Toronto Escorts

Clinton Involved in Biggest Treason in History

Big Sleazy

Active member
Sep 13, 2004
3,535
8
38
Does anybody recall that after the 2nd Presidential debate between Trump and Hillary. When the debate had ended and Hillary yelled at her staff..." If that SOB wins we'll all swing at the end of a noose ".

https://usawatchdog.com/clinton-involved-in-biggest-treason-in-history-kevin-shipp/

This is the biggest case of treason and fraud in the History of America. And only the alt-media is reporting on it. That say's a lot about the state of affairs in the media and in our Governments.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Does anybody recall that after the 2nd Presidential debate between Trump and Hillary. When the debate had ended and Hillary yelled at her staff..." If that SOB wins we'll all swing at the end of a noose ".

https://usawatchdog.com/clinton-involved-in-biggest-treason-in-history-kevin-shipp/

This is the biggest case of treason and fraud in the History of America. And only the alt-media is reporting on it. That say's a lot about the state of affairs in the media and in our Governments.
Nope.

Perhaps because it was a falsehood, and as Snopes says: "All of that was invented by Victurus Libertas in an apparent attempt to smear the Democratic candidate… [It] started with a fictitious quote, and that narrative was later expanded with more fake quotes from other anonymous sources. Meanwhile, no actual evidence has surfaced to prove that any of these events actually transpired."

And you haven't even cited your own faked-up incident correctly; clearly you don't remember NBC's "Commander-in-Chief" Forum was when it didn't happen.
 

LT56

Banned
Feb 16, 2013
1,604
1
0
Funny how when Trump is accused of Treason the Alt Right looms immediately start accusing Hillary of...treason.

This has become stupidly predictable.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,750
17,571
113
^ Again neither of them has committed treason.
First, the US and Russia are on the opposite sides of the war in Syria. They are fighting through proxies, but they are fighting.

Second, not holding Russia to task for hacking the US election is aiding and comforting Putin.
 

Promo

Active member
Jan 10, 2009
2,480
0
36
Funny how when Trump is accused of Treason the Alt Right looms immediately start accusing Hillary of...treason.

This has become stupidly predictable.
Hey LT, do you ever checkout Breitbart? One of my friends observed that if you read it's headline stories on a given day, 1 or 2 days later all the alt/far righters and even Trump himself will parrot the stories and insults. As soon as Breitbart publishes, it's dozen or so mirror sites pick up the story and it grows from there. It's clockwork and no thought given to accuracy by the righties. Propaganda machine at its greatest.

So I did and it's absolutely true. Wanna know what Big Sleazy, C-M or smallcock is going to post tomorrow, look at Breitbart yesterday or today.
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,088
2,733
113
Never has an American President's 'loyalty' to America been in question till now.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,910
68,405
113
^ Again neither of them has committed treason.
It says: "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."

This definition of treason is narrow and requires a high burden of proof. Someone can commit treason against the US in favor of another nation only if the US is at war with that country. It also requires at least two witnesses or the traitor's confession.

For Trump to have committed treason, it must first be proved that the US is at war with Russia. But the terms "aid and comfort" are deliberately ambiguous, giving courts plenty of room to interpret what those conditions mean.
What the experts say

Andrew Wright, an assistant White House counsel to President Barack Obama who's now an associate professor at Savannah Law School, told Business Insider on Monday that he didn't believe the US and Russia are at war or that Trump's conduct at the summit alone amounted to treason.

"It's quite clear he's selling out important American national-security interests by not standing up to Russian aggression," Wright said. "That's why you see some people using the term 'traitor.' It's not a term I prefer to use ... It's the kind of thing I'd like to see after more investigative processes and legal findings."

Jens David Ohlin, a vice dean and professor of law at Cornell Law School, told Business Insider that even without a formal declaration, there is a case to be made that Russia and the US are indeed at war.

"One argument would be that Russia has engaged in a covert cyber intervention against US interests, including election meddling, that rises to the level of hostilities," he said.

"However, an even better argument would be that Russia and the United States are on the opposite sides of various armed confrontations in Syria," he continued, referring to Russia's backing of the Syrian government while the US backs rebel groups there.
What's next for Trump


Wright and Ohlin both said Trump's comments opened him up to greater legal liability, but to differing degrees.

While Ohlin said the president's conduct at the summit increased the chances of his impeachment, Wright argued that they would increase only if Trump were proved to have been blackmailed in some way by Russia.

"Trump is clearly helping Russia — whether it rises to the level of 'aid and comfort' would be for a jury to decide or for the House of Representatives to decide if it pursues articles of impeachment," Ohlin said.

Ohlin added that while most would expect a Democratic House to impeach Trump on charges of obstruction of justice related to his attacks on the FBI and special counsel's Russia investigation, Trump's latest defense of Russia at the expense of the US made it "more likely" that the House, should Democrats win the majority in this year's midterm elections, would pursue impeachment on charges of "treason or some other disloyalty-based allegation."

Even if Congress doesn't impeach Trump, his siding with Russia over his own intelligence agencies will certainly be scrutinized by the special counsel Robert Mueller's team, Ohlin said.

"It looks like the 'quo' of a 'quid pro quo' — Putin helped Trump get elected, and now Trump is rewarding Putin with a favorable foreign policy," he said. "If Trump gets listed as an unindicted co-conspirator, this arrangement might be relevant."

Wright was slightly more skeptical about the scope of the legal implications of Trump's comments.

"I don't think the president's conduct of foreign policy — even if I think it's misconduct of foreign policy — is going to itself have legal liability," he said, adding that it would "all really depend on what the findings" of the Russia investigation are.

Wright argued that Trump's behavior in the press conference would be unlikely to lead to criminal consequences unless it were proved that his defense of Russia was the result of his being blackmailed or extorted in some way by Putin or other Russian operatives.


But Wright also said the level of backlash against Trump's remarks from leaders in his own party would most likely "lead to an uptick in oversight activity" in Congress and could signal that the Republican Party's patience for Trump is wearing thin.

"As one of my colleagues put it: Every political figure has a candle of goodwill that they slowly burn down, and it eventually gets to a point where they can't keep the flame alive," Wright said.
SEE ALSO: Republicans few and far between come to Trump's defense after his remarks with Putin get shredded as 'disgraceful'


http://www.businessinsider.com/did-trump-committ-treason-russia-summit-2018-7

Depends on how you define "enemy", doesn't it?

Is an enemy only a declared foe in an open conflict in which declarations of war have been signed? If I am a US citizen and I provide food, lodging and a gun to a Russian spy in 1955, is that "treason"? Do all "wars" have to be declared? How about wars that are very real - i.e. cold wars - but wherein the antagonists refrain from declaring war because of the concern of going nuclear?

What if the Russian said: "I am here to fuck over America any way I can." and then he shoots the president? His statement was vague. So you're not a party to homicide. But you're probably going to be hanged for treason. Even though no war was declared.

If a foreign state embarks upon a course of organized and state-sponsored cyber-aggression against the US, but neither opts for a formal declaration of war because neither wants to "go military", is the conflict a real war? Was VVP an "enemy" of the USA when he fucked with its elections? He certainly wasn't a friend, was he? He probably really was an "enemy"?

Is a concept of "war" in 1795 a sufficient framework for defining war in 2018? Probably not.

What is "aid and comfort"? Does supporting an act of aggression against one's own country and disparaging one's own defences = "aid and comfort"? How about signalling to an aggressor in an undeclared cyber-war that you will not resist aggression and will allow your country to be attacked and humiliated with impunity?

I think what Trump has done amounts to treason and he should be hanged, like Benedict Arnold.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts