This page is entirely too profligate with the charge of "treason," which is narrowly defined in the Constitution and is not applicable to these crimes and misdeeds. Crimes they are---or cause for civil actions---but not "treason." This "Shoot them all" attitude just ruins our credibility. It suggests (quite accurately, it seems to me) that the main concern is to dance on the corpses of accused corrupt actors, and not so much to get clear to a world free of corruption.
Not in the least. Refer to my other answer to you. And as reprehensible as I think John Brennan to be, I'm sure you don't know of any actual "crimes against humanity" he has committed on a regular basis. This is over the top. it is in-credible: lacking in credibility. You are a walking sandwich board saying "The Q Movement is In-Credible." I don't know if you think that calling "treason" on any and all malefactors is virtue-signaling, but it sure looks that way to me. Talk is not only cheap---it is cheapest.
Article III, Section 3: "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."
I'm not a lawyer either, but I am a native speaker and reader of the English language, and all the points you mention have no relationship to treason as defined by the Constitution. Why am I not surprised that you did not bother to refer to its only definition before you answered? Ready, shoot, aim?
This page is entirely too profligate with the charge of "treason," which is narrowly defined in the Constitution and is not applicable to these crimes and misdeeds. Crimes they are---or cause for civil actions---but not "treason." This "Shoot them all" attitude just ruins our credibility. It suggests (quite accurately, it seems to me) that the main concern is to dance on the corpses of accused corrupt actors, and not so much to get clear to a world free of corruption.
Really bold to make this statement considering the crimes against humanity John Brennan has committed on a regular basis.
Not in the least. Refer to my other answer to you. And as reprehensible as I think John Brennan to be, I'm sure you don't know of any actual "crimes against humanity" he has committed on a regular basis. This is over the top. it is in-credible: lacking in credibility. You are a walking sandwich board saying "The Q Movement is In-Credible." I don't know if you think that calling "treason" on any and all malefactors is virtue-signaling, but it sure looks that way to me. Talk is not only cheap---it is cheapest.
I am curious, however, what your definition of treason is.
Because, while I am not a lawyer, I find it hard to prove that:
And misleading the American people about it, even after you’ve assumed the position of President of the United States.
Is absolutely treason.
Article III, Section 3: "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."
I'm not a lawyer either, but I am a native speaker and reader of the English language, and all the points you mention have no relationship to treason as defined by the Constitution. Why am I not surprised that you did not bother to refer to its only definition before you answered? Ready, shoot, aim?