Sometimes it’s best to allow the perp himself to define his crime. This is one of those times. We’ve seen innumerable threats to President Trump, a nationwide Resistance to block all his initiatives—complete with rogue judges issuing infantile decisions against him, decisions that ignore precedent, law, common sense, horse sense or any other kind of sense.
We’ve also seen the entire Democrat wing of the Congress unite to vote against, slow-walk, oppose, smear, sabotage everything he wants to accomplish. We’ve seen the fake media and the entire entertainment industry take every opportunity to threaten, defame, delegitimize, insult and vilify him.
And, we’ve seen at least two attempts to overturn his election almost immediately after it took place. First was Jill Stein’s quixotic attempt to cherry-pick three of the many states that handed him an electoral victory—picked only because they seemed the easiest to turn.
Then there was the colossal mass of entertainers and other idiots importuning the electors to betray their pledges and vote against the elected candidate.
Finally (this word applies to my list, certainly not to the process, which is never-ending), we have the preposterous investigation to prove Trump was complicit with the Russians in trying to influence our election. This has been grinding on for over a year with not a single result, though it’s become quite obvious that the DNC and Clinton’s campaign financed the Steele dossier, which claimed Russian sources:
“Source A…was “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.” Source B was “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin”….Source E was “an ethnic Russian,” reported Vanity Fair, March of 2017, just two months into Trump’s term. This dossier was put before a FISA judge as credible evidence to get authorization for surveillance of Carter Page. But it was evidence of only one thing: that Democrats and Trump’s defeated opponent had spent cold cash to alter the outcome of the election, and their agent worked with Russians to do it.
So, when the Left says this kind of action could be treason, I stipulate that the Left is correct. Who speaks for the Left, in this? For purposes of this article, I’ll quote Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza. Her bio, from her website says she’s an attorney, having earned a J.D. from Yale Law School. And she undeniably speaks for the Left: “Currently a Fellow at the [Marxist] Center for American Progress, she has worked on progressive campaigns and policy projects on five continents”; she “served as Deputy National Press Secretary of the Democratic National Committee during the 2008 presidential election” and “Her writing on politics and law has been published by Democracy Journal, CNN, NPR, The Daily Beast, Pacific Standard, The Nation, The Atlantic, Politico, and others.
In an article titled, “A Guide to Treason 2.0,” which she wrote for Pacific Standardon March 22, 2017 (barely 2 months into Trump’s presidency), Ms. Buckwalter-Poza said:
If Trump participated in, facilitated, or encouraged a Russian cyber attack intended to overthrow the United States government by changing the outcome of the 2016 election — and then promoted Russia’s interests after assuming office .… Those acts could amount to an impeachable offense. They could even be treason. [Emphasis added.]
In investigations for over a year since, not an iota of evidence has been uncovered that Trump did those things, and he’s been manifestly hard on Russia. Now, remember: she made an equivalency between: “intend[ing] to overthrow the United States government” [and] “changing the outcome of the 2016 election.”
She justifies the treason charge thusly:
Article III of the U.S. Constitution dictates that “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
In United States v. Greathouse, a 19th-century U.S. court,…concluded that “levying war” doesn’t require participation in “open hostilities.” It is enough to “perform any part in the furtherance of the common object, ‘however minute or however remote from the scene of action.’”
Further, the court noted that any force directed at overthrowing the government — whether in whole or in part — or “defeat[ing] the execution and compel[ling] the repeal of the of its [sic] public laws” qualified as levying war.
Remember, again: Ms. Buckwalter-Poza said above that “changing the outcome of the 2016 election” is the same thing as “intend[ing] to overthrow the United States government.” Here, she cited how the courts equated “overthrowing the government — whether in whole or in part” with “levying war” against the United States.
That part could be the Executive Branch.
Back to the Constitution’s first definition of treason: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them…”
Out of their own mouths
By virtue of all the acts above and the Left’s own interpretation of the law, individuals attempting to overthrow the Trump presidency, lacking any legal justification are committing treason. Their actions listed above are hampering the Executive Branch’s function and are now threatening national security.
We are under nuclear threat from both North Korea and Iran— with whom we may soon be at war, given Israeli PM Netanyahu’s presentation of absolute proof that Iran had been “brazenly lying” about their nuclear program going into the Iran Deal, and very likely is lying about compliance with that deal. It is therefore imperative for the Department of Justice to start indicting people.