TINKER, TAILOR, TERRORIST, TRAITOR

PART ONE OF FOUR PARTS

INTRODUCTION

Barack Obama’s destructive Administration is rapidly drawing to a close. Our Nation’s Constitution, its institutions, and our security have survived relatively intact. If Hillary Clinton succeeds Obama, our Nation will not survive. She will dismantle our Bill of Rights. She will destroy our economy. She will endanger our citizenry. Clinton will subordinate our laws and jurisprudence to that of other Nations and international tribunals. She will misuse our military, financing unwinnable wars with our tax dollars, sacrificing the lives of our soldiers on military campaigns and escapades that have nothing to do with defending our freedoms or preserving our National Security. Clinton will engage in Nation building, while dismantling our own Nation. She will distribute hundreds of billions of dollars to other Countries, underwriting their debt and serving their needs, while destroying the credit of our own Country and ignoring our Nation’s needs. Clinton will rewrite our Nation’s history. She will thrust alien ideas of culture, morality, religion, civil governance, philosophy, and jurisprudence into the Nation’s psyche. Clinton will undermine our National Sovereignty, our National pride our uniqueness. She will compel uniformity in thought and deed. Hillary Clinton will become the Imperial Presidency.

Hillary Clinton does not have the best interests of our Nation at heart. She never did. She never will. Hillary Clinton and her family prove, through their deeds, that they serve only their own personal, selfish interests and those of their secretive benefactors both in this Country and abroad. Hillary Clinton’s needs are not our Nation’s needs. Clinton’s desires and goals are not our Nation’s desires and goals. She used the Department of State as a vehicle to amass personal wealth. She will use the Office of the U.S. Presidency in the same way, dispensing ever more favors to those willing to fill her personal coffers. The fate of our Country rests in the balance.

This Nation has had enough of the Clintons and of all other family dynasties. Hopefully, the American People will see through the mask of this Viper, Hillary Clinton, before it is too late. Americans must refrain from voting for Clinton. The fate of our Country rests in the balance.

TREASON IS A CRIME AGAINST COUNTRY. THE HORROR OF TREASON IS ETCHED IN STONE FOR ALL TO SEE.

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!” ~ISAIAH 5:20—21

Has Hillary Rodham Clinton committed treason? To Clinton’s benefactors and supporters, just asking this is heresy. They would like the question to go away. It won’t.

The question of treason lies simmering like molten magna just below the Earth’s crust. It lies dormant, but potent. Only a few take notice, but should.

Many say Hillary Clinton is a traitor. They hurl the word at her as invective, as an epithet. They are fervent in their denunciation of Clinton. But, truthfully, calling a person a traitor, if mere epithet, as invective, means nothing more than saying, “I hate you; go to Hell!” A mere assertion of indignation of moral outrage toward one—understandable though it be—carries no legal import or significance.

A few others provide a rational basis for leveling the charge of treason against Clinton. But, a rational basis isn’t automatically a legal basis. It is the legal ground for charging Hillary Clinton with treason we must ponder. Treason is a most serious charge. For, treason is a crime against our Nation’s sovereignty. Treason is a crime against our Country. Treason is a crime against the founders of our Republic. Treason is a crime against our Constitution; and against our Bill of Rights; and against our institutions; and against our system of laws; and against the Rule of Law. Treason is a crime against our fellow Countrymen. Treason is a crime against those who gave their blood for our Country, that we may live, free—free from the control of those silent, secretive, seditious, and evil, corrupting influences and forces that seek to undermine the inviolability of our Nation’s sacred heritage, and of its precious birthright. Treason mocks the sanctity of our Nation’s past. Treason undercuts faith in the stability and security of our Nation at the present moment. Treason dashes our Nation’s hopes and dreams, leaving us fearful for our Nation’s future. Treason is Treachery incarnate to our Nation.

Despicable behavior warrants our condemnation, surely. But, unless our laws forbid hateful behavior, such behavior isn’t subject to prosecution. Treason is forbidden conduct. Treason is prosecutable. The crime of treason is codified in our Constitution and in Statute. The crime of Treason is etched in stone.

DOES THE DESPICABLE BEHAVIOR OF THE ODIOUS HILLARY CLINTON AMOUNT TO TREASON?

Does concrete evidence exist in the public domain that might, legally, support a charge of treason against Hillary Clinton?

