Is the NYT op-ed Sedition and Treason

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Thanks for agreeing with me for once that illicit and illegal are synonyms.

They are synonymns, but outside of your misrepresentation, illegal and illicit are two different words with two different meanings, easily proven by comparing the definitions. I bet that since you’re so interested in honesty, you’ll now admit that you were wrong.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

Actually I'm really tired of talking to someone who insults me at every chance he gets. I think i'll just report your posts and move on with my life.

Actually you are tired of being wrong and will not admit such.
Again

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JBurns

I've now decided that you have no clue what the term "subvert the Constitution of the United States" is. This is why I think of you as a budding authoritarian. You justify the craziest unconstitutional solutions to situations that you've hyperbolically and willfully misunderstood to defend Trump.

As opposed to the "Collusion delusion" so many here and elsewhere have peddled? And you don't think that is hyperbole/a house of cards?

Only problem is, in this case, the person in question admits to the crime at hand. I quoted 5 statutes from the USC that this person's conduct could meet. One such crime includes treason, which is defined in the Constitution.

Again, subversion of the Constitution is another simple definition: anything that "subverts" (read: prevents, thwarts, excepts) lawful/legitimate Constitutional order. This includes the Constitutional duties and authority of the President. No where does a provision exist for a shadow government to thwart/subvert the Constitutional order

It is clear your position is tenuous at best, given the ridiculous deflections/obfuscations we've seen along with the uncalled for personal attacks. I could just as easily point out the number of ridiculous and totally unfounded claims you've made about this President RE: your Russia hysteria/"collusion delusion" But I won't, since my argument(s) stand on their own two feet without a crutch.

You're defending the indefensible.

a reply to: shooterbrody

That is exactly what it is too SB, he won't admit he's wrong. Everyone is wrong sometimes, everyone makes mistakes. But the left's first instinct is to deny deny deny and then counter-accuse or counter-attack. Just like that POS Joy Reid who lied about "hacking" when she was confronted with homophobic statements on her 10 year old blog. Just like Hillary Clinton who blamed everything from "us deplorables" to Comey to Russia to "sexism" for her unexpected election loss. Or the losers at CNN who refused to retract/correct a clearly false story they published. Or the total decline in "journalism." I could go on for miles

Typical leftist deflection, obfuscation, apology, excuse or attack. But they all only come with one debate setting: "non sense" and never retract.

The one thing they will never do? Admit they were wrong. Even though there are dozens of provable examples written by each one of them. Especially in regard to their hysterical Russian conspiracy machinations.

It just really strikes me that unproven mere allegations of Russian "meddling" (IE: trolling on social media, sharing truthful/real leaked emails) are treated by the left as "another Pearl Harbor or 9/11" while they ignore the actual evidence staring them right in the face.

All the government abuses, just like we saw in the 70's and 80's and beyond. Intelligence abuses. Illegal spying. Mass surveillance. Police/nanny state development. Intrusive government. Lying government. Politically motivated persecutions. Shadow government insiders working to subvert the Constitution. Among many, many, many other abuses.

How can it be that the left is up in arms over alleged Russian "influence" while ignoring an actual, active instance of subversion ie: ACTUAL SUBVERSION vs. mere "meddling" or "influence"

What I'm saying is this: If they are truly outraged over Russia, they cannot be complacent on this subversive actor without exposing the fact they are partisan hacks motivated not by love of country, but of hate for Donald Trump. And in that case... I have nothing left to say to them other than: grow up and stop being petty/petulant whiners.

Everybody loses elections sometimes, stop trying to destroy the country in your temper tantrums. Stop acting like a bunch of little boys and girls who didn't get their way or was forced by the Adult in the room to clear their plate at dinner.

The left lost its credibility a long time ago with most of us, but their hypocrisy and deluded ideology is now on display for the entire country to see. The wool has been pulled back, and to see the true face of the Democratic party look no further than the raucous and unhinged crowds that attempted (and failed) to disrupt Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation process.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t
sorry for your daftness
blabbing to the nyt is in no way a protected activity under the act you so gaudily brandished here

No, sounds like "blabbing" is a 1st amendment activity in this case. No secrets let out. No confidential information. Just an OP-ED.

Isn't that what the 1st is about?

a reply to: JBurns

Treason, sedition and insurrection are not laughing matters.

