Where crazy talk leads to

[TexasTiger 14,227]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/wv-goper-clinton-must-be-executed

[FoundationEagle 637]

While it is crazy talk for sure, it's not without precedent. The discussion is based on her selling out our country to others. If she has done this, it is treason which is, by law, punishable by death.  Of course, hanging someone in a public square is ludicrous and politicians should hold themselves to a higher standard than to talk as though they are Joe Friday and no one of importance will ever hear them.  

 

I dont think she should be killed. She should, however, stand trial and be imprisoned if she has in fact committed treason. I'm not sure whether she has or not. We know her husband did in regards to selling info to China. I wouldn't put it past her.  At the same time, I need better proof. 

[AURaptor 1,137]

Sounds like an over reaction to the idea that she's entirely a corrupt person, has been shown to be guilty of gross negligence  , at the very least, if not whole sale incompetence and disregard for basic awareness of things relating to National Security. Add to the fact that there's a pattern here, of trading high level access and info for hard cold campaign cash, going back to when Bill was President , it's not hard to get to the point of accusing her of high treason. 

What the punishment for that would be, in this day and age, is hard to tell. But the frustration at seeing these crimes ( and yes, that is what they are ) go virtually unchecked, and further still, she's in the process of possibly becoming the next President... I can see how it would rub some folks ,  who still believe in the rule of law and the Constitution , the wrong way. 

[Auctoritas 2,906]

2 hours ago, FoundationEagle said:

While it is crazy talk for sure, it's not without precedent. The discussion is based on her selling out our country to others. If she has done this, it is treason which is, by law, punishable by death.  Of course, hanging someone in a public square is ludicrous and politicians should hold themselves to a higher standard than to talk as though they are Joe Friday and no one of importance will ever hear them.  

 

I dont think she should be killed. She should, however, stand trial and be imprisoned if she has in fact committed treason. I'm not sure whether she has or not. We know her husband did in regards to selling info to China. I wouldn't put it past her.  At the same time, I need better proof. 

" "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court."

So...which email do you think was levying war? Or was there one in the thousands that were released where she swore allegiance to one of our enemies? Maybe there was one of those email invitation things that she sent to Osama Bin Laden for an all expenses lifetime paid trip to Disney?

Treason is a thing. A very, very specific thing. With very specific meaning (and very, very high evidentiary standards, to boot). https://www.jstor.org/stable/787437?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

It is detestable for someone - anyone, but particularly someone in elected office - to call for the summary execution of someone outside the constraints of due process.

 

I am genuinely curious, why are you not sure whether she has committed treason or not?

[Auctoritas 2,906]

Here is a great write up (From the Heritage Foundation) regarding both the origins of the Treason clause and how it reflects history, and some court cases that have defined what these terms mean.  http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/119/treason

"The word treason, as transmitted to the English language from the Latin through the French, means "giving or delivering up." The common law understood treason as treachery or breach of faith. It was therefore a crime committed between parties who enjoyed an established relationship of mutual benefit and trust. Petit treason referred to a wife killing her husband, or a servant or ecclesiastic killing his lord or master. High treason involved a breach between subject and sovereign, a betrayal of (or neglect of duty or renunciation of allegiance to, in word or deed) a sovereign to whom a subject owes allegiance by birth or residence. Sir Edward Coke, Baron de Montesquieu, Sir Matthew Hale, and Sir William Blackstone considered treason the highest of crimes and declared that it must be precisely defined to prevent its abuse by governmental authorities. In England, commencing during the reign of Edward III, Parliament narrowed the definition of treason but later widened it according to political exigencies.

The laws of the American colonies reflected the broad outlines of the common law of England, both as to breadth of the offense and severity of punishment, though sometimes the definitions of treason in the colonies were broader than those in England. By the eighteenth century, laws began more consistently to reflect the English law of treason, and eventually, during the revolutionary period, came to require more precise definitions, more exacting standards of proof, and more lenient punishments. During the Revolution, many states adopted language recommended by the Continental Congress and its "Committee on Spies," defining treason as adherence to the king of Great Britain (including accepting commissions from him) or to other "Enemies," giving them "Aid and Comfort."

