decrying the President's methods are a bit skewed. If someone blows up your place, how are you going to feel? Are you okay with it, as long as it is done in the name of equality? Stop blowing shit up and robbing people. These Governors and Mayors are acquiescent at best, and the people that live in those cities are not unanimously pleased about the situation they are living in.
I think these strange news sources decrying the President's methods are a bit skewed. If someone blows up your place, how are you going to feel? Are you okay with it, as long as it is done in the name of equality? Stop blowing shit up and robbing people. These Governors and Mayors are acquiescent at best, and the people that live in those cities are not unanimously pleased about the situation they are living in.
12proximity1
>7 Cubby.R.S.:
The November presidential race shall be for all practical intents and purposes a plebiscite on Biden's culpability. It stands to reason that, if Biden is elected president, this is tantamount to the general public, via the electorate, declaring that they do not regard his acts--as they know these and believe these-- to have been criminally disqualifying him from holding office.
It's the same thing as saying that he is not considered to have committed such crimes as should mean he should be impeached or removed from office.
I don't personally see any sane, aware, caring electorate coming to such a conclusion about Biden. But, even if they think that he isn't criminally liable, they might reject Biden solely on the grounds of a judgment that his mental capacity, as they see it, is not good enough to warrant his election. I consider both grounds largely sufficient to reject Biden's bid. He's unfit for office both as morally and criminally culpable and as mentally deficient.
Trump's off-the-cuff joking comments about being a "stable genius", as somehow seriously disqualifying him for re-election, is truly laughably stupid stuff. Nor does anything else done or said by Trump qualify by any stretch good grounds to disqualify him for re-election. His critics see this, too, and that's why they're grasping desperately at such absurd bullshit as two-year old jokes made in passing.
If there were any really serious charges to be leveled against Trump, they'd have been before this. Such as have been made already clearly don't have traction among enough people to have put even a tiny dent in Trump's polls and approval ratings.
In the cases of Obama, Clinton, Biden, Clapper, Brennan, Holder, Comey, and numerous others, there are very strong, clear and credible grounds for very, very serious criminal charges that run right up to if not beyond genuinetreason Rebellion or insurrection as defined by the letter and the spirit of the Constitution 18 U.S. Code § 2383.
Two factors complicate the Treason charge. First, they should involve conspiracy with a foreign government and, second, they should occur only in times of war.
But all or virtually all the kinds of acts which constitute treason are also criminal acts outside of those conditions of conspiracy to overtly adhere to foreign powers in time of war under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 (Rebellion or insurrection).
The November presidential race shall be for all practical intents and purposes a plebiscite on Biden's culpability. It stands to reason that, if Biden is elected president, this is tantamount to the general public, via the electorate, declaring that they do not regard his acts--as they know these and believe these-- to have been criminally disqualifying him from holding office.
It's the same thing as saying that he is not considered to have committed such crimes as should mean he should be impeached or removed from office.
I don't personally see any sane, aware, caring electorate coming to such a conclusion about Biden. But, even if they think that he isn't criminally liable, they might reject Biden solely on the grounds of a judgment that his mental capacity, as they see it, is not good enough to warrant his election. I consider both grounds largely sufficient to reject Biden's bid. He's unfit for office both as morally and criminally culpable and as mentally deficient.
Trump's off-the-cuff joking comments about being a "stable genius", as somehow seriously disqualifying him for re-election, is truly laughably stupid stuff. Nor does anything else done or said by Trump qualify by any stretch good grounds to disqualify him for re-election. His critics see this, too, and that's why they're grasping desperately at such absurd bullshit as two-year old jokes made in passing.
If there were any really serious charges to be leveled against Trump, they'd have been before this. Such as have been made already clearly don't have traction among enough people to have put even a tiny dent in Trump's polls and approval ratings.
In the cases of Obama, Clinton, Biden, Clapper, Brennan, Holder, Comey, and numerous others, there are very strong, clear and credible grounds for very, very serious criminal charges that run right up to if not beyond genuine
Two factors complicate the Treason charge. First, they should involve conspiracy with a foreign government and, second, they should occur only in times of war.
But all or virtually all the kinds of acts which constitute treason are also criminal acts outside of those conditions of conspiracy to overtly adhere to foreign powers in time of war under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 (Rebellion or insurrection).
