apparently Kim Jung Un was correct in his assessment of President Trump.

[miamited]

Trump announces forthcoming executive order to 'make the cities guard their monuments'

Trump falsely accuses of Obama of treason in latest unfounded attack on his predecessor - CNNPolitics

Kim claimed that President Trump was a dotard. This certainly seems like the plan of a dotard. Hey, all you evangelical christians out there. Has President Trump convinced you that there was an effort to spy on a campaign and that it is a treasonable offense. Nixon did it and I don't remember anyone claiming that he had committed treason. He had just broken the law by covering up the break in at the Watergate compound to pilfer the Democratic offices for information. Of course, just as in this case, there was never found any evidence that he knew about it before the fact, but different in this case is that he was found to be complicit in covering it up after the fact.

In this case, so far, the only evidence is that there were investigations of people attached to the Trump campaign and that some people were recorded in their conversations with that person/s. The justice department has allowed that it was all done properly as far as all the right processes, but that the orders to allow the wiretaps may not have been properly vetted. I personally don't think that comes anywhere near the definition of treason. Perhaps a slightly bungled investigation into someone, but all evidence shows that it wasn't against Trump himself and that all the wiretaps were properly applied for.

How about it all you evangelical christians out there. You haven't made a single step in making changes to the Roe v Wade law, but you've certainly made great headway in supporting the terror of our nation by our own national leader. Go get 'em!!! Not one jot or tittle of any national abortion law has been changed, but we've sure upset practically all of our allies and trading partners. You go boys!!!!

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[jgarden]

apparently Kim Jung Un was correct in his assessment of President Trump.

American Evangelicals and Kim Jung Un - who would have ever predicted that a Bible totting President who neither reads it nor attends Church regularly (interferes with Sunday morning golf) would forge a bond with both!

Obviously the optics of Kim Jung Un meeting with Donald J Trump served each others agendas as leaders, but produced no long term results or benefits!

As for abortion, that train has already left the station and international studies have shown that making it illegal has produced no discernible reduction!

Even if Roe v Wade were reversed tomorrow, young American women are not prepared to allow elderly, wealthy, white males sitting in Washington, who know nothing about their personal circumstances, have control over their lives!!

 

[miamited]

Hi jgarden,

While I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment, every 'evangelical christian' that I've spoken with, when asked why they support Trump, say it's because of his stance on abortion over Hillary Clinton.

I'm just wondering if they've figured out yet that they've been deceived? Have they come to the realization that, despite their great hopes, Donald Trump isn't about to address the abortion issue and make any substantive changes to the federal or state laws that allow it. However, in speaking with those 'evangelical' christians, I've come to understand that it's a lot like trying to get an ostrich with his head in the sand to see something.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[disciple Clint]

Trump announces forthcoming executive order to 'make the cities guard their monuments'

Trump falsely accuses of Obama of treason in latest unfounded attack on his predecessor - CNNPolitics

Kim claimed that President Trump was a dotard. This certainly seems like the plan of a dotard. Hey, all you evangelical christians out there. Has President Trump convinced you that there was an effort to spy on a campaign and that it is a treasonable offense. Nixon did it and I don't remember anyone claiming that he had committed treason. He had just broken the law by covering up the break in at the Watergate compound to pilfer the Democratic offices for information. Of course, just as in this case, there was never found any evidence that he knew about it before the fact, but different in this case is that he was found to be complicit in covering it up after the fact.

In this case, so far, the only evidence is that there were investigations of people attached to the Trump campaign and that some people were recorded in their conversations with that person/s. The justice department has allowed that it was all done properly as far as all the right processes, but that the orders to allow the wiretaps may not have been properly vetted. I personally don't think that comes anywhere near the definition of treason. Perhaps a slightly bungled investigation into someone, but all evidence shows that it wasn't against Trump himself and that all the wiretaps were properly applied for.

How about it all you evangelical christians out there. You haven't made a single step in making changes to the Roe v Wade law, but you've certainly made great headway in supporting the terror of our nation by our own national leader. Go get 'em!!! Not one jot or tittle of any national abortion law has been changed, but we've sure upset practically all of our allies and trading partners. You go boys!!!!

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Talk about jumping to conclusions, before we can call accusations false we need to determine the facts. There are three ongoing investigations now looking into criminal activities in the Obama administration. There seems to be plenty to investigate. I have to ask why the msm never claimed that the Russia witch hunt was a false accusation. All the time that investigation was going on all their news assumed that Trump was guilty but not so with Obama. Double standards again. At this point we need to allow the investigations to conclude, find out who gets indicted and for what, and then we can jump to conclusions about what should be done. Nice try at getting people fired up over nothing.

