When the ostensible President violates the Constitution, after taking an oath to obey and defend it, it's treason.

 This is not true.

 We can't just make things up and say they are exclusive to the POTUS and no other US citizen.  Nothing in the US Constitution allows for a sitting President to be charged with treason outside the scope of what exists within the Constitution.  If you can find any legal assessment indicating there is a different standard for "Treason" for the POTUS I would like to read it.  Please use the same evidence standards as we agreed upon before.  

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/50-impeachable-offenses.html

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-1/ALDE_00000282/



Nixon quit before he could be tried.

 Nixon was never going to be charged with "Treason" - specifically because he didn't engage in activities that met the criteria.  He was going to be impeached and charged with obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.  

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-7/ALDE_00000695/

 This looks like you are wanting to claim treason and trying to find a way to make it true.  Trump can be a criminal without having committed "Treason" specifically.

 Again, if there is any legal, like actual scholar assessments not YouTube couch lawyers, that conclude the POTUS is held to a different standard for Treason than any other human I would like to look it over.

47 is a traitor. You can jump through imaginary hoops all you want, but the entire world knows he's a criminal, and a traitor. You really should stop embarrassing yourselves. He will be dealt with.


 So Trump can be a criminal and not have committed treason.  The only imaginary thing I see is the imaginary different standard for Treason applying to the POTUS.

You don't think sending armed insurrectionists against the US Capital, with orders to kill several members of Congress, AND his own VP is treason?

 Not according to US law.  Legally that would be sedition, or possibly seditious conspiracy.  Even former U.S. Army prosecutor Glenn Kirschner's layout and argument of Treason and Trump in regard to Jan 6 has been shot down by hundreds of his peers and the DoJ.  The House Select Commitee that recommended charges and the Department of Justice that indicted Trump did not charge Treason.  They must all not know how the law works.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-Janu...
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
https://statesunited.org/resources/doj-charges-trump/#section-2

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edi...


If you have information that states the POTUS is to be held to a different definition of Treason I would look at it.  

 
What about stealing top-secret documents and giving or selling that information to Russia?

 No, that does not meet both criteria set forth with the multiple references I have provided that are required, by law, to meet the definition of treason.  It does however violate the Title 18 - Espionage Act of 1917.  If you have information that states the POTUS is to be held to a different definition of Treason I would look at it.  I have respectfully offered multiple references towards my assessment.


Oh, and he DID steal the 2024 election, as the preponderance of evidence shows.

 This comes nothing close to Treason.  Again you offer nothing more than a desire to use the word Treason while ignoring the definition and application of.  Trump can be a criminal without committing Treason.  We don't need to make up inaccurate nonsense about how Treason works in US law.  For some reason you are unwilling to accept this.

 If you have information that states the POTUS is to be held to a different definition of Treason I would look at it.  Otherwise you are arguing against an incorrect application of Treason by offering, now multiple, equally wrong applications of Treason yourself.

I am an administrator on a forum in the Netherlands. We always report these kinds of texts to the police because we are legally responsible for everything that happens on the forum. And a ban follows immediately. We fully cooperate with the authorities when they ask for information.

I have no function here on the forum but only a participant. But I am someone who loves Trump by heart and I take care of people I have in my heart as much as I can.

I think that there is a threat emanating from what you say here and that is why I have filed a report with the FBI with the link to your responses.
I trust that they can judge whether it is justified or not.

 Forum moderators are not legally responsible for forum posts in the US.

 Nothing here would be considered a credible threat to the POTUS.  Things like this cluttering up credible reports is how identification of actual risks are delayed.

Ok,
I just filed a report with the Federal Aviation Administration about your drone jamming installation.

 Great, I look forward to reading it.

Prank

I just thought it was fun to poke Needels a littel.
I,m not an administrator on a forum.



I'm lying in bed with the flu and I'm a little bored.

Eegore wrote on Today at 07:46:04:


I agree, he’s not a credible threat, just another TDS infected leftist.