If Hillary is Convicted of Treason

a reply to: LifeMode

Hilarious.

This isn't Cambodia or Colombia. We don't go after our political rivals for points in the US.

If we did, we would have hung Darth Cheney and Double-Ya for the premeditated murder of 1 million Iraqi civilians behind trumped up WMD.

If you want a banana republic, try your local mall.

Buying stuff you don't need = freedom.

a reply to: intrptr


Its all gone into damage control, the media will be stopping all the reports of leaks, their will some report that says the "Evidence" is some hacker in Russia. "It was a cold bright day in April and the clocks struck thirteen" most will not care one way or another.

originally posted by: LifeMode
What is the right course of action:

1. Life in Prison
2. Lethal Injection
2. Firing Squad
3. Guillotine

I think she should be given options on death. She should be allowed to choose any method out of common civil decency she wants.

She would probably chooses guillotine though. Podesta and her folks gravitate towards depravity from the emails . They like the thrill of it as they look forward to that style with the "spirit cooking" for entertainment.

Treason in itself DOES NOT carry a death penalty . High Treason during a time of war does. But then , you have to be tried by a military tribunal and found guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: RainyState
1) she should be forced to serve in Trump's cabinet as the internal liaison officer for U.S. Federal Prisons

2) she should be made permanent Ambassador to Libya

All jokes aside and regardless of any personal opinions towards her, I can only hope that she is given the same opportunity and treatment that would be given to you and me. She should allowed her day in court, and found guilty or innocent in a trial by jury, and punished accordingly if it were to come to that. Liberty and JUSTICE for all.

BUT.....

AT THE VERY LEAST, I feel that she should NOT be allowed to hold and/or run for the office of the President of the United States of freaking America. Guilty or not, I think that she has displayed enough lack of integrity, respect for security, and overall lack of judgement to hold such a position.

Just my two cents

I agree with most of your commentary ... however on the latter point are you saying that the display of a lack of integrity and an overall lack of judgement disqualifies a person from the Presidiency?

... and yet, Trump qualifies?

I was wondering if that was going to be brought up

Since the OP is specifically asking "if Hillary is convicted of treason" my reply was based on that. Now if the original question was titled differently.......

I don't particularly like either candidate, and feel that we as Americans could have come up with better alternatives. To be completely honest with you, if based solely on lack of judgement and lack of integrity, then NO, Trump would not qualify. The deciding factor for me, is that Hillary was OUR employee, OUR first lady, an elected senator, secretary of state when she decided to do whatever she is being accused of. Obviously there are a lot more factors to be considered, but you get the idea.

a reply to: RainyState

Thanks for your answer.

I did find one interesting turn-of-phrase (probably coincidental) ... "when she decided to do whatever she is being accused of" ... I think that's the reality in the case of Clinton ... all that's needed is the accusation and guilt is assumed

... last I checked, the US Code of justice is "innocent until proven guilty."

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RainyState

Thanks for your answer.

I did find one interesting turn-of-phrase (probably coincidental) ... "when she decided to do whatever she is being accused of" ... I think that's the reality in the case of Clinton ... all that's needed is the accusation and guilt is assumed

... last I checked, the US Code of justice is "innocent until proven guilty."

Definitely a bad choice of words on my end. I should have said " if" instead of "when", either way, I agree, innocent until proven guilty.

originally posted by: RainyState

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RainyState

Thanks for your answer.

I did find one interesting turn-of-phrase (probably coincidental) ... "when she decided to do whatever she is being accused of" ... I think that's the reality in the case of Clinton ... all that's needed is the accusation and guilt is assumed

... last I checked, the US Code of justice is "innocent until proven guilty."

Definitely a bad choice of words on my end. I should have said " if" instead of "when", either way, I agree, innocent until proven guilty.

I wasn't trying to play "gotcha" with your comment, I was merely reflecting that is the phenomenon we see with Clinton.

Whatever she's accused of is true. It happens daily across this site and a hundred others.

originally posted by: LifeMode
People have been executed in the US for treason. That was my only point. We are suppose to be a country of equals so going off of that those laws and determinations would apply to anyone. It would not matter who they were. Treason is treason. I think you are saying that some people are better than others and would not be subjected to it by you saying "first lady" as if they are above it.

Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution. It has very specific criteria, criteria that Hillary has obviously not met.

She will never be convicted of treason, because she hasn't committed it.

What "treason" are you guys talking about?

Is she now being accused of spying? Selling our secrets to the Russians?

Where can I find this story?

a reply to: LifeMode

She wont be convicted, though I cant imagine how she will survive the "Castro" levels of assassination attempts she may face in years to come.

This is not a game. The same way I can get raided and arrested for saying that is the same way millions of Americans can lose their minds over obvious corruption and LEGAL impunity.

Conceps like "law", "justice", and "order" are becoming relative terms and as such, the same people blurring the ideas for an advantage over most others in our civilization are also chipping away at the restraints that protect them.

While I personally think she is a traitor, jeopardized our national security, and allowed government sensitive information to be left vulnerable for the taking, I think what she will eventually get convicted for is racketeering and fraud.

