Nothing is going to happen, guarantee it. Our government is too corrupt.
And getting worse by the day. Our complacency has facilitated it.
As long as there is a democRAT in the attorney generals office they are as safe as a baby in the arms of Jesus Christ himself. Hell, they were all safe with a republican in the attorney generals office. Not a single thing is going to happen to any one of them.
Someone stick that video of Lucy pulling the football away right here because that is what it is all about when it comes to the swamp in D.C.
kwg
The DOJ does not prosecute TREASON.
Then who prosecuted Aaron Burr. It certainly wasn’t the Military.
Burr was charged with “Treason” and was brought to trial before the United States Circuit Court at Richmond, Virginia. Not a Military Tribunal.
The trial was presided over by Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall, acting as a circuit judge. Again, not a Military Tribunal.
Jag said the DOJ does not prosecute Treason, so when was the DOJ established? 1870 (July 1), when was Aaron Burr acquitted of Treason and why? " It was on this day in 1807 that former Vice President Aaron Burr was acquitted of treason charges. The trial was truly a “Trial of the Century” in its time and one of the first tests of the Constitution’s Treason Clause." "The clause reads as follows in Article III, Section 3, of 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. 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.
Thats the problem. Not at war and thus no real enemy AND 2 witnesses to every act or aspect.
No one is going to be convicted of treason for the same reason why none of the 1/6 have actually been charged with insurrection. Doesn’t meet legal criteria.
A 1L would only have to point to China’s most favored nation status as proof they’re not an enemy nor are we at war with them = no treason.
Oh crap. Not this schiett again.
We have been, as i have explained 142 freaking times, been in a declared state of war since the World Trade Center Towers were taken out on 9- 11.
Also, each year in office, Trump also declared the US to be in a State of National Emergency.
He added the Insurrection Act iirc Dec 8 to Jan 18, 2020 and with Legal Devolution of Power to the Military for Continuance of Governance while a foreign agent held the WH though it was ILLEGALY.
Ugh. Seriously.
A "state of war" is not the same as a declared war with an enemy. Even being in the WH illegally is not treason. The illegal actor MUST give aid to the "enemy" - who is the defined enemy since 9-11? A religion isn't going to pass muster. A country? Which one was declared our enemy by a declaration of war by congress? Hint - none.
Article 3 of the constitution makes no specific provision that only the military can prosecute treason. In fact its quite specific that only Congress can have the power to declare punishment for treason. You may want to look at precedent set by Cramer v United States 1945 as well with regards to the threshold of what treason is.
The Constitution specifically identifies what constitutes treason against the United States and, importantly, limits the offense of treason to only two types of conduct: (1) “levying war” against the United States; or (2) “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States], giving them aid and comfort.” Part 2 will be very pertinent.
Iva Toguri was tried for treason in Federal District Court in 48. NOT a Military court. The prosecutors were Thomas DeWolfe, Frank J. Hennessy, John Hogan, and James Knapp. Of which DeWolf was not military.
So again, where does the idea that only the military tries those for treason come from? Not American precedent apparently.
Even assume that's true - to prove treason their either has to be a confession or TWO witnesses to the overt act. If the assertion is that only the .mil can prosecute treason (demonstrated to be false), then you're talking about law outside the current government of the United States and thus mean some constitution 2.0? A full revolution and not evolution? If so - why wait and play by laws you intend to replace anyway?