 

[disciple Clint]

Hi jgarden,

While I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment, every 'evangelical christian' that I've spoken with, when asked why they support Trump, say it's because of his stance on abortion over Hillary Clinton.

I'm just wondering if they've figured out yet that they've been deceived? Have they come to the realization that, despite their great hopes, Donald Trump isn't about to address the abortion issue and make any substantive changes to the federal or state laws that allow it. However, in speaking with those 'evangelical' christians, I've come to understand that it's a lot like trying to get an ostrich with his head in the sand to see something.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I can understand why you would understand that.

 

[Albion]

How about it all you evangelical christians out there. You haven't made a single step in making changes to the Roe v Wade law, but you've certainly made great headway in supporting the terror of our nation by our own national leader. Go get 'em!!!

In other words, "All you evangelical christians out there, get going and elect a House of Representatives and a Senate that will provide the votes necessary to put the President's program into effect."

 

[hislegacy]

Trump announces forthcoming executive order to 'make the cities guard their monuments'

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-executive-order-make-cities-guard-monuments

Quote from link: "We are going to do an executive order and make the cities guard their monuments," Trump told Eternal Word Television Network's Raymond Arroyo. "This is a disgrace." ​

The article then goes to show that Grant's monument was targeted also.

Trump falsely accuses of Obama of treason in latest unfounded attack on his predecessor - CNNPolitics

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/22/politics/trump-obama-treason-claim/index.html

Quote from Link: "It's treason," Trump said. "Look, when I came out a long time ago, I said they've been spying on my campaign. I said they've been taping, and that was in quotes, meaning a modern day version of taping, it's all the same thing. But a modern day version. But they've been spying on my campaign."​

The Senate is currently holding hearings on this very topic, supported by reports from the IG and the forthcoming Durham investigation.

Kim claimed that President Trump was a dotard. This certainly seems like the plan of a dotard.

1. Relying on Kim for an outlook on Trump is laughable at best IMHO - The man kills his own family with missiles, he executes his generals in public and keeps his people in abject poverty. He has not kept one agreement he has ever signed and the poster is using a man of this caliber to comment on the President? That is just.......

Hey, all you evangelical christians out there. Has President Trump convinced you that there was an effort to spy on a campaign and that it is a treasonable offense.

The President has not, but the mounting evidence of it happening it starting to sway the position.

Christians and all citizens should look at the fact, no matter how they are being ignored by the left and their loyal media hounds. ​

 

[miamited]

Hi hislegacy,

Thanks for your response:

The Senate is currently holding hearings on this very topic, supported by reports from the IG and the forthcoming Durham investigation.

No doubt. The Senate often holds hearings on various topics. My post is not concerned with whether or not one political party may or may not have 'spied' on another, but so far, and this is after 3+ years, no one has really come up with any solid evidence that there was any spying. As I claimed, the issue has always been explained as having been some investigative work on various individuals involved with Trump World, and that in the course of those investigations, others were touched. However, now some 3+ years later, Senate investigative work not withstanding, there hasn't been any evidence brought forth to substantiate such ideas that anyone was spying on the Trump campaign. I'm perfectly willing to wait and see what the Senate produces.

But let's lay all that aside for a moment. Let's even say that some evidence is produced from these investigations that shows that there was a wiretap directed towards the overall campaign and even Trump himself as the head of such campaign. THAT ISN'T TREASON!!!!!! Nixon's administration got caught doing pretty much the same thing as what Trump is accusing the law enforcement officials of doing during his campaign. No one ever made the argument that such a thing was treason. It's dirty politics, maybe, but it doesn't meet anyone's definition of treason...except for those who have been brainwashed to believe that President Trump is always right.

Treason has a legal definition, and investigating people in a campaign doesn't fit that definition. If I jaywalk across the street, I likely won't be arrested for shoplifting. Why? Because the definition of shoplifting is not...walking across a thoroughfare outside of a crosswalk. But Trump knows that the word 'treason', just like the word 'socialism' and these days 'antifa' puts fear into the hearts of men that global catastrophe is sure to follow if such things are allowed. And he gets his base all whipped up into some feeding frenzy over something that isn't real, but his followers are about as intelligent as he is and so they can't see outside their paper bag.