A few commentators assert that Clinton’s conduct amounts to treason. Do their claims stand up to scrutiny? Do those claims hold up to analysis? Is there merit to charging Hillary Clinton with treason?

The mainstream media won’t weigh in. It won’t touch the subject. Those media organizations and commentators not aligned to mainstream media that have broached the subject are few. So, there is little public outcry, only a palpable silence.

But treason won’t go away. It is the four hundred pound silverback gorilla in the room. Does the gorilla exist? Or, is it shadow and mist? Let’s see.

CLINTON IS A CRIMINAL: OF THAT, NO REASONABLE DOUBT EXISTS. TREASON OR NOT, CLINTON MUST ACCOUNT FOR A MULTITUDE OF FELONIES. BUT NEITHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NOR CONGRESS CARES ENOUGH TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

We know Clinton has committed serious federal crimes. They include mishandling classified government information, lying to federal investigators; public corruption in high Office.

These three federal crimes are not misdemeanors, much less mere infractions. They are felonies, the most serious of crimes. The public knows of them. If convicted of any one or more of them, Hillary Clinton would face both large monetary penalties and lengthy imprisonment in federal prison. Rudy Giuliani has pointed to fifteen other federal crimes warranting indictment of Clinton. Giuliani served as an Associate Attorney General in the Reagan Administration, and as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and as a Mayor of New York City. He knows whereof he speaks. The mainstream media should listen to him and roundly condemn Hillary Clinton. The mainstream media chooses not to. Instead, it applauds her; it hails her; it worships her. It defiles the sacred right of the Press, engraved in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, our founders lovingly, lavished upon it.

So, here we are. The Justice Department didn’t indict and prosecute Clinton and the mainstream media did not demand it do so. Why not? The F.B.I. Director’s stated reasons for recommending no indictment against Hillary Clinton remain weak and fallible and are clearly implausible. The Attorney General is an abject disgrace to her profession and to her Country. The F.B.I., within the Department of Justice, may yet come to our Nation’s rescue. James Comey, Director of the F.B.I., and the Bureau’s field agents of the F.B.I., may be our Nation’s Horatius at the Bridge.

We have learned the Bureau may recommend indictment of the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. See article in RealClear Politics.  Likely, the Bureau would recommend indictment of the Foundation under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq. Understand, this does not mean indictment of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton in their individual capacity—at least not yet. But the Justice Department’s indictment of and prosecution of the Foundation, as a corporate entity, on federal RICO charges would be a good start!

Evidence of Clinton’s criminal conduct is massive; the time frame of the criminal conduct, vast. Why didn’t the Justice Department indict Clinton on federal felony charges? We draw one inference: Political constraints, or threats, hindered the Justice Department’s legal duty to our Country, to our laws, and to our Constitution.

Americans who committed any one or more of the crimes Hillary Clinton committed have suffered swift and severe retribution. Yet, Clinton, herself, emerges, and remains, to date, unscathed. That’s deeply perplexing. The scale of Clinton’s crimes dwarfs those of other Americans.

Hillary Clinton must answer for her crimes. A double standard jeopardizes the integrity of our Nation, and the sanctity of our Republic. A double standard erodes the rule of law. A double standard mocks our Constitution; it mocks our system of laws; it mocks our jurisprudence; and it mocks the very idea of judicial fairness.

The Executive Office of the President is beyond redemption. The Office of the Attorney General may yet redeem itself with an indictment of Hillary and Bill Clinton on federal felony charges. Congress, too, might redeem itself. It can do so with enactment of the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016, H.R. 5271. But Congress must debate the Act on the Floor of the House and hold a public vote of its members. At the moment Congress has done nothing. It shows abject weakness in the face of the worst Constitutional crisis to face this Nation in decades.

In Part Two we consider, one, the elements of treason, and, two, against whom federal prosecutors can bring a charge of treason.

PART TWO OF FOUR PARTS

THE DYNAMICS OF A TREASON CHARGE

“But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood: they shall come upon thee in their perfection for the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments. For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, ‘None seeth me.’ Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, ‘I am, and none else beside me.’ Therefore shall evil come upon thee; thou shalt not know from whence it riseth: and mischief shall fall upon thee; thou shalt not be able to put it off: and desolation shall come upon thee suddenly, which thou shalt not know.” ~ ISAIAH 47:9—11, King James Version

WHOM MAY FEDERAL PROSECUTORS CHARGE WITH TREASON?

