18 U.S.Code § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government.
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein...
Arrogant enough. Narcissists project what they are going to do: it is necessary, as an act of clandestine harvesting of consent.
Once a victim 'knows' that something is going to happen, because they have been told, and if they then not prevent said action (which is sometimes very hard), the victim is seen by the narcissist as acquiescent - which to such a sick person, means a carte blanche to go ahead with their stated intention.
Another way to look at it is that narcissists think out loud in order to test their ideas, and if there is no good reason presented at that very moment, then they believe everyone is ok with their proposals, and the narcissist progresses, or levels up.
Tired of redacted letters. Actually pissed off with them. Please don't continue the narrative that some names need to be protected for investigation sake. They are part of the investigation and have only come forward by negotiating a deal. Expose them all!
I admire the sentiment, but it is still necessary to redact names, especially if, say, FBI is still milking some of those people for more information to find more perps. If evidence is found to convict the people whose names have been redacted, then their names will become public.
Innocent until proven guilty, and even if all the redactions may not be innocent, we cannot go ahead and publish all of the names, because some of them ARE innocent, or have experienced a change of heart, as in: they blew the whistle. There will be whistleblower names in there, who MUST be protected.
Every single staffer that attended and decided to cooperate needs to face charges
"Knowingly."
u/#q3690
this is what they'll get them on
... and this person finally figured out to go to the FBI, and then nothing for yawning amounts of time.
un-named for now :)
Fellow got fired for "disloyalty."
Seems like there must have been 8 of them.
He was stupid enough to hold a staff meeting about leaking?
It lasted 8 years before it came out.
They'll say it means nothing at this point and sweep it under the rug
They thought they would always get away with their bullshit. It never occurred to them that it would end.
Arrogant enough. Narcissists project what they are going to do: it is necessary, as an act of clandestine harvesting of consent.
Once a victim 'knows' that something is going to happen, because they have been told, and if they then not prevent said action (which is sometimes very hard), the victim is seen by the narcissist as acquiescent - which to such a sick person, means a carte blanche to go ahead with their stated intention.
Another way to look at it is that narcissists think out loud in order to test their ideas, and if there is no good reason presented at that very moment, then they believe everyone is ok with their proposals, and the narcissist progresses, or levels up.
I found a longer version of this document that includes a portion of the letterhead area on the top and it's 4 paragraphs instead of just 2.
Here's the link on Telegram: https://t.me/GeneralMCNews/14493
Can you copy-pasta the post? I am a Telegram virgin, and can't see the post?
Sorry, the Telegram post I linked to is just a screenshot pic of a longer affidavit doc - not a text post.
Whoever this Dem whistleblower is, he/she did not kill him/herself.
Not "treason" as Dogsoldier2 points out. Treason is 18 USC section 2381.
Why is the declass date redacted?
“It’s classified.”
Hilariously enough, this could be true!
Good catch!!
Tired of redacted letters. Actually pissed off with them. Please don't continue the narrative that some names need to be protected for investigation sake. They are part of the investigation and have only come forward by negotiating a deal. Expose them all!
I admire the sentiment, but it is still necessary to redact names, especially if, say, FBI is still milking some of those people for more information to find more perps. If evidence is found to convict the people whose names have been redacted, then their names will become public.
Innocent until proven guilty, and even if all the redactions may not be innocent, we cannot go ahead and publish all of the names, because some of them ARE innocent, or have experienced a change of heart, as in: they blew the whistle. There will be whistleblower names in there, who MUST be protected.