I know, this is too long for you to read so I won't expect any response, but hey, it's out there. Much like Trump, anything over 10 words is boring.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[hislegacy]

Hi hislegacy,
Thanks for your response:

You are most assuredly welcome. I have the part I am addressing in bold for ease of understanding.

No doubt. The Senate often holds hearings on various topics. My post is not concerned with whether or not one political party may or may not have 'spied' on another, but so far, and this is after 3+ years, no one has really come up with any solid evidence that there was any spying.

I would encourage you to do some research away from MSM and find the facts for yourself.

· IG Horowitz found 17 different ‘mistakes’ the FBI and others made in the initial investigation.
· The well established fact that the DNC paid for dirt on their political opponent, utilizing a foreign agent is well established.
· That information was the base for the FISA warrants being issued and the Special counsel being appointed.
· Rod Rosenstein testified before the Senate that had he had the information he now knows, at the time, he would not have gone through with the FISA warrants, nor appointed Mueller. This is on video easily found.
· Rod Rosenstein also had no answer when asked why he didn’t know it at the time when it was available.

There also the Durham investigation. So the comment is completely incorrect.

As I claimed, the issue has always been explained as having been some investigative work on various individuals involved with Trump World, and that in the course of those investigations, others were touched. However, now some 3+ years later, Senate investigative work not withstanding, there hasn't been any evidence brought forth to substantiate such ideas that anyone was spying on the Trump campaign. I'm perfectly willing to wait and see what the Senate produces.

Same reply as above. Repetitive point/ repetitive answer

But let's lay all that aside for a moment. Let's even say that some evidence is produced from these investigations that shows that there was a wiretap directed towards the overall campaign and even Trump himself as the head of such campaign. THAT ISN'T TREASON!!!!!! Nixon's administration got caught doing pretty much the same thing as what Trump is accusing the law enforcement officials of doing during his campaign. No one ever made the argument that such a thing was treason. It's dirty politics, maybe, but it doesn't meet anyone's definition of treason...except for those who have been brainwashed to believe that President Trump is always right.

It's is dirty politics that are inexcusable and if Ford had not pardoned Nixon, he would have been prosecuted for the crimes. The same should hold true today. The people directing and acting in the criminal act should be arrested and prosecuted.

 

[hislegacy]

Part two:

Treason has a legal definition, and investigating people in a campaign doesn't fit that definition. [\QUOTE]

Treason
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

When someone weaponizes the intelligence community against a political opponent, that is a betrayal of trust. That alone follows the definition.

If I jaywalk across the street, I likely won't be arrested for shoplifting. Why? Because the definition of shoplifting is not...walking across a thoroughfare outside of a crosswalk. But Trump knows that the word 'treason', just like the word 'socialism' and these days 'antifa' puts fear into the hearts of men that global catastrophe is sure to follow if such things are allowed. And he gets his base all whipped up into some feeding frenzy over something that isn't real, but his followers are about as intelligent as he is and so they can't see outside their paper bag.

The President’s base is not burning down businesses, the President’s base is not blocking traffic and damaging vehicles, the Presidents base is not pulling drivers out of their cars and assaulting them, the President’s base is not in control of CHAZ where there has been one murder and three shot already during ‘the summer of love”, The Presidents base are not screaming at the cops, the President’s base are not throwing bricks through windows and at authorities. Need I go on?

The people ‘whipped up into a feeding frenzy’ are NOT the President’s base.

I know, this is too long for you to read so I won't expect any response, but hey, it's out there. Much like Trump, anything over 10 words is boring.

God bless you,

In Christ, ted

God bless you also!

 

[Arc F1]

Trump announces forthcoming executive order to 'make the cities guard their monuments'

Trump falsely accuses of Obama of treason in latest unfounded attack on his predecessor - CNNPolitics

Kim claimed that President Trump was a dotard. This certainly seems like the plan of a dotard. Hey, all you evangelical christians out there. Has President Trump convinced you that there was an effort to spy on a campaign and that it is a treasonable offense. Nixon did it and I don't remember anyone claiming that he had committed treason. He had just broken the law by covering up the break in at the Watergate compound to pilfer the Democratic offices for information. Of course, just as in this case, there was never found any evidence that he knew about it before the fact, but different in this case is that he was found to be complicit in covering it up after the fact.

In this case, so far, the only evidence is that there were investigations of people attached to the Trump campaign and that some people were recorded in their conversations with that person/s. The justice department has allowed that it was all done properly as far as all the right processes, but that the orders to allow the wiretaps may not have been properly vetted. I personally don't think that comes anywhere near the definition of treason. Perhaps a slightly bungled investigation into someone, but all evidence shows that it wasn't against Trump himself and that all the wiretaps were properly applied for.

