You don't believe in treason, not if it applies to your orange savior or his cronies. I got that.  You tell me YOUR definition of treason and I bet I can show you where 47 has committed it. Your guy is EVERYTHING you claim to be against.

A fetus is not a person, I don't care how you rationalize it. All the "Pro-Life" clowns have done is get a lot of useless laws passed that cannot be enforced. "Pro-Life" is a RELIGIOUS STANCE. Those laws are not Constitutional. NO LAWS promoting religion, remember. It does not matter if it's your religion.

"Right to Work" just means you don't support unions. Unions are the only reason your boss can't just let you die on the job. Unions are why we have weekends, holidays, paid leave... You don't want that?

You tell me YOUR definition of treason and I bet I can show you where 47 has committed it.

 Ahh good workaround.  Use personal definitions instead of the legal ones used in US law from the Constitution.

Use whatever you want. 47 HAS met the criteria for treason, even by the Constitutional law.

 So everyone working on prosecuting him is wrong and you are right?  Why isn't one single case utilizing treason as a prosecutable offense?  My  assessment is because they are using more applicable crimes.  

 
So, you obviously have NOTHING, while I have evidence, not opinion, which is all YOU have.

 Ok so I have provided multiple references in my posts that specifically meet your criteria for valid evidence.  Are you choosing to ignore this?
What one's have you offered?

 I can't find a single one besides your words on here.  

 If an outside observer looked over your posts on this thread, and my posts on this thread, which one's would be most likely considered "evidence"?  The posts with links to multiple references of US case law, or the ones with zero links?

No links you've posted yet have anything to do with the discussion.

 I disagree.  My links offer direct interpretations and applications of Treason in US law.  SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.  How does that not apply?

 You utilize Nixon in your argument, You brought up Nixon, not me - I offered ArtII.S4.4.7 President Richard Nixon and Impeachable Offenses.  How does that have "nothing to do with the discussion"?  From my viewpoint it addresses exactly what you brought into the discussion.  

 Final Report of the Special Counsel Under 28 C.F.R. § 600.8, the report from the event You brought up "does not have anything to do with the discussion"?  You brought that up with zero evidence, I did nothing more than indicate how every legal professional addressing Merrick Garland's task of prosecuting Trump could not justify a Treason charge.

 So they aren't all wrong, it just has nothing to do with the conversation?  That sounds like misdirection to me.


 A coup attempt IS treason, and so is attempting to overthrow elections.

 I agree that a Coup attempt could be Treason, but it must include the actions acting in "direct nexus" to a foreign entity.  Trump encouraged Jan 6 for primarily personal gain which is illegal, but disqualifies Treason as Treason is not any action that indirectly assists an "Enemy".  I initially thought it was Treason as well, but once I educated myself and actually read through the procedures, historical and contemporary, I used the preponderance of evidence - not opinion - to concede my position was wrong, and every expert working decades in the field was right. 

 Here's more "nothing to do with the conversation" reference that I know NOTHING about:  https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/...

 Trump can be a criminal without committing Treason.  It seems you just aren't willing to accept that.  
 

Needles wrote on Yesterday at 06:32:19:


And more Threats !!!!!!!

Are you carrying around a FAZ bloody severed head ?

https://ktla.com/news/man-31-in-u-s-legally-for-12-years-ripped-from-family-deta
ined-by-ice/

THIS violates the Constitution. POTUS makes up "new rules" all the time. 47's claim of immunity? Unprecedented. 47's policy of illegally deporting people? Unprecedented and patently illegal. The Jan 6 coup attempt? Treasonous, unprecedented. 47 attacking media outlets he doesn't like? UnConstitutional AND unprecedented. 47's presence in the WH itself is unprecedented--- he's a convicted felon. 47's theft of top secret documents? Unprecedented. Literally NOTHING in the US's history foreshadowed having a traitor in the WH.  Your points are specious, though you try to make them sound knowledgeable.

THIS violates the Constitution.

 That's also not treason.


POTUS makes up "new rules" all the time. 47's claim of immunity? Unprecedented. 47's policy of illegally deporting people? Unprecedented and patently illegal. The Jan 6 coup attempt? Treasonous, unprecedented. 47 attacking media outlets he doesn't like? UnConstitutional AND unprecedented. 47's presence in the WH itself is unprecedented--- he's a convicted felon. 47's theft of top secret documents? Unprecedented. Literally NOTHING in the US's history foreshadowed having a traitor in the WH.  Your points are specious, though you try to make them sound knowledgeable.

 So you don't have any information that indicates there is a different standard for the POTUS in regard to charging Treason.  Your examples for treason do not meet the standard required for the charge.

 You offer plenty of OPINION, but so far no evidence on this specific topic.  You have valid points toward crimes that are not treason, and as such Trump should be held accountable for those crimes.  Not made up crimes.  Your "POTUS makes up "new rules" all the time." argument is nothing more than an attempt at misdirection.  A criminal committing a different crime is not evidence of treason.

 If you can provide evidence that the US justice system has a different standard for Treason in regard to the POTUS, I will look at it.  Evidence specifically, not more OPINION.