Treason

[stevenash]

I wonder if there are 50,000 emails of MR. Powell that are missing?

[jv_coach]

colin Powell too. He used his private email.

Then let us get to the bottom of it. Also Hillary had her own e-mail server. 

[Big girl]

Tt

[Big girl]

Two interesting articles
"Hiliary Clinton emailgate sliced and diced"
BBC news
What Hiliary did was not illegal according to this article.

"Hiliary Clinton's email scandal what about Colin Powell"
Oregon live.com

[SKINS]

Two interesting articles
"Hiliary Clinton emailgate sliced and diced"
BBC news
What Hiliary did was not illegal according to this article.

"Hiliary Clinton's email scandal what about Colin Powell"
Oregon live.com

Don't get any ideas, what she did was definitely against the rules. Even as low on the Totem pole as I am, I definitely know that any official email has to be kept on the Goverment system. What she did is called spillage, and would result in a loss of clearance and jail for anyone else.

[tvc184]

colin Powell too. He used his private email.

 

If they think Powell committed a felony, indict him.

 

I don't think using private email is a violation as long as the email is turned over the government. For some reason Hillary by her own admission held onto 50,000+ emails that she was required to turn over to the government two years ago by law. 

 

It is not the use of private email that is the violation but the law saying that she was to sign a document on leaving the service and guaranteeing that all documents including emails were turned over when she left. Two years later that was not done. 

 

What does that have to do with Colin Powell (other than wishful thinking) and why should Hillary get a pass for what seems clearly is a felony because Powell used private email. As far as I know no one has said that Powell hid his emails that he made from a private account but again, if someone can show that he committed a felony, indict him and take it to court. 

 

Now if Hillary claims to never have signed the affidavit swearing that she turned over all documents as required, that brings up another question. Why was she allowed to leave and violate the law on signing the affidavit to turn over all documents?

[tvc184]

How would you older guys have felt if this was done during the Cuban missile crises?

 

 

The Cuban Missile Crisis was about command of the US armed forces of which the president is the commander in chief per the Constitution. Congress had no say in that matter. It would have been wrong for anyone to step in and act in place of the commander in chief and try to override his blockade of Cuba. I see that as having no comparison in this issue and a lousy analogy.

 

The same Constitution says that the president is the commander in chief also says that he can make a treaty with "advise and consent" of the Senate and only after a 2/3's majority. It does not say only "consent" after a deal is made. Several senators in this case sent a letter stating US law under the Constitution which also in Article II says that such treaties will be made with "advise" on the Senate.

 

So please explain how a group of senators that represent the government of the US and by the Constitution are allowed to give "advise and consent" to any international treaties, is violating the law by merely stating the law/Constitution?

 

Since I know that you probably will not look up anything (other than political articles), here are some resources for you.

 

This is the law (called the Logan Act) under 18 USC 953 Private Correspondence with Foreign Governments:

 

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

 

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

 

 

Please explain how stating the Constitution by 47 senators violates the above law.

 

Next is the oft cited by you, the case of US v. Curtis-Wright Export. That case was not about the Logan Act being discussed but a conspiracy to provide arms to a country that a joint resolution of Congress gave the president to enforce and provided criminal penalties. The Court issued 14 points from the ruling and one of those points was (#9) that the president is the “sole organ” of the federal government in this case. This was in this case being considered when the people indicted argued that the president did not have the authority which is this case was a “joint resolution of Congress”. So in this ruling the “sole organ” was to enforce a congressional resolution, not a treaty. Again, this was a conspiracy case of selling arms to a foreign country that the US Congress and president deemed to be illegal. That congressional act gave the president authority to regulate arms. Again, it had nothing to do with the Logan Act of which there has never been a prosecution in more than 200 years of the law.

 

So this case seems to argue the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. You are arguing that the president alone is the issue when this case is a ruling involving not the president but the president acting on a congressional law/resolution. In other words, dual authority in this conspiracy case. Yet again, this case is not a Logan Act case but about the president's sole authority to enforce an act of Congress (Whoever sells any arms or munitions of war in violation of section 1 shall, on conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding $10,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both.) to prohibit the sale of arms leading up to WWII. You take a case that is not of the issue at hand (the Logan Act) and cite one of 14 points taken out of context and use that as evidence that the Logan Act was violated?

 

 

As far as your claim of treason, this is the law under 18 USC 2381.

 

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

I agree that Congress or an American citizen owes allegiance to the US. Now to your treason charge. Did the 47 senators “wage war” against the US? Did they give “aid and comfort” to an enemy (usually defined as a country that we have declared war on but we will skip that for now), that being Iran?

 

I don't see how publicly stating the Constitution is waging war. I don't think telling Iran the law is giving them aid and/or comfort. Actually it is quite the opposite.

 

So I would love to hear your explanation on your claim that the 47 senators waged war on the US to support a congressional declaration of war or gave aid and comfort to Iran.

[Big girl]

Treason also means to betray your country

[jv_coach]

Treason also means to betray your country

And Liberal means treason...Tru Story!