How about it all you evangelical christians out there. You haven't made a single step in making changes to the Roe v Wade law, but you've certainly made great headway in supporting the terror of our nation by our own national leader. Go get 'em!!! Not one jot or tittle of any national abortion law has been changed, but we've sure upset practically all of our allies and trading partners. You go boys!!!!

God bless,
In Christ, ted

That wasn't very nice. What ever happened to respecting a man's vote?

If you don't mind I would like to know how you justify abortion with your belief in God. I can't wrap my head around agreeing with killing a child. Shouldn't we do all we can to preserve life? We lock people up or put them down for taking another's life except when it's an unborn child. Im curious to know.

 

[hislegacy]

dup

 

[FenderTL5]

How about it all you evangelical christians out there. You haven't made a single step in making changes to the Roe v Wade law, but you've certainly made great headway in supporting the terror of our nation by our own national leader. Go get 'em!!! Not one jot or tittle of any national abortion law has been changed..

This is a major reason why I quit voting republican (along with the Cheney war in Iraq).
It was during W's first term that it occured to me that the GOP had no intent in changing abortion law. To actually accomplish anything here is to risk an election talking point and losing numerous voters.
I now look at all issues through the lens of being Pro-Life. I am no longer a single-issue voter and therefore can not support the GOP.

 

[miamited]

Hi hislegacy,

Thanks again for your reply:

· IG Horowitz found 17 different ‘mistakes’ the FBI and others made in the initial investigation.

I have no reason not to agree with that finding, nor do I deny that it has been known to me. But 'mistakes' in operating or establishing an investigation, doesn't quite measure up to some charge of treason. I would likely imagine that in pretty much any of the many long term investigations that our national security personnel conduct against money launderers and drug traffickers and counterfeiters, that there can pretty much always be found some procedural mistakes noted after the fact. Just as it's easy for any one of us to look at a football game the next day and tell the quarterback what he should have done.

· The well established fact that the DNC paid for dirt on their political opponent, utilizing a foreign agent is well established.

You're really going to throw that one out there in a discussion concerning Donald Trump? OK.

· That information was the base for the FISA warrants being issued and the Special counsel being appointed.

Yes, I'm sure that much of it was. Again, we'll likely find that many investigations may have been started by the various investigative departments of law enforcement with information that may not have proven to be what it looked like it was. Although I'm not saying that this was the case in this matter. But law enforcement agencies are given privileged information all the time that they look into and weigh for consideration of any laws being broken. Some may go quite a ways into investigative procedures before it is determined that there's nothing to be seen.

I was actually somewhat involved in an investigation where financial records were subpoenaed and many witness statements taken, that after several months, was decided that it hadn't really turned out to be what the initial charge was attempting to support. It happens.

In this case, the evidence seems to show that the FBI had received some information regarding a player on the Trump campaign. In the course of investigating the charges, wiretaps were requested and conversations to that person were recorded. In the end, it was determined that there wasn't really enough to make any concrete case and the investigation dropped. Playing armchair quarterback, some have made the claim, after the fact, that there may, and let me repeat 'may' have been some improprieties as to how the requests for such evidence were assembled and produced. So far, that' all we have. Nothing that comes close to sustaining a charge of treason.

By your own definition, so far, Trump nor any of his investigators have found any basis to make a claim that any of this was an effort to overthrow the government. Remember please, at the point that these charges are being made, Donald Trump, nor any part of his campaign, was 'the government'.

· Rod Rosenstein testified before the Senate that had he had the information he now knows, at the time, he would not have gone through with the FISA warrants, nor appointed Mueller. This is on video easily found.

Ok, and you find that to be treasonous because...?

· Rod Rosenstein also had no answer when asked why he didn’t know it at the time when it was available.

Ok, and you find that to be treasonous because having no answer to a question is treason.

Look, you and I have had discussions previously on these matters. I understand that you still feel as you do and have about these issues. Let me also say that I still feel and understand these issues the same as I always have.

Treason is a specific charge upheld by specific actions. Just having an investigation on going with someone, I don't think, would ever amount to the definition of treason. If, on the other hand, actions were taken to overthrow the standing government of the U.S., which at this time would have been the Obama administration, then I would be the first in line to charge treason. You and I seem to obviously have different definitions of treason, but the only one that matters is the law's definition of treason. Reports coming out now, even from some of Trump's most ardent supporters, is that none of these accusations rise to the charge of treason. Lindsey Graham going so far as to say that he doesn't have any idea what Trump is talking about.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

That wasn't very nice. What ever happened to respecting a man's vote?