Reflecting the American Founders' concern with protecting individual rights and their fear of arbitrary governmental power, the Framers of the Constitution sought a precise and permanent definition of treason, the permissible means of proving it, and the limitations on the punishment for it. The drafters of the Constitution reached back (as had the Continental Congress) to language in the statute of 25 Edward III (1350), which limited treason, among other things, to compassing or imagining the death of the king, levying war against the king, or adhering to the king's enemies, giving them aid and comfort. But the Framers' work was even narrower. They did not include the language of "compassing or imagining," which had been the basis of the English doctrine of "constructive treason," an effective and easily abused method for dealing with political opponents. Thus, in the Constitution, treason consists only in levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort. It may be proved only by confession in open court, or on the testimony of no fewer than two witnesses to the same overt act.

The debates in the Constitutional Convention show an awareness of English common law and legislative history. James Madison suggested that the proposed definition reported by the Committee of Detail—limiting treason to the levying of war and adherence to enemies—was imprudently narrow and would effectively disallow the wisdom of experience. Others, such as John Dickinson, argued in favor of narrow wording. In the end, the phrase "giving them Aid and Comfort" was added to restrict even further the definition of the crime, and evidentiary requirements were tightened by the addition of the phrase "overt Act." Furthermore, as James Wilson noted in his 1791 Lectures on Law, treason requires generalized grievances and aims against the United States or its government as a whole, rather than particularized, essentially private grievances or aims. Respecting the federal nature of the union, the constitutional definition leaves open the possibility of concurrent state laws for treasons against them in their respective sovereign capacities.

When it came time to defend the Constitution, Madison left behind his earlier aversion to a narrow definition of treason and, in The Federalist No. 43, lauded the Convention's wisdom as raising a constitutional bar to "new-fangled and artificial treasons" (understood as the results and instruments of faction), and as limiting the consequences of guilt. In The Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton mentions the definition of treason as one of the guarantors of rights that make a separate bill of rights unnecessary.

The Supreme Court has had occasion to pronounce on treason, albeit infrequently. In Ex parte Bollman (1807), Chief Justice John Marshall rejected the idea of "constructive treason" and held that for treason to be established on the ground of levying war against the United States, an accused must be part of an actual assemblage of men for a treasonable purpose. Conspiracy short of the actual levying of war is insufficient. But in the related case of United States v. Burr (1807), Marshall tacked slightly. He again rejected constructive treason, but did so by holding that Aaron Burr, if not physically present in an assemblage of men, could still be convicted of treason on the testimony of two witnesses that he actively helped effect or aid such an assemblage—in effect, aided in the levying of war. Together, these cases made a treason conviction exceedingly difficult for anything other than manifest participation in a treasonable act.

After Burr, the leading treason cases grew out of World War II, for adherence to enemies. In Cramer v. United States (1945), the Supreme Court held that a specific intent—adherence to the enemy, and therefore to harm the United States—is necessary, rather than the simple rendition of aid. Further, the majority came close to holding that such adherence requires proof, not just of an act that on its face is "commonplace" (such as a meeting) but a manifestly treasonable overt act, evidenced by the testimony of at least two witnesses. But in Haupt v. United States (1947)—the Court's first affirmation of a treason conviction—the Court effectively relaxed Cramer's standard of proof by holding that the testimony of two witnesses to overt acts might be supported by other evidence as to the accused's treasonable intent, including out-of-court confessions and admissions. In a concurring opinion, Justice William O. Douglas (who dissented in Cramer) affirmed that the separate elements of intent and overt act are amenable to different modes of proof, and only the latter triggers the constitutional requirement of testimony by two witnesses.

