• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Trump vs Comey

OC for ME

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
WalkingWolf said:
IF he doesn't go to jail, so far there is perjury, leaking elements of a private conversation with the president that was not authorized. I can see a clear case for sedition.
Click to expand...
He clearly could have gotten Hillary...he did not. He too will not be gotten...he is of the establishment and thus a valued pawn, not to be wasted frivolously.
 
WalkingWolf

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
OC for ME said:
He clearly could have gotten Hillary...he did not. He too will not be gotten...he is of the establishment and thus a valued pawn, not to be wasted frivolously.
Click to expand...

If he decides to squeal under threat of prosecution, wonder how long before he is the victim of an botched armed robbery, where no valuables are taken.
 
C

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
WalkingWolf said:
IF he doesn't go to jail, so far there is perjury, leaking elements of a private conversation with the president that was not authorized. I can see a clear case for sedition.
Click to expand...

FYI, Mr.Conjecture, The Sedition Act expired in 1800-01

CCJ
 
Fallschirjmäger

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Nightmare said:
Seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384) is a crime.

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States,
or to levy war against them,
or to oppose by force the authority thereof,
or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States,
or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.​
Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148


Currently the Unitarian Universalists Fellowship of Green Bay has declared their sanctuary a sanctuary for illegals. They may be charged with seditious conspiracy for delaying the execution of the laws of the United States.
Click to expand...
Unless they are using force to delay such execution of the law, I don't see that happening. To read it otherwise requires a [by force to] immediately preceding the phrase ' delay the execution of any law...'.
 
Last edited:
C

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Sedition Act- A 1798 federal statute that prohibited the malicious publication of defamatory material about the government, Congress or the President.. The act was expired in 1801--- Black's Law 9th edition, page 1479

Regards
CCJ
 
C

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
The alien enemies act, which was part of the sedition act, is alive and well.

In my humble opinion, the President, should rely on the alien enemies act to achieve the goals of his travel ban.. While the act is mostly used against aliens currently residing here in the States, I see no unconstitutional reason, why, it should not apply to foreign enemies.
In theory we are at war.

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 
3

357SigFan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
150
Location
STL MO, USA
countryclubjoe said:
Again, pure conjecture, from Mr. Conjecture.. Or you can simply CITE what you espouse.

My .02

CCJ
Click to expand...

Granted, it's conjecture on our part. But the thing is, as he was going about his spiel in his initial press conference where he finally ended with no recommended charges, I remember with what he was saying, multiple times my wife was like 'shes toast' - Seriously - the way he lead up to his 'recommendation', you'd think she'd be heading to meet the hangman. We all know she willfully and blatantly violated multiple national security laws that have sent good people to prison for far less, yet despite him pretty much saying she broke these laws, no indictment recommended?? You know darn well if you or I did the exact same thing, we'd be in club fed for a LONG time. How else can you interpret that?
 
Fallschirjmäger

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
countryclubjoe said:
The alien enemies act, which was part of the sedition act, is alive and well.

In my humble opinion, the President, should rely on the alien enemies act to achieve the goals of his travel ban.. While the act is mostly used against aliens currently residing here in the States, I see no unconstitutional reason, why, it should not apply to foreign enemies.
In theory we are at war.
Click to expand...
Joe, I'd be simply fascinated how you think the Alien Enemies Act (aka 50 U.S. Code § 21) applies to those outside the United States.
Please regale us with your superior intellect.
 
Last edited:
C

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Fallschirmjäger said:
Joe, I'd be simply fascinated how you think the Alien Enemies Act (aka 50 U.S. Code § 21) applies to those outside the United States.
Please regale us with your superior intellect.
Click to expand...

The use of the Alien Enemies Act, would be a more cogent argument for Mr.Trumps unconstitutional travel ban..

Again, please use that 109 IQ that you possess, and try to think outside the box..

The President does indeed, have more power when, he attempts to use current Doctrines, as opposed to using unconstitutional de facto bans..

Courts love precedent..

Think Grasshopper, think ! Please recall, that we are, in theory at war with the Islamic Countries.

CCJ
 
Last edited:
since9

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I re-read one of my blog posts on the Constitutionality of President Trump's travel ban, and yep, there it is. Not only is the federal law which verbatim gives him the authority to enact such a ban Constitutional, but the ban itself is Constitutional, as well.

The burden of proof is usually on the challenger, so... State your case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top