Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire IT'S COMING

You guys just aren’t seeing the dots… There’s dots then there are dots. When you put them all together you have a Plethora of dots…

I hope this helps.

Bingo!!!

kwg[/quote]

The DOJ does not prosecute TREASON. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

Uh, this would be a good place to start.............................Dept. of Defense Law of War Manual

That's 1200 pages.

Please point out where it supersedes the Constitution AND precedent as established. In fact appeals after being found guilty go through the regular circuit courts and to SCOTUS.

Why would someone whose conviction and trial that is only able to be done by .mil (as claimed by Q followers) appeal to and be heard by civilian courts?

It's is demonstratably false that only .mil can try treason cases.

Have to agree. As much as I've agreed with him in the past on many things, he is dead wrong on Q, and even more wrong on bringing the Lord's name into it.

He never heard the word, Gematria.


He doesnt know what "Learn our comms" means but hes an expert on Trump and Q, just like MSNBC is.

What did they say about Qanons and a Vote Fraud?

He will still be a clueless expert after reading this.

I am. You keep trusting your MSM, CYA and Bidet bud.

We will see who come out on top.

But who else WILL.

The DOJ does not prosecute TREASON. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

Uh, this would be a good place to start.............................Dept. of Defense Law of War Manual
[/quote]

Some dont know, K, that we are are in a Congressionally declared State of War since 9-11.

Well, what should we expect. The MSM forgets to remind them, along with other unimportant things like FRAUD VITIATES ALL.

The MSM sure tells them what to thing about Trump, Q and Putin. Humm.

May be best to do as HE said about seeing what fruit the tree produces before swallowing it.

Waiting for you and efw to tell us where we are headed.
Ive reported my beliefs on it. Where are yours?

Are you two waiting for Bidet, Zero, Soros, Piglosi, the MSM and Schwab to tell you?

Wonder how many have decided Q is a larp for maybe one perceived miss statement regarding the War of Good vs Evil Trump and the Q Patriots are in.

I bet the suckers have seen the weatherman be wrong on several.occasions but are glued to his forecasts before most weekends.

Too Freaking Funny.

Is that the really best response you can come up with? Danged if you haven't lost it.

James it’s hypocrisy at its finest. Believe how I believe or you’re the enemy, the devil, not a patriot, etc. Pure BS on display here.

I believe you're the hypocrite here. You need to go back and read the entire thread. The name calling didn't start with me.

I believe springcove had a typo, and didn't mean to say "James is......" but James, it's. "

He's not directing the comment at you in other words.

James I apologize for the typo. It was supposed to say “it’s” hypocrisy at its best and was directed at Jag. I edited the post.

Ya that was a mistake on my part. Thanks for catching it.

It was obvious. If there's one thing we all agree on, it's that jag is nuttier than a squirrel turd.