In Kawakita v. United States (1952), the Supreme Court held that dual citizenship does not diminish a citizen's allegiance to the United States, and, in a treason prosecution, whether someone intends to renounce American citizenship hinges on particular facts and may be a question for a jury.

Lower courts have had occasion to enter verdicts of treason, commencing with the Whiskey Rebellion, some of them arguably on broader grounds than what the Supreme Court would later countenance. For example, courts held that armed resistance to the collection of taxes constituted constructive treason. A number of cases arising out of the Civil War also suggested, without directly interpreting the Constitution, that Confederate activities amounted to treason (although the general amnesty of December 25, 1868, pardoned all Confederates). Because of the particular and high constitutional standards associated with the definition and proof of treason, hostile or subversive acts falling short of treason but directed toward the whole polity have been prosecuted under various laws of Congress, including those dealing with espionage (for example, the conviction and execution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg in 1953) and, more recently, terrorism. The exercise of federal prosecutorial discretion has also led to the prosecution on other grounds of individuals for acts that arguably amount to treason (for example, John Walker Lindh captured in Afghanistan in 2001), or to failure to prosecute at all."

 

[homersapien 12,215]

If Hillary's stupid, mindless mistake is treason, many in the Bush administration - including "W" - committed war crimes.

[AURaptor 1,137]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

If Hillary's stupid, mindless mistake is treason, many in the Bush administration - including "W" - committed war crimes.

Hillary made no mistakes. It was anything but ' mindless '. It was purposeful, completely under HER control, and that was the point. 

And right on cue , there's the " But BUSH .... !!!! "  hysteria again. Listen homer, what Hillary did was entirely HER OWN DOING. No one else.  Why can't  you just grow the hell up, put on your big boy pants, and deal w/ that , alone, w/ out trying to interject the " Yeah, but " excuses ??? 

[TexasTiger 14,227]

The crazy talk continues from our resident crazies.

[AURaptor 1,137]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The crazy talk continues from our resident crazies.

Would be helpful if you were able to show specifics as to what you mean. But that's asking much, I suspect. 

[homersapien 12,215]

33 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Hillary made no mistakes. It was anything but ' mindless '. It was purposeful, completely under HER control, and that was the point. 

And right on cue , there's the " But BUSH .... !!!! "  hysteria again. Listen homer, what Hillary did was entirely HER OWN DOING. No one else.  Why can't  you just grow the hell up, put on your big boy pants, and deal w/ that , alone, w/ out trying to interject the " Yeah, but " excuses ??? 

I am making no excuses for Hillary.  

Everything you say can be equally applied to Bush.  The buck stopped with him. 

I am just pointing out that political stupidity is hardly unprecedented and is rarely prosecuted.  Furthermore, we know what damage resulted from Bush's stupidity, I have yet to hear what actual harm resulted from Hillary's stupidity.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Just now, homersapien said:

I am making no excuses for Hillary.  

Everything you say can be equally applied to Bush.  The buck stopped with him. 

I am just pointing out that political stupidity is hardly unprecedented and is rarely prosecuted.  Furthermore, we know what damage resulted from Bush's stupidity, I have yet to hear what actual harm resulted from Hillary's stupidity.

You already HAVE made excuses for Hillary, but calling her illegal, deceptive and reckless actions as a mere " mistake " . 

Nothing I said can be applied to Bush. So sad that you can't process that fact, as virtually everything Bush said was said by most Democrats, even AFTER the 2000 election, leading up to the war.  YOU HAVE NO CASE !! Get over it. 

Political stupidity ? Is that what you call using a private e-mail server, against the established rules, which had NEVER been done before, never getting permission, taking NO steps to protect her private server, and then sending top secret e-mails to those w/ OUT any clearance to accept and read such material ??? 

[AUFAN78 4,148]

Dude's an idiot.  

[homersapien 12,215]

3 hours ago, AURaptor said:

You already HAVE made excuses for Hillary, but calling her illegal, deceptive and reckless actions as a mere " mistake " . 