Federal prosecutors may charge with treason those American citizens who betray their Country. A citizen owes loyalty to his Country. That is self-evident. Treason is treachery to one’s Country. But, may prosecutors charge non-citizens with treason? Non-citizens don’t owe their loyalty to our Country. They aren’t expected to.

Some say Barack Obama isn’t a United States citizen and, so, prosecutors cannot indict him on treason. But is that true? No; it isn’t true. Obama is subject to our Nation’s treason law, citizen or not. A common misconception is that a person must be a citizen of the United States to face a charge of treason. That’s untrue. Non-citizens who reside in the United States must adhere to all laws of the United States while here. Federal prosecutors can charge noncitizens with treason as they may citizens. How do we know that? The U.S. Supreme Court says so.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court ruled that aliens, whether here legally or not, aren’t beyond our treason law. The Supreme Court ruling is more than one hundred years old, but it is still good law. The U.S. Supreme Court said, “The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.” Carlisle vs. United States, 83 U.S. 147 (1873). The high Court, in Carlisle, added, “. . . it is well known that, by the public law, an alien or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation.” Id.

TREASON IN U.S. LAW

Treason comprises: levying war against the sovereign United States or adhering to the Nation’s enemies, giving them aid or comfort. Treason is a federal crime; a felony. The crime of treason appears in both our Constitution and federal Statute. We see it in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution. We see it in the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 2381. Treason is treachery to Nation. Treason is the supreme betrayal to Country. Long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court made that point poignantly clear.

“Treason is the most serious offense that may be committed against the United States.” Stephan vs. United States, 133 F2d 87 (6th Circuit, 1943), certiorari denied, 318 US 781 (1943), citing, Hanauer v. Doane, 79 U.S. 342, 79 U.S. 342, 20 L.Ed. 439, 12 Wall. 342 (1871). “No crime is greater than treason.”

WHAT DOES ‘LEVYING WAR’ MEAN?

The U.S. Supreme Court explained the meaning of ‘levying war,’ in a two-hundred year old case: Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ex parte Monti, 79 F Supp. 651 (DC NY 1948). The Supreme Court’s comprehensive explanation of ‘levying war’ has stood the test of time. The high Court said, “What is the natural import of the words ‘levying war?’ And who may be said to levy it? . . . Taken most literally, they are perhaps of the same import with the words raising or creating war, but as those who join after the commencement are equally the objects of punishment, there would probably be a general admission, that the term also comprehended making war, or carrying on war. . . . If for example, an army should be actually raised for the avowed purpose of carrying on open war against the United States and subverting their government, the point must be weighed very deliberately, before a judge would venture to decide that an overt act of levying war had not been committed by a commissary of purchases, who never saw the army, but who, knowing its object, and leaguing himself with the rebels, supplied that army with provisions, or by a recruiting officer holding a commission in the rebel service, who though never in camp, executed the particular duty assigned to him.” The Court added: “Taking this view of the subject, it appears to the court, that those who perform a part in the prosecution of the war may correctly be said to levy war and to commit treason under the constitution.”

Let’s not obscure the meaning of the words, ‘levying war,’ by drawing a distinction between a formal Declaration of War and use of military force without formal Declaration.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that Congress has sole authority to declare war. Yet, not since World War II did Congress declare war against a foreign actor. Congress agreed to a President’s use of the armed forces since then with no Congressional declaration of war. George W. Bush set up a war on terror to be sure. We are in armed conflict with Islamic extremists.

Disagreement among legal experts exists over whether a charge of treason can stick without a formal Congressional declaration of war against a foreign actor. But, “if a congressional authorization to use military force can authorize the President to detain enemy combatants absent a declaration of war, such authorizations surely must also satisfy the enemy requirement of the Treason Clause. In short, if a person can be treated as an enemy combatant without a declaration of war, it would make little sense for that same person not to be considered an enemy for the purposes of the Treason Clause.” Article: Did The Court Kill The Treason Charge?: Reassessing Cramer v. United States And Its Significance, 36 Fla. St. U. L. Rev., Paul T. Crane, Solicitor General of the United States, 2008-2009.