If you don't mind I would like to know how you justify abortion with your belief in God. I can't wrap my head around agreeing with killing a child. Shouldn't we do all we can to preserve life? We lock people up or put them down for taking another's life except when it's an unborn child. Im curious to know.

HI arc,

I justify abortion in this world in the same way that I justify all sin in this world. It's out there and it's happening everyday. What God asks of His children is to live apart from it. As I've previously written, I don't find any evidence that God, in His Scriptures, has called His children to go out and change the governments of the world. God asks us, through the proclamation of the gospel, to go out and change individual hearts. That once we have gotten someone to seek to change their heart to lean towards the gospel,...then, let me repeat, Jesus' words list an order for this process. We go out and proclaim the gospel...then...for those who believe we train them up to obey his commands.

There is nowhere exampled for us in the Scriptures that God has ever asked us to go out and beat the world over the head to make them obey His laws.

So, I see that for the believer, they should not be involved in the practice of abortion because they understand that it is against God's law. But the very reason they are called unbelievers is that they don't believe there is a God or a sovereign law established by that God. What effect do you think beating the unbelieving world over the head with a law for which they find no reason to believe in, does to their willingness to hear the gospel?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Arc F1]

HI arc,

I justify abortion in this world in the same way that I justify all sin in this world. It's out there and it's happening everyday. What God asks of His children is to live apart from it. As I've previously written, I don't find any evidence that God, in His Scriptures, has called His children to go out and change the governments of the world. God asks us, through the proclamation of the gospel, to go out and change individual hearts. That once we have gotten someone to seek to change their heart to lean towards the gospel,...then, let me repeat, Jesus' words list an order for this process. We go out and proclaim the gospel...then...for those who believe we train them up to obey his commands.

There is nowhere exampled for us in the Scriptures that God has ever asked us to go out and beat the world over the head to make them obey His laws.

So, I see that for the believer, they should not be involved in the practice of abortion because they understand that it is against God's law. But the very reason they are called unbelievers is that they don't believe there is a God or a sovereign law established by that God. What effect do you think beating the unbelieving world over the head with a law for which they find no reason to believe in, does to their willingness to hear the gospel?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Thank you for that. I appreciate the response.

 

[hislegacy]

Hi hislegacy,

Thanks again for your reply:


I have no reason not to agree with that finding, nor do I deny that it has been known to me. But 'mistakes' in operating or establishing an investigation, doesn't quite measure up to some charge of treason. I would likely imagine that in pretty much any of the many long term investigations that our national security personnel conduct against money launderers and drug traffickers and counterfeiters, that there can pretty much always be found some procedural mistakes noted after the fact. Just as it's easy for any one of us to look at a football game the next day and tell the quarterback what he should have done.

· The well established fact that the DNC paid for dirt on their political opponent, utilizing a foreign agent is well established.

You're really going to throw that one out there in a discussion concerning Donald Trump? OK.

· That information was the base for the FISA warrants being issued and the Special counsel being appointed.

Yes, I'm sure that much of it was. Again, we'll likely find that many investigations may have been started by the various investigative departments of law enforcement with information that may not have proven to be what it looked like it was. Although I'm not saying that this was the case in this matter. But law enforcement agencies are given privileged information all the time that they look into and weigh for consideration of any laws being broken. Some may go quite a ways into investigative procedures before it is determined that there's nothing to be seen.

I was actually somewhat involved in an investigation where financial records were subpoenaed and many witness statements taken, that after several months, was decided that it hadn't really turned out to be what the initial charge was attempting to support. It happens.

In this case, the evidence seems to show that the FBI had received some information regarding a player on the Trump campaign. In the course of investigating the charges, wiretaps were requested and conversations to that person were recorded. In the end, it was determined that there wasn't really enough to make any concrete case and the investigation dropped. Playing armchair quarterback, some have made the claim, after the fact, that there may, and let me repeat 'may' have been some improprieties as to how the requests for such evidence were assembled and produced. So far, that' all we have. Nothing that comes close to sustaining a charge of treason.

By your own definition, so far, Trump nor any of his investigators have found any basis to make a claim that any of this was an effort to overthrow the government. Remember please, at the point that these charges are being made, Donald Trump, nor any part of his campaign, was 'the government'.

