Former Prosecutor makes the case that Trump committed treason

Perhaps someone should give him a dictionary.

 

You could lend him yours. If you had one. *sad face*

 

I see we're back to not understanding the material ourselves and instead posting a talking head and claiming their own opinion without any actual knowledge of it.
Boring.

I certainly disagree with Kirschner: Treason requires an enemy of the united states you're aiding. Such as soviet russia. Literally speaking, rebelling against the lawful government and staging a violent coup de tat would not be 'treason' the crime in the US code. It would instead be 'sedition'. You don't even have that here.
This is why I ask what the elements of the crimes are, because generally when you name the elements it becomes abundantly clear you're lacking evidence you'd need for a conviction under that code. To be quite clear: Its exactly what a law professor does to a law student.

Now let's try it again: Since you have adopted Kirschner's opinion verbatim as your own, quote him on the elements of treason in the US code.

I'll do whatever I'd like and you know that already dear. Now try to understand: Lawyers are taught using the socratic method IE questions are asked and the person asking them generally knows the answer already and is asking the question so when you give the expected response you're made a fool of. Its a valuable way to imprint a lesson on a person, and teaches them to synthesize and analyze ideas on their own rather than slavishly rote copying another.

 

You got abused. Sorry to be the bearer of bad--but honest--news.

 

No, it's known as an 'observation'.

There are substantial arguments being made on the subject of reversing presidential pardons given corruptly. One of the primary arguments is the consequence of impeachment. But, that idea has been emasculated by a sycophantic republican senate in the impeachment of Trump, which is to say, we can't count on successful impeachments for corrupt pardons. And, based on what I'm reading, the arguments suggest that presidential pardons, if issued corruptly, can be reversed, in certain conditions. If not, then they should be because of Trump's clear abuse of the pardon. there is no argument you can give me that the founders intended the pardons to be doled out to cronies as Trump has, without regard to wrongful sentencing, mitigating circumstances, etc. Now, others have abused the pardon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush, did, but not on a level one might characterize as 'wholesale' by Trump. Clearly, there is room for regulation on the subject of pardons, or a constitutional amendment. Now, if Kirschner was sloppy in his language by referring to corrupt pardons as 'illegal', I'll cut him some slack.


https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/01/22/can-trumps-pardons-be-reversed/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...don-illegal/omOrz8tQERLqFmkXfsWVZM/story.html
https://www.justsecurity.org/68900/is-the-pardon-power-unlimited/
https://www.lawfareblog.com/trumps-corrupt-use-pardon-power


Your last statement arising form the POV as a cynic, and is dismissed.

 

you answered your own questions... the committee is illegit and illegal... Congress legislative branch does not start criminal investigations looking for crimes....that is the job of the executive branch... but the committee does investigate why the security was so lacked that day.. now that is in their purview.. but they won't go within a 100 miles of that.

they even try to obstructing justice by altering evidence
Jordan texted Meadows saying Pence should throw out electors from so-called contested states.
Jan. 6 Committee Called Out for Altering Evidence and Lying About It... and acknowledged that they had altered it... Your boy adam schiff was at his dirty tricks and got caught...
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...altering-evidence-and-lying-about-it-n1605016
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/sarah...estigators-altered-evidence-and-lied-n2608607
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/202...nce-and-lied-to-the-american-people-about-it/

Banks is calling the committee for what it is "illegit and illegal"... and Pelosi only confirmed it..
The fact the security was inadequate and allowed the crowd in the capitol shows Pelosi's move to cover up what she was involved in... funny Pelosi is covering up her own crime and derelict of by not protecting the capitol... Banks nailed the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth....

 

I don't continue discussions with people who can't answer questions and only want to keep putting out their own views.

 

If you can't handle the truth then stop making a fool of yourself.. Prove me wrong.

 

You haven't posted any truth and it's up to you to prove your accusations truthful not the other way around.

Stop making a fool of yourself. On the other hand................................don't......................

 

I asked you to answer 2 questions and you refused. Not my fault if you don't want to have a real discussion.

 

I doubt you've been in the same zip code as "honest news" in a very long time.

 

That's an opinion not proof of anything.

 

Your argument was squashed in previous rebuttal, no further comment necessary.

 

Not even close.

 

No, I posted Kirschner's statement to see what the reponse would be. I made no claim of knowledge, which you falsely assert that I did.

I made no claim of knowledge, or the elements, and relyed on Kirshner's statemetns, posted it to see what the counter arguments would be.
It's not about me, though you want it to be.

Now let's try again:

I haven't adopted his points verbatim, though I'm inclined to agree , but subject to more compelling counter arguments, facts, etc., the reason I posted the OP and the video in the first place.

