Treason is Reason #THUMPdrumpf

Image result for Dorothy L. Sayers

“The only ethical principle which has made science possible is that the truth shall be told all the time. If we do not penalize false statements made in error, we open up the way for false statements by intention. And a false statement of fact, made deliberately, is the most serious crime a scientist can commit.”

~Dorothy L. Sayers, Gaudy Night

18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
With INDEPENDENT 24 March 2017: “Warning of a ‘cloud of treason’, Ted Lieu said: “The bombshell revelation that US officials have information that suggests Trump associates may have colluded with the Russians means we must pause the entire Trump agenda.”
With INDEPENDENT 22 March 2017:


A presidential historian and conservative commentator has responded to the hearing of FBI Director James Comey by hinting that President Donald Trump is guilty of treason.

Douglas Brinkley is a conservative commentator and presidential historian.

Speaking to the Washington Post after Comey’s disclosure that Trump is under investigation for accepting help from Russia to win the 2016 Presidential election, he said:

There’s a smell of treason in the air.

Imagine if J. Edgar Hoover or any other FBI director would have testified against a sitting president? It would have been a mind-boggling event.

Brinkley continued to say he’s never seen a president become so unpopular so fast.

This is the most failed first 100 days of any president.

To be as low as he is in the polls, in the 30s, while the FBI director is on television saying they launched an investigation into your ties with Russia, I don’t know how it can get much worse.

With the New York Times 23 March 2017: “Now the F.B.I. confirms that we have had an investigation underway for eight months into whether another presidential campaign colluded with foreign power so as to win an election. To me, that, too, would amount to treason.”
With The Telegraph 8 June 2017: “‘Lordy, I hope there are tapes’, says James Comey on [ Donald J. Trump] Trump meeting”!!! 


Donald J. Trump: The fake news MSM doesn’t report the great economic news we’ve had since Election Day. All of our hard work is kicking in and we’re seeing big results!
Donald J. Trump: Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication…and WOW, Comey is a leaker!
Donald J. Trump: Obamacare is in a total death spiral. We must fix this big problem so Americans can finally have the health care that they deserve!
Albert Camus
Freedom of Speech – Freedom of Press as “A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.”
The First Amendment is one of the most formidable sources of American Civil Liberties. It includes several guarantees, of which the most important are the “Freedom of Speech” and the “Freedom of Press”. Freedom of Speech and of the Press is a constitutional guaranty under the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to the Constitution of the United States and provisions in many state constitutions, embracing the concept that free discussion is essential to the growth, development, and wellbeing of our free society under a democratic form of government (see N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 US 415, 435, 9 L Ed 2d 405, 419, 83 S Ct 328 (01/14/1963); Associated Press v. United States, 326 US 1, 20, 89 L Ed 2013, 2030, 65 S Ct 1416 (06/18/45); Parsons v. Age-Herald Publishing Co, 181 ALA 439, 450, 461, So 345, 350 (1913)).
Citing People v. Weeks, 591 P2.d 91 (1979) “Although each case ultimately must defend on its own specific facts, some general principles have emerged. A state or municipality may protect individual privacy by enacting reasonable time, place, and manner regulations applicable to all speech irrespective of content” (see Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 97 (1949); Cox v Louisiana, 379 US 356, 554, 13 L Ed 2d 471, 85 S Ct 453 (1965); Adderly v. Florida, 385 US 39, 17 L Ed 2d 149, 87 S Ct 242 (1966)). But when the government, acting as censor, undertakes selectively to shield the public from some kinds of speech on the ground that they are more offensive than others, the First {591 P2d 96} Amendment strictly limits its powers (see Police Dept of Chicago v. Mosely, 408 US 92, 33 L Ed 2d 212, 92 S Ct 2286 (1972); Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 US 67, 97 L Ed 828, 73 S Ct526 (1953); Kovacs v. Cooper, Id at 97 (Jackson, J. concurring).
Image result for abraham lincoln photo
Such selective restrictions have been upheld only when the speaker intrudes on the privacy of the home (see Rowan v Post Office Dept., 397 US 728, 25 L Ed 2d 736, 90 S Ct 1484 (1970)), or the degree of captivity makes it impractical for the unwilling viewer or auditor to avoid exposure. As Mr. Justice Harlan cautioned: “The ability of government, [consonant] with the constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is…dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silent dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.” (See Cohen v. California, 403 US 15, at 21, 29 L Ed 2d 284, 91 S Ct 1780 (1971); Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 209-210, 95 S Ct 2268, 45 L Ed 2d 125 (1975)).