American citizens who join forces with radical Islam have levied war against the United States. Federal prosecutors can charge those citizens with treason. Yet, in the last sixty years, federal prosecutors charged and prosecuted only two treason cases: the latest in 2006; the earlier one in 1952. Id.

A federal grand jury indicted Azzam al-Amriki Gadahn aka “Azzam the American,” on charges of treason in 2006 for giving aid to al-Qaeda. “The indictment alleged that Gadahn, an American citizen, ‘knowingly adhered to an enemy of the United States, namely, al-Qaeda, and gave al-Qaeda aid and comfort, within the United States and elsewhere, with intent to betray the United States.’ This charge was based on Gadahn’s participation in several videotapes produced by al-Qaeda between October 2004 and September 2006, in which he appeared with al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, espoused his support for the terrorist organization, praised the attacks of September 11th and the bombings in London and Madrid, and threatened future attacks against the United States. Notably, Gadahn was not in United States custody when the indictment was issued and currently remains at large.” Id.

Fifty years earlier, federal prosecutors charged an American, Anthony Cramer, with treason. “The treason prosecution of Anthony Cramer has its roots in the infamous Nazi Saboteur Affair. In 1942, seven German soldiers traveled by submarine and secretly landed on the east coast of the United States with plans to destroy American industrial war facilities. The saboteurs were eventually caught, tried by military tribunal, and sentenced to either death or imprisonment. The Supreme Court denied the saboteurs’ habeas corpus petitions in Ex Parte Quirin. Anthony Cramer was not a saboteur but rather a friend of one.” Id. The lower federal Court convicted Cramer of treason. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction. Cramer appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vacated the charge of treason.

Still, “although the Court vacated Cramer’s conviction, the government did not let him go free. While treason charges could have been brought again, the two sides reached a plea agreement on a different charge. Cramer pled guilty to violating the Trading with the Enemy Act and was sentenced to six years in prison.” Id.

Apart from “levying war” against the United States, a person also commits the crime of treason if that person gives aid and comfort to our Nation’s enemies. What does the phrase, ‘giving aid and comfort,’ mean? The U.S. Supreme Court explained what the phrase, ‘giving aid and comfort,’ means in the case, Kawakita vs. United States, 343 US 717 (1952), rehearing denied, 344 US 850 (1952).

The phrase, “aid and comfort,” is broad. It refers to any act that strengthens the enemy, and at once weakens the power of the United States to resist or to attack its enemies. But there’s a “kicker.” To satisfy the element of the crime, the act must be overt. “One may think disloyal thoughts and have his heart on the side of the enemy. Yet if he commits no act giving aid and comfort to the enemy, he is not guilty of treason. He may on the other hand commit acts which do give aid and comfort to the enemy and yet not be guilty of treason, as for example where he acts impulsively with no intent to betray.” Kawakita vs. United States, 343 US 717 (1952). “To give aid and comfort to our Nation’s enemies requires an act and an intent to act a desire to betray our Country.” Id. Further, “two witnesses are required, not to the disloyal and treacherous intention, but to the same overt act.” Id.

Treason is notoriously difficult to prove in Court even if legitimately prosecuted.

This takes us to Part Three: the penultimate, but not ultimate question. Did Hillary Clinton, commit treason?

PART THREE OF FOUR PARTS

THE PENULTIMATE QUESTION

DID HILLARY CLINTON LEVY WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR OTHERWISE GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO OUR NATION’S ENEMIES?

DID HILLARY CLINTON COMMIT TREASON?

“And Joram said, Make ready. And his chariot was made ready. And Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah went out, each in his chariot, and they went out against Jehu, and met him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite. And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, ‘Is it peace, Jehu?’ And he answered, ‘What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?’ And Joram turned his hands, and fled, and said to Ahaziah, There is treachery, O Ahaziah.’ And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between his arms, and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot.” ~2 KINGS, CHAPTER 9:21—24, King James Version

WHEREFORE DOES TREACHERY EXIST? DOES IT EXIST IN THE PEOPLE WHO TOPPLE A TYRANT? OR, DOES IT EXIST IN THE USURPER WHO PROCLAIMS, ‘I AM NOW THE LAW OF THE LAND AND RULE BY DIVINE RIGHT! OBEY ME OR FALL, FOR SUCH TREACHERY THAT EXISTS IN THE LAND IS TREACHERY TO ME, ONLY. NO OTHER TREACHERY CAN THERE BE.’