[tvc184]

Treason also means to betray your country

 

I know that you missed it posted in the previous response so here is the law on treason. 

 

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

I see no place where it uses the word "betray". It does say "levies war" and give "aid and comfort" to an enemy. I know that facts don't go over very well with you but perhaps for once you could actually read the law in question and explain how the senators "levies(d) war" or gave "aid and comfort" to an enemy. 

[thetragichippy]

Well, I know Big Girl won't admit it, but you just schooled me. I was informed on the definition of Treason, but had never had any reason to read up on the Logan Act.

Great post as always TVC

[Big girl]

I am glad that senators didnt write a letter to Stalin telling him not to sign a deal in regards to the Cuban Missile crisis. "Dear Mr Stalin,
continue to send missiles to Cuba. Please ignore President Kennedy"
Thanks
47 senators name

[Big girl]

I know that you missed it posted in the previous response so here is the law on treason.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I see no place where it uses the word "betray". It does say "levies war" and give "aid and comfort" to an enemy. I know that facts don't go over very well with you but perhaps for once you could actually read the law in question and explain how the senators "levies(d) war" or gave "aid and comfort" to an enemy.

there are several definitions. I quoted one of the definitions in Webster dictionary

[SKINS]

there are several definitions. I quoted one of the definitions in Webster dictionary

Webster does not define treason in the United States, only the law does.

[thetragichippy]

Treason also means to betray your country

 

I know I'm wasting my time....and I know you have not even read the letter, so I will provide a link for you to make it almost painless.

 

http://www.cotton.senate.gov/sites/default/files/150309%20Cotton%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Iranian%20Leaders.pdf

 

Could you tell us where they betray their country?

 

All I see is an explanation of how our constitution works.....

[Big girl]

Nikita , i wont attempt to spell his last name, was in charge during the cuban missile crisis.

[Big girl]

Read United States vs Curtis Wright Export Corporation,299 US 304, It states that" only the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He consults with the Senate, but he alone negotiates, the Senate cannot intrude."

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

[thetragichippy]

Read United States vs Curtis Wright Export Corporation,299 US 304, It states that" only the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He consults with the Senate, but he alone negotiates, the Senate cannot intrude."

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

 

Really, and how does this compare?

 

Try again.......and you never answered my question about betrayal......

 

Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Curtiss-Wright (Defendant), a weapons manufacturer, was convicted of selling arms to warring nations in South America in violation of an Executive Order that was made pursuant to a Joint Resolution of Congress.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The non-delegation doctrine does not bar Congress from delegating great authority and discretion to the President of the United States (the President) in the conduct of foreign affairs.

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The non-delegation doctrine does not bar Congress from delegating great authority and discretion to the President of the United States (the President) in the conduct of foreign affairs.

 

Facts. Congress passed a Joint Resolution authorizing the President to ban the sales of arms to countries involved in the border dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay. The President immediately made an Executive Order banning such sales. The Defendant was indicted for conspiracy to sell fifteen machine guns to Bolivia in violation of the Joint Resolution and the Executive Order.

 

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/the-federal-executive-power/united-states-v-curtiss-wright-export-corp/2/
 

 

 

[tvc184]

there are several definitions. I quoted one of the definitions in Webster dictionary

Okay, I've got it now. In the mind of big girl treason was committed.

Since that has nothing to do with the law then big girl can convict them in her mind.

[baddog]

I am glad that senators didnt write a letter to Stalin telling him not to sign a deal in regards to the Cuban Missile crisis. "Dear Mr Stalin,
continue to send missiles to Cuba. Please ignore President Kennedy"
Thanks
47 senators name

It was Kruschev. Stalin died in 1953. Cuban Missile Crisis was in 1962. Again, your education fails you.

[Big girl]

Didnt I correct myself? I guess you missed that post.

[Big girl]

You guys can come up with every excuse in the book. Senators should not try to undermine the President as it pertains to other world leaders period. I am happy that didnt happen during the Cuban Missile crisis.
President Obama said he was embarrassed for them.

[Big girl]

It was Kruschev. Stalin died in 1953. Cuban Missile Crisis was in 1962. Again, your education fails you.

look at my posts again

[baddog]

look at my posts again

Stop trying to come off as a know-it-all and having to correct yourself since you are still learning on the fly. I was in 4th grade during the crisis and had to go through attack drills......go out in the hall, sit with our legs crossed, and bend our heads down towards our knees. I assume this was to kiss our arses goodbye because it would not help us survive a nuclear attack. Funny how you want the same for Israel.

What do you have against Israel, except for the simple fact your boy, Obama doesn't like them?

Back on topic....nothing these Senators did was treasonous.

[smitty]

You guys can come up with every excuse in the book. Senators should not try to undermine the President as it pertains to other world leaders period. I am happy that didnt happen during the Cuban Missile crisis.
President Obama said he was embarrassed for them.

BigGirl -- I've stated that Democrat Senators did the same thing when Reagan was president.  Even had documentation through a link.  Why do you ignore this??