Citing FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 57 L Ed 2d 1073, 98 S Ct 3026 (1978), “The fact that society may find speech offensive is not sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. {485 US 56} For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the market place of ideas” and citing Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592, 22 L Ed 2.d 572, 895 Ct. 1354 (1969), “It is firmly settled that…the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.”

Citing Street v. New York, supra, “It is firmly settled…the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas themselves are offensive to some of their hearers.” Citing FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, supra, “[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection {485 US 56} for it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.”

18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 – OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

18 U.S. Code § 1510 – Obstruction of criminal investigations

18 U.S. Code § 1511 – Obstruction of State or local law enforcement

18 U.S. Code § 1512 – Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

18 U.S. Code § 1513 – Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant

18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

18 U.S. Code § 1520 – Destruction of corporate audit records

18 U.S. Code § 1521 – Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement officer by false claim or slander of title


What is Impeachment?

Technically, impeachment is the Senate’s quasi-criminal proceeding instituted to remove a public officer, not the actual act of removal. Most references to impeachment, however, encompass the entire process, beginning with the House’s impeachment inquiry. The term will be used in that broader sense here. By design, impeachment is a complex series of steps and procedures undertaken by the legislature. The process roughly resembles a grand jury inquest, conducted by the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is not directed exclusively at Presidents. The Constitutional language, “all civil officers,” includes such positions as Federal judgeships. The legislature, however, provides a slightly more streamlined process for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(involving removal of a Federal judge). Presidential impeachments involve the full, public participation of both branches of Congress.

The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

  1. The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

  2. The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.

  3. The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.

  4. The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, “impeached” — that is subject to trial in the Senate.

  5. The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.

  6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.

  7. If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.

Constitutional Authority

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, impeachment was an established process in English law and government. The Founding Fathers incorporated the process, with modifications, into the fabric of United States government. The Constitution, however, only provides the framework-the basic who’s, why’s, and how’s. The remaining procedural intricacies reside in the internal rules of the House and Senate.


Article 2, Section 4–“The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States. . .”

As noted above, this includes Federal judges. It does not, however, include House Representatives or Senators.


Article 2, Section 4–“. . .on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.”

This implies that the impeachment process is not tightly linked to the criminal law. The test is not satisfied by all crimes. With only two named offenses to provide context for the inclusive phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the standard remains undefined. The language suggests, however, that criminal action may be required. It is worth noting that the term “misdemeanor” does not correspond to the modern definition of a less serious (sub-felony) statutory or common law criminal offense.

In the case of Andrew Johnson, the House accused the President, among other things, of speaking disrespectfully of Congress “in a loud voice.”


Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5–“The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.”

The power of impeachment translates into the power to indict. The House, through the Judiciary Committee, conducts investigation and gathers evidence. At the proper time, the House assembles the evidence into individual indictments or charges known as Articles of Impeachment. Each article requires a majority vote of the House to pass to the Senate. Once impeached, the officer is on trial.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6–“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.”

The trial of the impeached officer is held in the Senate. In Nixon v. US, regarding the impeachment trial of a Federal judge, the Supreme Court ruled that the application of the phrase phrase “sole power to try all impeachments” to a particular case was not justiciable. In other words it held that the proper application of this constitutional language to a specific impeachment proceeding was not a question for the courts. Therefore, the process and procedure for impeachment lie solely within the purview of the legislature. The officer subject to an impeachment proceeding has no appeal to a federal court.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

An impeachment and removal does not activate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ex-officer may face criminal indictments and trials for the same conduct that led to their impeachment and removal from office.