If Hillary Clinton obtains the mantle of U.S. President, she will proclaim that an attack against her right to reign as U.S. President is an attack against the Nation and, so, constitutes treachery to Nation. She will shred the U.S. Constitution—the Supreme Law of the Land that proclaims rulership in the People, not in those who hold high public Office. For those who hold Office—however lofty that Office may be—are but servants of the People, nothing more. Yet, Hillary Clinton will usurp the power the People rightfully hold. She will proclaim that “She,” not “We, the People,” is the rightful and true Ruler of our Nation.

Hillary Clinton will substitute the Constitution for the law “She” makes. Hillary Clinton will say that her law is right, and just, and good, and superior to our old Canons. That may happen. Don’t think it cannot. If so, a Tyrant will rise in our midst. This Tyrant will rise through deception, through deceit, through the connivance of the Press, and through the ignorance of the People.

No Greater Horror can beset this Nation than to seat a Deceiver in the Oval Office.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE OF CLINTON’S TREACHERY TO NATION

We look at a few specific assertions, referencing specific events that occurred when Clinton served as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. We analyze these assertions to determine whether they adequately support a charge of treason. The first is this:

“While Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she supported a covert exchange of weapons to Libyan rebels, some of whom then conducted the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi.” See article in HGN. Under the Supreme Court’s treatment of treason this would not support a successful prosecution for treason because, even if true, the intent to betray the Nation—the guilty state of mind—is missing, or, at least, the state of mind cannot be gleaned from the aforesaid assertion.

Nothing in the assertion, if true, suggests Clinton knew the Libyan rebels that she and Obama armed had planned to attack Americans. Even if Clinton suspected these Libyan rebels might turn those weapons on Americans, that presumption still does not support a charge of treason. For, treason, under our Constitution and under federal Statute, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, requires a specific state of mind—a specific intention, a specific guilty mind or mens rea, to harm our Nation—thus, satisfying the “knowingly adhering” to our Nation’s enemies requirement. Negligence, gross negligence, or even reckless disregard for the safety of Americans is, simply, not enough to support a charge of treason, much less sustain a conviction on treason.

Did Clinton know or suspect the rebels she had armed posed a potential threat to our Nation and to its citizenry? Perhaps she did. But, that presumption, too, does not support a charge of treason, reprehensible though her actions be if Clinton recognized a potential threat to Americans, posed by the rebels she armed, and decided to arm them anyway.

Did Clinton know, in advance, that the Libyan rebels she armed would, in fact, attack Americans at Benghazi, or, at least, did Clinton arm the rebels with the expectation and hope they would attack Americans? Both inferences are a considerable stretch on the basis of the mere assertion that Clinton had armed the rebels who did eventually carry out an attack on Americans. But, if this scenario were true, a charge of treason would stick. A prosecutor could then show intent—that Clinton had adhered to our Nation’s enemies—intent sufficient to support a charge of treason, necessary to secure a conviction. But, a prosecutor cannot legitimately draw either one of the two aforesaid inferences from the evidence given. Those inferences simply don’t follow logically, rationally, from the mere assertion that Clinton had armed Libyan rebels who did eventually carry out an attack on Americans in Benghazi. In point of fact the Obama Administration still provides weapons to so-called “moderate” Islamic rebels who, from one day to the next, may no longer be “moderate,” and who, thereafter may use our own weapons against us. Or, these “moderate” Islamic rebels may sell those weapons to “non-moderate” groups of Islamic rebels, that is to say, extremist Islamic rebel groups who, thereafter, use those weapons—our weapons—against us. Perhaps Clinton believed that the Libyan rebels she had armed were “moderate” Muslims, who posed no probable threat to Americans at the time she armed them, from what she knew about them; and that she could not, at that time, and did not, at that time, reasonably anticipate they would turn violent. She could make that claim and probably would make that claim in her defense were she tried for treason. The claim is plausible and difficult to controvert, if one buys into the notion that the term, ‘moderate,’ as applied to a Muslim rebel group makes sense.