I don't know how lawyers are taught, nor does it matter, and I'm not here keep Socrates happy or play lawyer games.

My OP was a query, 'what say you'. I posted the video, I thought it was convincing, but I wasn't sure, so I posted it to gage reaction, to see if there are any compelling counter arguments. I think I established that clearly in the OP.


https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/treason.htm

The elements of treason are the same under state and federal law:

1. The defendant owes allegiance to the government
2. The defendant intentionally betrays that allegiance by either levying war against the government or....
3. Giving aid or comfort to the government's enemies.

Kirschner, apparently, suggests that Trump is guilty of treason because he, as President, owes an allegiance to the government, and given that he 'levied war against the government' which the attack on the capitol represents, and there is sufficient evidence linking his actions to that attack.

According to the above, it doesn't require 'giving aid against the government's enemies.

 

Feel free to describe what you believe fits the definition of "treason".

 

I think you'll find that's not actually considered 'war'. Again: You would have a far easier time with 'sedition' the charge made to accommodate amongst other things a prosecution for an attempted coup.
Not that this actually fits sedition mind you, its just that sedition is closer to the facts of an attempt by one faction in the government to displace another by coup than treason is.

Which you would know if you did more than parrot a talking head.

 

@Across the pond


Banks assumption is that 1/6 is the result of Capitol Police not being able to contain it.

No, it's not the salient issue.

Even if they had contained, the repub mob, in their juggernaut of rage, would have still commenced an attack.

That they did, IS the issue, NOT whether or not the police could or couldn't contain it. And, if they didn't and should have, that's a side issue to the purpose of the committee, to get to the bottom of 1/6. Clearly, Banks's assumption arises out of partisanship, because he can't stand the fact that it was republicans who perpetrated 1/6.

The entire reason Pelosi rejected Banks and Jordan because she knew they would be intent on derailing the legitimate purpose of Congressional inquiry into the whys and wherefores of 1/6 and turn it into a circus about the Capitol Police, and the nation is not in the mood to impugn their bravery, and doing so would have done more damage to the incredible amount damage Trump and the republicans have already done to America. Their needs to be an investigation into the Capitol Police, but done quietly, not in the loud confrontational circus atmosphere which is clearly the intent of Jordan and Banks.

MOreover, Pelosi kept three of McCarthy's selections, and McCarthy would not offer two to replace Jordan and Banks, and he pulled them all.
This proves he had no intentions of putting any of his selections on the committee in the first place, he, cleverly and mischievously planted Jordan and Banks in the selections, knowing full well that Pelos would reject them, and used that as as ruse to pull them all, because he had no intention to place any selections in the first place,because after that was done, he could then claim the committee was partisan.

By that deceptive act, he, you, and all republicans who claim otherwise, forfeit any claim of being 'one sided', noting that there are two republicans on the committee one of whom co chairs the leadership role.

The Committee was approved by a house vote, and that, by law, makes it legitimate and legal.

Counter arguments made on the house floor were heard, and rejected by the majority.

Moreover, before the special committee was appointed by Pelosi, a bicameral committee was proposed and voted on in the Senate, and Senate repubs filibustered it. This proves that Repubs didn't want a bicameral investigation in the first place and the vast majority of repubs in the house voted against the Special Committee. How would we assume, therefore, that McCarthy's intentions were sincere in his selections?

The committees purpose is not to look for crimes, per se, but since so many were committed, that they are unraveled is the inadvertent result of the committees legitimate purpose.

PJmedia, Townhall, and Breitbart are questionable sources.

End of argument.

 

Dear god Judge Luttig's statement reads like a mad raving lunatic unable to put a couple of coherent sentences together. You could've replaced his name with Trump and it would've matched just as well. The judiciary is as poisoned as everything else.

 

Now that is a helpful counter. thank you.

Patronizing, a form of posturing, does not improve an argument.

I would appreciate it if you abstain from abusive remarks such as that one, in the future, and I will return the favor.

 

Gosh, its almost like I'm a subject matter expert who has been trying to educate you in more than one thread now and if you'd just answer the ****ing questions you might learn somethin.

 

Did you read any of the other documents?

 

Refresh your browser, the message was revised

 

I know of the other judge's opinion(which he also wrote in the SAME opinion that he knew he was out of line for giving it, yet he gave it anyway) Hurray to the rights of the accused to face their accusers, now we can throw that one out the window as well.

The judiciary is broken, the political system is broken, Congress is broken. And it's broken because you've got a bunch of old men and women who frankly don't care anymore. To fix our system, we need to be ageist.

 

"Previous rebuttal" string of logical fallacies.