 Separation of Powers

Political doctrine of constitutional law under which the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate to prevent abuse of power. Also known as the system of checks and balances, each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches. See also Congressional Power.

United States Postal Service v. Hustler Magazine, 630 F. Supp. 867 (D.D.C. 1986)

The right to petition the Government is part of our heritage from earliest times and represents a cornerstone of our national liberty. It is a right long-recognized as implicit in “[t]he very idea of a government, republican in form.” United States v. Cruikshank, 2 Otto 542, 552, 92 U.S. 542, 552, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1875). As the Supreme Court noted in McDonald v. Smith, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S. Ct. 2787, 86 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1985), the historical roots of the petition clause long antedate the Constitution. ___ U.S. at ___, 105 S. Ct. at 2788. The English Bill of Rights of 1689, enacted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, guaranteed “the right of the subjects to petition the King.” 1 Wm. & Mary, Sess. 2, ch. 2. The early colonists in Massachusetts included a petition clause in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641, “the first detailed American Charter of Liberties.” See 1 B. Schwartz, A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 69, 73 (1971). During the Revolutionary period, the right to petition was again raised as an essential ingredient of self-government in both the Stamp Act Congress’ Declaration of Rights and Grievances of 1765 and the Declarations and Resolves of the First Continental Congress of 1774. See 1 Schwartz at 198, 217. Now guaranteed by the First Amendment, the right to petition “is cut from the same cloth as the other guarantees of that Amendment, and is an assurance of a particular freedom of expression.” McDonald, ___ U.S. at ___, 105 S. Ct. at 2788; see Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530, 65 S. Ct. 315, 322-23, 89 L. Ed. 430 (1945) (right to petition inseparable from other First Amendment rights). Accordingly, courts have protected this right when its existence has arisen in varied contexts, from prisons, Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 321, 92 S. Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1972), to state capitols, Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 235, 83 S. Ct. 680, 683, 9 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1963). And they have protected this right in varied forms, from peaceful boycotts of private businesses, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 907-11, 102 S. Ct. 3409, 3422-25, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1215 (1982), to appeals to one or all three branches of the Government, California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510, 92 S. Ct. 609, 611-12, 30 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1972).


With MarketWatch 13 June 2017: [Donald J. Trump] consistently lies, about matters both small (the crowd size at his inauguration) and large (millions of undocumented immigrants voted for Hillary Clinton). Americans know this, and they simply don’t trust Trump to tell the truth. But his well-documented record in this area didn’t prevent him from winning the election, and it hasn’t shaken his support from Republican members of Congress.


Image result

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

~Albert Einstein

Richard Nixon was the only president in U.S. history to resign from office — doing so on 9 August 1974, amid the Watergate scandal — but he was not, as is often stated, impeached by the House of Representatives.

“And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.”
~Revelation 18:2 KJV

#TweetTweet #BirdIsTheWord

With Dr. Hunter S. Thompson and Rolling Stone:

Richard Nixon is gone now, and I am poorer for it. He was the real thing — a political monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy. He could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time. He lied to his friends and betrayed the trust of his family. Not even Gerald Ford, the unhappy ex-president who pardoned Nixon and kept him out of prison, was immune to the evil fallout. Ford, who believes strongly in Heaven and Hell, has told more than one of his celebrity golf partners that “I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon.”

Our Fourteenth Amendment contains a number of important concepts, most famously state action, privileges & immunities, citizenship, due process, and equal protection—all of which are contained in Section One. However, the Fourteenth Amendment contains four other sections. Section two deals with the apportionment of representatives to Congress. Section Three forbids anyone who participates in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States from holding federal office. Section Four addresses federal debt and repudiates debts accrued by the Confederacy. Section Five expressly authorizes Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment “by appropriate legislation.” The states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War, along with the other Reconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth and Fifteenth. See also Equal Protection.

Corinthians 13:13 NIV

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.



We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


One thought on “Treason is Reason #THUMPdrumpf

  1. Pingback: Jeff Sessions Benedict Arnold!!! | Lonesome Lozer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s