If Clinton did want Americans killed at Benghazi, we can only speculate as to a reason. Perhaps she sought to demoralize Americans—destabilizing our Country, weakening our resolve, making us malleable, so that she, on behalf of her wealthy, powerful, sordid benefactors, might reshape our Nation in a manner they wish–a reconfiguration that requires the destruction of our independence, and of our Constitution, and of our sovereignty—drawing us into the orbit of a one world governing body, a new world order. But these speculations would not support her conviction on treason.

Was Clinton negligent in providing arms to these Libyan rebels? Sure. Again, the Obama Administration provides arms to Islamic groups across the Middle East. That’s his policy. He does this all the time. Obama tells us his Administration supports arming only “moderate” rebel groups. But, the word, ‘moderate,’ is a dubious and fluid concept. President Obama uses it deviously to suggest such rebel Muslim groups are our friends. They aren’t. They have their own agenda. “Moderate” Muslim rebel groups turn on us regularly, constantly; and, within a Muslim rebel group, one faction may be “moderate” and another faction may be “hostile.” Who can really say? These rebel groups, “moderate” or “hostile” do use our weapons against us. The Benghazi tragedy illustrates that point well. If the group Clinton armed were deemed, “moderate,” at the time she armed that group, that Muslim rebel group certainly  turned “hostile” once it took up arms–our own weapons–against us!

Muslim rebel groups hate us. None, we can trust. That’s the only safe bet. The appellation, ‘moderate,’ applied to some groups at any particular point in time is no more than a political nicety. Obama uses it for expediency, for propaganda purposes to deceive the American public. It means nothing. Our Nation should be circumspect in arming any Muslim rebel group. Rebel groups that seem friendly toward us one day or, at least, benign, can turn hostile toward us, the next, and do. We should not supply these groups with weapons they can turn against us, ever. Obama’s entire foreign policy is suspect. The policy is based on ill-formed goals. Military tactics and strategy in the Middle East change daily, even hourly. We, Americans, are caught up in an expensive and unending, seething maelstrom the Bush Administration–that of George W. Bush, not that of his father, George H. W. Bush–created through his ostensibly preemptive–actually, aggressive and premeditated–war in Iraq–a war the Obama Administration worsened through its tentative handling of the conflict.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have behaved negligently, at the very least, in the conduct of our Nation’s foreign policy. Their actions may support a claim of gross negligence. Their actions may even support both a claim of reckless indifference to the security of our Nation, and reckless indifference to the lives of our citizens. But, their policy formulations, endangering our Nation as they do, do not support a charge of treason, on the basis of negligent conduct, gross negligent conduct, or even reckless disregard for the safety and security of American lives they have a duty to protect. So a charge of treason against Clinton and Obama cannot rest on the specific act of having armed Libyan rebel groups that attacked and killed Americans, in the absence of evidence of specific intent on the part of Obama and Clinton–a deliberate desire to kill Americans through the act of arming Libyan rebel groups.

Did Clinton fail to provide adequate military support to State Department personnel in Libya after our Ambassador made several requests for protection? If so, does that support a charge of treason?

Some commentators point to Clinton’s failure to provide adequate military support to State Department personnel in Libya after our Ambassador made several requests for protection. See Politifact article.

Although reprehensible, that assertion, too, if true, does not support a charge of treason. Once again, on its face that assertion shows negligence, gross negligence, or even reckless disregard for the safety and security of Americans. That assertion doesn’t entail a clear, irrefutable intention, on Clinton’s part, and, by implication, on Obama’s part, to kill Americans. So, that fact does not support a charge of treason.

Did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama refuse to send troops to protect our people once the attack against Americans in Benghazi was underway? Does that fact support a charge of treason against Clinton and Obama?

The tacit premise here is that Clinton and Obama were aware that an attack against our people was occurring, and they deliberately told our military to “stand down.” If true, would this might support a prima facie case of treason against Hillary Clinton and against the President Obama? One thing is clear. If federal or special prosecutors charge Clinton with treason, they should charge Obama too. For, they operated in concert. So, Obama has a clear vested interest in having Clinton succeed him. He faces more than loss of his legacy—poor as it is—if Clinton is defeated in this Presidential election. For, if prosecutors charge Hillary Clinton with treason, they will charge Barack Obama with treason, too. Their actions in the Middle East are inextricably linked.

