Watched them this morning.

A Blind and Deaf person, could see and hear.
Walker’s Ultra Liberal tome, and body language.

Then the Socialist in sheep’s clothing continued to spout lies,
         (handed to her, or someone told her)

Needles wrote on 07/13/25 at 09:43:40:


       MALC

The new UL Socialists phrase !

Make America Like China

 I highly doubt they would have committed mass executions in 1925.

For treason? I bet they would.

 
 None of Jan 6th qualifies for Treason by definition.  It lacks specific criteria as I outlined in detail using US law and the US Constitution as reference in prior posts.

Yeah? WHOSE definition? Yours?

 The US Constitution, you just refuse to look at the references so you can claim, inaccurately, that they are "fake MAGA" websites.  And also the definition  assessed by literally every lawyer employed to find a way to charge Jan 6th participants with treason.  Everyone else is wrong and you are right, too bad they never contacted you for the prosecution of these individuals.

 
None of those are even related to reality. Physically attacking your own government, attempting to overthrow an already decided election and using ANYTHING to oppress the People, the ostensibly real rulers, is treason plain and simple

 I wonder why no prosecutor ever though of this.  They managed to charge multiple humans on Jan 6th, using video evidence, and not one was charged with treason.  I wonder why that is.  You are right, and all those legal professionals are wrong.  You sound like all these couch medical experts that insist Ivermectin cures Covid that expect us to disregard all medical professionals and go with what they saw on social media.  


ALL laws are subject to the judges' interpretation of the law, or"Intent of the law". (That would be what you call "liberals".)

 Agreed.  However the intent of law as written, in the US Constitution, was not met in order to charge Treason on Jan 6th.  You can't just change it to meet your desire - everyone pulls the "intent" argument when the law doesn't apply how they want it to (followed by "Unconstitutional").  Seditious Conspiracy is what the actions on Jan 6th met, and that's why those were the typical charges for those that could be proven to do so.  

The INTENT of the law says Jan6 was treason.

 Not according to people who practice law.  But what do they know?  

 I will use the US Constitution as my reference, and previous case law, and the assessments of legal scholars.  
 
 Here's more "fake MAGA" website references, including one from a source you used yourself, but it's fake if I use it:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-3/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-3/clause-1/t...

 Fundamental reason for the change in Federal use of Treason charges:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/325/1/


 Plain and simple, the fact that people were doing it for their own benefit makes it a stronger charge for seditious conspiracy over treason.  I do see Professor Carlton F.W. Larson's point in regard to waging war, however even he admits it lacks substance.  But what to legal experts know about law?  Lets ask a nurse.  Makes sense to ask lawyers about medicine right?

 Once again, you get into trying to use legal precedence where there is none. If I were a Nazi MAGAT, I could say that those traitors that attacked the Capitol were just protesting the government and exercising their legal rights. After all, the NAZIs didn't break any laws when they took over Germany.

 Except there is legal precedence.  Treason has been used in US law.

 And there is also law specific to the POTUS in regard to Treason and procedure - you don't like the outcome, but it's still law.  You just don't like how it works so you say it doesn't count.  You make up completely false legal structures and procedures.  Did you think that strategy worked when people just made up lies about Covid and how it was all staged because they didn't want to be told to wear masks?

 

NO one involved in the writing of the Constitution imagined that the guaranteed democracy would ever be dismantled from within, just like none of them could imagine semiautomatic and fully automatic weapons. The Constitution was DESIGNED to evolve.

 We do that through Amendments, not ad-lib changes at will.  The US Constitution, as well as all other US law, would be useless if we just made it up as we went along.  Charges for Treason absolutely can be reformed, but by the established procedures, not the rantings of someone who literally said they will do and say anything to get rid of Trump.  You lack the neutrality to even have an adult conversation about it.


Insisting that everything legal has precedence is just naive.

 The only one saying everything legal must have precedence is you.  Nobody ever said that here, it makes zero logical sense.  Something does not have to already happen in order for it to happen.  Laws are written, then applied.  You are saying it should apply different for Trump but want to remove all due process and pretend Amendments don't apply.

 I prefer we use actual US law and not made-up emotionally driven nonsense from the internet.