Nothing I said can be applied to Bush. So sad that you can't process that fact, as virtually everything Bush said was said by most Democrats, even AFTER the 2000 election, leading up to the war.  YOU HAVE NO CASE !! Get over it. 

Political stupidity ? Is that what you call using a private e-mail server, against the established rules, which had NEVER been done before, never getting permission, taking NO steps to protect her private server, and then sending top secret e-mails to those w/ OUT any clearance to accept and read such material ??? 

Like I said, politician's mistakes are often illegal but are not prosecuted.

I think Hillary's actions were illegal, but she wasn't indicted.  Bush's actions were illegal but he wasn't indicted either. The only difference is that no one died from Hillary's actions and thousands died from Bush's.  

I suggest you are the one who needs to "get over it". But if you want to work yourself into a stroke, that's fine with me.

[AURaptor 1,137]

homer - say it 100 times, what Hillary did was NOT A MISTAKE ! 

She MEANT to do it. Her only mistake was getting caught. Get that through your thick skull. 

 

Bush's actions weren't illegal, by the mere fact he got approval from congress to proceed.  Stop trying to bring Bush into this discussion. It has ZERO to do w/ Hillary. 

[homersapien 12,215]

19 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

homer - say it 100 times, what Hillary did was NOT A MISTAKE ! 

She MEANT to do it. Her only mistake was getting caught. Get that through your thick skull. 

 

Bush's actions weren't illegal, by the mere fact he got approval from congress to proceed.  Stop trying to bring Bush into this discussion. It has ZERO to do w/ Hillary. 

So tell us what her purpose was if she meant to do it.  To commit treason against the country?

Bush lied and misrepresented the facts to get that approval.  What resulted was an international war crime.

[AURaptor 1,137]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So tell us what her purpose was if she meant to do it.  To commit treason against the country?

Bush lied and misrepresented the facts to get that approval.  What resulted was an international war crime.

If you need to ask what her reasons are, then you truly are an apologist for corruption.  

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

[FoundationEagle 637]

Asking which email was treason is freaking hilarious. It's not the email scandal that was treason. It's the foundation that accepted absurd amounts of money from foreign entities. Writing this off as having to do with emails is quite simple minded.  Again, I said I need more proof to know for sure, but it sure smells. 

[homersapien 12,215]

2 hours ago, AURaptor said:

If you need to ask what her reasons are, then you truly are an apologist for corruption.  

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

I thought we were talking about her e-mail.

 

 

[homersapien 12,215]

2 hours ago, FoundationEagle said:

Asking which email was treason is freaking hilarious. It's not the email scandal that was treason. It's the foundation that accepted absurd amounts of money from foreign entities. Writing this off as having to do with emails is quite simple minded.  Again, I said I need more proof to know for sure, but it sure smells. 

What is the purpose/mission of the foundation?

[AURaptor 1,137]

31 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I thought we were talking about her e-mail.

 

 

*sigh*  We're talking Hillary here, whose corruption isn't relegated to just one area of her life. 

homer - The private e-mail server by Hillary ( a first time for any SecState ever exclusively used , btw - with out permission OR clearance from the State Dept ) was used specifically BECAUSE she wanted evidence of  her corrupt dealings controlled BY her, and no one else. 

If she's conversing w/ private parties about govt related matters, even letting folks know how the US will  decide on certain trade agreements, that's akin to insider trading. 

Does any of this even begin to sink in w/ you ? 

Unfortunately for Hillary, Benghazi happened. And because it happened, and looked all manner of suspicious, her E-MAIL records were a matter of obvious interest , to see exactly who knew what, when and why. There were, and are, many unanswered questions regarding Benghazi. STILL. 

But aside from all that, with regard to OFFICIAL STATE DEPT business, it was necessary for , you know, the PEOPLE ( us ) to know what our SecState was doing, while on official USA business. 

