Eegore
Serious Thumper
   
Online

SuzukiSavage.com Rocks!
Posts: 9355
|
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.
|