Let’s suppose that Clinton and Obama had knowledge of the Benghazi attack in real time, while it was unfolding, and that they did nothing to protect Americans. Still, federal prosecutors would have a difficult time prosecuting the case against Clinton and Obama to a successful conclusion. The reason is that the legal issue here is one here of first impression: “Does the omission to act, where a legal duty to act exists, constitute an overt act, sufficient to support a charge of treason?”

Remember, treason, according to U.S. Supreme Court decisional law, requires an overt act of betrayal to the Nation.

Federal prosecutors must prove that Obama and Clinton knew Americans were under attack and intentionally did not provide military assistance to those Americans. But, even in this scenario, conviction on treason is, at best, uncertain.

In their defense, Obama and Clinton would argue they did not know of the attack on Americans at Benghazi as it was unfolding in real time. If true, a treason charge would collapse. If false, then failing to send troops to protect our Ambassador and his staff does amount to an “omission to act” where there is a clear duty to act. There’s no question about it. But, then, the follow-up question is this: does a failure to act amount to an overt act of betrayal to Nation? Are the two equivalents? It may seem so, and but this is not a legal certainty, distasteful though such omission to act is to our conscience. Obama and Clinton would claim that failure to act—even where duty demands they act—does not mean they gave direct aid and comfort to our enemies. Is an act of omission equivalent to an act of commission, under the law of treason? That’s unclear. How would a court of competent jurisdiction decide that question? We don’t know. What we do know is that: “The Constitution has left no room for constructive treason and Congress could not and has no undertaken to restrict or enlarge the constitutional definition.” Stephan v United States, 133 F2d 87 (CA6 Mich 1943), certiorari denied, 318 US 781, 87 L Ed 1148, 63 S Ct 858 (1943), rehearing denied, 319 US 783, 87 L Ed 1727, 63 S Ct 1172 (1943). This raises hairy logical, linguistic, and legal issues concerning the meaning of “constructive knowledge” and “actual knowledge” and “constructive intent to commit a crime” and “actual intent to commit a crime.”

Evidence exists, according to The Daily Caller, that the Clinton Foundation received money from Arab Countries, namely and specifically, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, that are giving financial and logistical support to extremist Sunni groups, including “Islamic State.” If true does that support a treason charge against Clinton? Once again, the critical question goes to whether Hillary Clinton has given aid and comfort to our Nation’s enemies. Islamic State and other extremist groups definitely are our Nation’s enemies. If Hillary Clinton accepted money from Nations with knowledge that these Countries were supporting the Nation’s enemies, like Islamic State, that fact, although, despicable, probably doesn’t support a charge of treason, for she is receiving support–money–from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She isn’t giving money to those Countries with the intent that such money be used on behalf of Islamic State and other such extremist groups. She is taking money from Countries that are construed as allies or, at least, as benign. That is to say, that, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar may be actively supporting our Nation’s enemies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are not, they themselves, are not treated as enemies of the United States. But, reasonably, they should be so treated. The fact that Clinton does receive illicit monies from Countries, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, does show that Clinton doesn’t give a damn about the welfare of our Country and its citizenry so long as her Foundation is making a profit. That fact, alone, also makes abundantly clear that Hillary Clinton is hardly a person to be entrusted with our Nation’s secrets; and she is hardly the person to be entrusted with designing foreign policy for our Nation; and she is hardly the person to be entrusted with protecting the security of our Nation. But, does that fact alone–receiving money from Nations who do assist our enemies–support a charge of treason against Clinton.  Probably not. But, give Hillary Clinton time and rest assured she will weaken this Country’s defenses as she cares not for the well-being of our Nation. She cares not for the preservation of our Bill of Rights. She cares not for the safety and security of our Nation’s citizenry.

So, where does all this leave us? If solid evidence to support Clinton’s indictment on treason exists—and, hence, evidence, by logical extension, to support Obama’s indictment of treason, too—that evidence lies buried in the bowels of Government. The Justice Department may in fact have that evidence. The American public, unfortunately, does not.

But, if a charge of treason can’t feasibly stick against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, that doesn’t end the matter. We have terrorism Statutes. We ask: Can a charge of terrorism be brought against them? To our knowledge, no one has considered this. We do. The question is not beyond the pale. We take it up in Part Four.

PART FOUR OF FOUR PARTS

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION

IS HILLARY CLINTON A TERRORIST?