Are you guys back on this again?

Did you even read the first 5 pages and see how this issue was debunked in the case of the OP?

Boy, you guys would be funny if it wasn't obvious trolling.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SocratesJohnson


It they ran this opinion piece against Obama, the New York Times would be out of business in a year. Subscriptions would be cancelled. Advertisers would leave. Obama would sick every government agency on them, with crushing audits.

#

If my uncle had boobs, he'd be my aunt.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They confessed in a NYT article to subverting the Constitution of the United States. That is in fact a crime. I've quoted no less than 5 statutes from the USC. Please see my above post

No one ever confessed to a crime.

You pulled up statutes that apply to nothing like what happened. This is a 1st amendment issue, not colluding with the enemy, or seeking the violent overthrow of the the government.

Unless, you think free speak is treason?

Then you think the 1st amendment is treason?

originally posted by: JasonBillung

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t
sorry for your daftness
blabbing to the nyt is in no way a protected activity under the act you so gaudily brandished here

No, sounds like "blabbing" is a 1st amendment activity in this case. No secrets let out. No confidential information. Just an OP-ED.

Isn't that what the 1st is about?

I dont know what you are getting at.
K and myself were discussing how the whistleblower protection act would not apply. We were not discussing the first amendment.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

I think this needs to be investigated as it appears to me to be someone bragging about committing serious crimes.

What crimes specifically??? Please cite specific sections of the United States Code. Thanks.

a reply to: F4guy

Treason, sedition and insurrection are not laughing matters.

also, it seems the NYT could possibly be compelled to reveal the source under penalty of 18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

It is clear several other laws also may apply, outside of Constitutionally defined treason.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Like I said "may apply"

Either way, I support all lawful remedies to this person's confessed conduct. Observe due process, afford the accused all rights, and generally prosecute it like any other crime. Follow the law. If they are charged and subsequently convicted then they deserve the punishment proscribed by the law.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

I think this needs to be investigated as it appears to me to be someone bragging about committing serious crimes.

What crimes specifically??? Please cite specific sections of the United States Code. Thanks.

The kind criminals commit.
What is this United states code you post about?

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

I think this needs to be investigated as it appears to me to be someone bragging about committing serious crimes.

What crimes specifically??? Please cite specific sections of the United States Code. Thanks.

www.law.cornell.edu...

US Code Title 18 Chapter 115

§ 2381 - Treason
§ 2382 - Misprision of treason
§ 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
§ 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
§ 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government
§ 2386 - Registration of certain organizations

Those are among the slew of other potential violations of federal laws. You essentially have an unelected cabal attempting to assume some or all of the functions of the Presidency.

Sedition or whatever charges they deserve should be upheld. That is a small problem the big problem is the only reason they haven't done what is right is so they can get deregulation, tax breaks for the wealthy and feeding the military machine.

If what they say is true there is a shadow government and an unstable president in the Whitehouse. If they actually loved the country they would put an end to the farce.

LOL deep state give me some of what you're smoking

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Because I’m not a lawyer. Neither are you guys.

Ignorance of the law is not a reason to avoid holding your arguments to a legal standard.

a reply to: JasonBillung

Not a first amendment issue, it is a "come into a thread and reply to the last post without reading the entire thread"

Sorry buddy, but I addressed this 4 separate times because of people not reading the entire thread before replying

There are indeed crimes committed, but you're right they were not from writing the OP-ED. Rather, the OP-ED serves as an admission to several potential violations of federal/Constitutional law

Specifically, those statutes include:

§ 2381 - Treason
§ 2382 - Misprision of treason
§ 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
§ 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
§ 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government
§ 2386 - Registration of certain organizations

18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

www.law.cornell.edu...

Again, he can write as many articles as he wants. That is entirely irrelevant and completely unrelated. It is not the focus or the topic. The focus and topic are the acts described in writing, and the probable commission of treason through their willful subversion of the Constitution. A very serious offense with an equally serious accusation.

a reply to: JBurns

Well posted

if that were true half of republicans would be in jail for all the crap they talked about obama! born in kenya, closet muslim/gay, communist, should i go on? i'm not an obama fan but i don't remember obama going on a twitter rant everytime someone hurt his feelings either.