It seems far more likely, should connections be proven between Trump and Russia, that he, indeed will be the one charged with treason, not Mrs. Clinton. It seems that Mr. Trump has deep ties to the Kremlin, and has lied repeatedly about those connections. That scenario actually does set up the possibility that he could be charged and tried for treason.

Mrs. Clinton chose to have a private email server. There is no evidence of intentional attempts to endanger the security of the United States, nor is there any real evidence that any information, classified or otherwise, was compromised.

The Bush White House used a private email server, including Secretaries Powell and Rice, and notably, at the time, millions of emails were reported lost that were under subpoena by Congress.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: intrptr


Its all gone into damage control, the media will be stopping all the reports of leaks, their will some report that says the "Evidence" is some hacker in Russia. "It was a cold bright day in April and the clocks struck thirteen" most will not care one way or another.

But change their clocks an hour, like good Romans.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It seems far more likely, should connections be proven between Trump and Russia, that he, indeed will be the one charged with treason, not Mrs. Clinton. It seems that Mr. Trump has deep ties to the Kremlin, and has lied repeatedly about those connections. That scenario actually does set up the possibility that he could be charged and tried for treason.

Mrs. Clinton chose to have a private email server. There is no evidence of intentional attempts to endanger the security of the United States, nor is there any real evidence that any information, classified or otherwise, was compromised.

The Bush White House used a private email server, including Secretaries Powell and Rice, and notably, at the time, millions of emails were reported lost that were under subpoena by Congress.

She is greedy and careless. She violated security rules through indifference and repeatedly lied about it. She may not be convicted of espionage but she can be convicted of many other charges, including official corruption. The Clinton foundation had donations of $145 million by investors after Hillary approved the sale of 20% of our Uranium assets to a State-owned Russian company. From the Podesta emails. Read and learn.
www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com...

"Hillary sold 20% of America’s uranium to Russia as SoS, Clinton camp worried that the deal is being investigated
https://__._/podesta-emails/emailid/286
https://__._/podesta-emails/emailid/225
"It's out there."
This isn’t a smoking gun leak (since the Grassley letter was posted publicly) but it shows the Clinton campaign's nervousness about this incredibly damning story being investigated.
‘Uranium One’ explanation: As Secretary of State, Hillary approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to the Russian state-owned firm ‘Uranium One’, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. She literally sold off a rare and prime material used in nukes to a country we are at odds with for cold hard cash. John Podesta also has ties to Russia exposed through the WikiLeaks, owning 75,000 shares in a Putin-backed energy company."


​

a reply to: pteridine

In rough order of your presentation.

Your opinion.

No, she didn't.

Perhaps you'll cite the laws regarding "offiical corruption"?

Cherry-picking facts that suit your narrative is pointless AND intellectually dishonest. No, Hillary Clinton did not "sell uranium to the Russians." The matter you'r espeaking of was approved by multiple government departments:

Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

New York Times

Wikileaks emails prove something? Cite them. Discuss them.

None of them will prove that Clinton "sold uranium to the Russians" because she didn't and she couldn't.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pteridine

In rough order of your presentation.

Your opinion.

No, she didn't.

Perhaps you'll cite the laws regarding "offiical corruption"?

Cherry-picking facts that suit your narrative is pointless AND intellectually dishonest. No, Hillary Clinton did not "sell uranium to the Russians." The matter you'r espeaking of was approved by multiple government departments:

Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

New York Times

Wikileaks emails prove something? Cite them. Discuss them.

None of them will prove that Clinton "sold uranium to the Russians" because she didn't and she couldn't.

That "selling' was in the title from the link that I quoted. She had to approve the sale. There was a COI risk with the Clinton Foundation so an agreement between the Obama Administration and the Clinton Foundation was reached in which all "donations" to the foundation from those involved were to be disclosed. Apparently, they were not.
From: *Maura Pally* Date: Friday, July 3, 2015 Subject: Grassley letter To: Cheryl Mills , John Podesta < [email protected]>, Heather Samuelson , Huma Abedin Putting on all of your radars that Grassley sent a letter to AG Lynch (dated June 30th though we just saw it) asking questions about contributions to the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One deal. Letter is attached. Craig is connecting with comms team to be sure they are aware as well.
This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key
Fwd: It's out there
From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-04-29 13:47 Subject: Fwd: It's out there
Fyi Sent from my iPhone *From:* Tony Carrk *Date:* April 29, 2015 at 11:25:34 AM EDT *To:* Jennifer Palmieri , Brian Fallon < [email protected]> *Subject:* *It's out there*
dailycaller.com...

www.scribd.com...

The rule of thumb in the Federal Government is that if there appears to be a conflict of interest, then there is a conflict of interest. By accepting the donations, the Clinton Foundation violated that principle. The lobbying for Russia's Uranium One adds additional fuel to the fire and the emails cited above show the Clinton Campaign was worried about disclosure. Fortunately, the Times did a puff piece and buried the problem.

Certainly in the present climate she has lost all effectiveness she would otherwise need to be POTUS, and the cloud over her will never disperse. Regardless what the future holds for her, she will go nowhere. A Republican Congress will see to that.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Trump is not colluding with Russia. This has already been debunked. Now as far as Hillary colluding with multiple countries...well, that is looking very much to be more and more the actual case.