THEN we found out, ( or it was no longer secret ) that her complete private and work related e-mails were ALL on her private server(s), and not 1 account, not 1 official e-mail address was used by her with a .gov designation. That is EXTREMELY UNUSUAL. 

It wasn't a " mistake ". It wasn't an error. She did this, WITH INTENT, so she could avoid any and all review of what she was doing, who she was contacting, etc... 

 

There probably is a better, briefer way of putting it... but that's the best I have at his time. 

[Auctoritas 2,906]

3 hours ago, FoundationEagle said:

Asking which email was treason is freaking hilarious. It's not the email scandal that was treason. It's the foundation that accepted absurd amounts of money from foreign entities. Writing this off as having to do with emails is quite simple minded.  Again, I said I need more proof to know for sure, but it sure smells. 

Ok, fine...which part of THAT meets the very specific definition of treason? 

 

I've posted the direct quote from the Constitution and two very good explanations about what the courts have held to be levying war or adhering to enemies, I will let you do the work. 

[homersapien 12,215]

51 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

*sigh*  We're talking Hillary here, whose corruption isn't relegated to just one area of her life. 

homer - The private e-mail server by Hillary ( a first time for any SecState ever exclusively used , btw - with out permission OR clearance from the State Dept ) was used specifically BECAUSE she wanted evidence of  her corrupt dealings controlled BY her, and no one else. 

If she's conversing w/ private parties about govt related matters, even letting folks know how the US will  decide on certain trade agreements, that's akin to insider trading. 

Does any of this even begin to sink in w/ you ? 

Unfortunately for Hillary, Benghazi happened. And because it happened, and looked all manner of suspicious, her E-MAIL records were a matter of obvious interest , to see exactly who knew what, when and why. There were, and are, many unanswered questions regarding Benghazi. STILL. 

But aside from all that, with regard to OFFICIAL STATE DEPT business, it was necessary for , you know, the PEOPLE ( us ) to know what our SecState was doing, while on official USA business. 

THEN we found out, ( or it was no longer secret ) that her complete private and work related e-mails were ALL on her private server(s), and not 1 account, not 1 official e-mail address was used by her with a .gov designation. That is EXTREMELY UNUSUAL. 

It wasn't a " mistake ". It wasn't an error. She did this, WITH INTENT, so she could avoid any and all review of what she was doing, who she was contacting, etc... 

 

There probably is a better, briefer way of putting it... but that's the best I have at his time. 

And I really appreciate your effort.  I hope you feel better and it didn't raise your BP too much.

I read it carefully and took the effort to highlight the factual.  Of course, everything else is your opinion.

Not that I support what she did.  I don't. I think she is secretive and paranoid.  I think much of that comes from her experience living in a charged, political atmosphere.  Which is not to say that she - and Bill - didn't contribute to their image. But all in all, such "business opportunities" (like Whitewater) come with the territory of being a 'player' in modern business/politics - or maybe in their case, politics/business.  It's certainly true for non-politician 'players', so it would be naive to think politician 'players' are any different. 

So, bottom line, Hillary is a 'player'.  

But I don't think her personal game is more important to her than her chance to leave a historical record.  She is way too intelligent to put mere personal wealth over what she feels is in the country's best interest.  It's the power and history she wants, not wealth.  After all, the wealth will come regardless and she knows it. 

[AURaptor 1,137]

Homer - your ignorance allows you to only highlight the few words you can't dismiss. Fact is, there's much much more there, but , alas, you're too much of a useful idiot. 

You don't WANT to know the facts, therefore you ignore them. 

As you were. 

[homersapien 12,215]

8 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Homer - your ignorance allows you to only highlight  the few words you can't dismiss.

 

Correct.  They are called facts.  I don't live in Raptorworld so I cannot dismiss them.

[AURaptor 1,137]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Correct.  They are called facts.  I don't live in Raptorworld so I cannot dismiss them.

You're wrong. Deal with it. Hillary didn't have a SecState. Gov email. 

 

On purpose. That is not my opinion . Don't ignore facts you don't like.