· Rod Rosenstein testified before the Senate that had he had the information he now knows, at the time, he would not have gone through with the FISA warrants, nor appointed Mueller. This is on video easily found.

Ok, and you find that to be treasonous because...?

· Rod Rosenstein also had no answer when asked why he didn’t know it at the time when it was available.

Ok, and you find that to be treasonous because having no answer to a question is treason.

Look, you and I have had discussions previously on these matters. I understand that you still feel as you do and have about these issues. Let me also say that I still feel and understand these issues the same as I always have.

Treason is a specific charge upheld by specific actions. Just having an investigation on going with someone, I don't think, would ever amount to the definition of treason. If, on the other hand, actions were taken to overthrow the standing government of the U.S., which at this time would have been the Obama administration, then I would be the first in line to charge treason. You and I seem to obviously have different definitions of treason, but the only one that matters is the law's definition of treason. Reports coming out now, even from some of Trump's most ardent supporters, is that none of these accusations rise to the charge of treason. Lindsey Graham going so far as to say that he doesn't have any idea what Trump is talking about.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

HI, you are welcome again. You quoted a number of things I wrote, but seem to have completely missed this one, which explains the treason accusation.

Treason
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.​

When someone weaponizes the intelligence community against a political opponent, that is a betrayal of trust. That alone follows the definition.

 

[miamited]

HI, you are welcome again. You quoted a number of things I wrote, but seem to have completely missed this one, which explains the treason accusation.

Treason
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.​

When someone weaponizes the intelligence community against a political opponent, that is a betrayal of trust. That alone follows the definition.

Hi hislegacy,

No I didn't miss that one. At the time of the events in question, for which Trump is so vehemently boasting of President Obama committing treason...wait for it...President Obama was the
sovereign who would have had to have been overthrown. Trump was just a candidate looking to get elected. That doesn't make him any kind of sovereign whose allegiance or betrayal of trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery, would have even mattered. I'm pretty sure I explained that in my answer to you.

Secondly, your claim is that there may have been a violation to the dictionary definition of treason. That isn't what the law of the United States uses to bring a charge of treason.

18 U.S. Code § 2381.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.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again hislegacy,

That's also the reason that we find that so many of President Trump's most ardent supporters are having a hard time finding a way to support him in this claim. When you start proclaiming that undermining a political campaign is treason...you open up a pretty big can o' worms. After all, fighting against an opponent's campaign is pretty much how the game is played. Even Lindsey Graham is having a hard time jumping behind his golf buddy on this one.

I really think you need to find out exactly why President Trump thinks that President Obama is guilty of treason. It really can't just be because some group from the DOJ were looking into his campaign. That has never qualified as a treasonable action. The Republican party in Richard Nixon's day did exactly that and no one ever accused them of treason. Trying get dirt on a political opponent just isn't treason.

So look, you're welcome to believe as you will, but I would encourage you to find out the answer to that question I just posed for you. Because if you think that President Obama, for whom there has yet been any shred of proof that he was behind any of this, committed treason by merely having wiretaps placed on an office building in New York City where a Republican candidate was running his campaign, committed treason, I don't think you'd make much of a lawyer. That doesn't even fit your definition of treason and most certainly doesn't meet the definition of treason found in the U.S. Penal Code.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[hislegacy]

So look, you're welcome to believe as you will, but I would encourage you to find out the answer to that question I just posed for you. Because if you think that President Obama, for whom there has yet been any shred of proof that he was behind any of this, committed treason by merely having wiretaps placed on an office building in New York City where a Republican candidate was running his campaign, committed treason, I don't think you'd make much of a lawyer. That doesn't even fit your definition of treason and most certainly doesn't meet the definition of treason found in the U.S. Penal Code.

It was not just the wire tapping - as I have previously mentioned. Perhaps if you go back and re read my posts, it will help. Look again and read for yourself (won't find it on CNN), what the Obama administration and justice department did - including editing emails, and changing testimony on 302's.

BTW I don't think you would make much of a lawyer either. You don't address anything but the wire tapping element. Perhaps that is the only strength of the argument, but it fails miserably. This case is more about wire tapping. I would really encourage people to do some research beyond the talking heads.

I'll give you an example of what you are not being told:

There is what you see on MSM - the former VP stating flat out - "I was aware that there was, that they had asked for an investigation," Biden responded, then - - - But that's all I know about it.

Yet in the investigation going on they came across these notes:

We are being lied to.