WHAT MONSTERS HAVE WE AWAKENED THAT DARE THREATEN THE EQUANIMITY OF OUR PEOPLE AND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR NATION?

“It is absolutely necessary, for the peace and safety of mankind, that some of earth’s dark, dead corners and unplumbed depths be let alone; lest sleeping abnormalities wake to resurgent life, and blasphemously surviving nightmares squirm and splash out of their black lairs to newer and wider conquests.” ~H. P. Lovecraft (At the Mountains of Madness, 24 February to 22 March 1931)

CAN WE NOT CHARGE HIGH PUBLIC OFFICIALS WITH TERRORISM WHEN THEIR POLICIES ENDANGER: THE SECURITY OF THE NATION; THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF THE CITIZENRY; THE STABILITY OF THE SOCIAL ORDER; AND THE PRESERVATION OF OUR INSTITUTIONS AND OUR WAY OF LIFE?

A plethora of federal terrorism statutes exist today. Prosecutors could charge Muslim Extremists who commit acts of terrorism here with treason. We have seen many Islamic extremist attacks against Americans, stretching back to the 1970s.

Many of these criminal acts fall under the category of treason. But the perpetrators are charged under other criminal statutes. These include the crime of Terrorism, codified in law in 2001, with passage of the Patriot Act.

The Nation’s “Terrorism” statutes fall under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2331 et. seq.

Might not prosecutors bring a charge of terrorism against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? Neither President George W. Bush nor Congress intended these Statutes to apply to high Government Officials. The idea of applying our terrorism laws against the U.S. President or Cabinet level officials under one or more terrorism charges is, admittedly, singularly odd, incongruous, and bizarre. After all, we expect the U.S. President and his Cabinet to protect the Nation and its citizenry from terrorism, not to lend their power and authority to terrorism’s promotion. How might federal prosecutors apply terrorism statutes to our own Government officials? Under what set of facts or under what circumstances might federal prosecutors indict high Government officials on a charge of terrorism? Let’s take a look at one of the Terrorism Statutes.

18 U.S.C. § 2331 says in part,

“The term ‘international terrorism’ means activities that—

(A)  involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B)  appear to be intended—

(i)  to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii)  to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii)  to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping; and

(C)  occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

(2)  the term ‘national of the United States’ has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;

(3)  the term ‘person’ means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;

(4)  the term ‘act of war’ means any act occurring in the course of—

(A)  declared war;

(B)  armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or

(C)  armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and

(5)  the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that—

(A)  involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B)  appear to be intended—

(i)  to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii)  to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

This Nation is fully capable of containing the criminal actions of individual Islamic extremists who seek to disrupt the lives of our citizenry and the tranquility of our Nation. Horrible as such criminal conduct is, its impact on the foundation of our Country’s laws, our Country’s Constitution, and our Country’s institutions is nonetheless, narrow.

A U.S. Government Official’s terrorist acts, though, disrupt the foundation of our Republic. We see a paradox in this. The public presumes that domestic and foreign policy objectives mandate, inter alia, combating Islamic terrorism. But, suppose policy objectives promote the converse? Suppose the U.S. President and his Cabinet design and implement policies destructive to the Nation’s survival? If the policy threatens or intimidates the citizenry, then the President and his Cabinet are the terrorists. This may seem incongruous, but the possibility exists.

18 U.S.C. § 2331 discusses terrorism apropos of actions of those on Government, of those affecting the conduct of Government. But, officials of Government, from the highest to the lowest, are servants of the People. True power and authority rests in the American people not in Government. So, if Government officials design and implement policies deliberately causing harm to or provoking harm in the citizenry, those officials are terrorists and they do fall under the purview of the terrorism laws.

Through sanctimonious words and pseudo moral imperatives the President, Barack Obama, and his hopeful replacement, Hillary Clinton, implement policies detrimental to, anathema to the well-being of the Nation. They conduct their treacherous acts through the sanctity of the Office of the Chief Executive. That makes their treachery easier to hide. But the horror these reprehensible creatures unleash on our Country is far greater than any horror one or more loathsome Islamic terrorists desire to unleash upon us, and more insidious, too, since public officials can hide their evil deeds in the cloak of their Office. Radical Islamic terrorists cannot. Obama and Clinton turn the inviolability of high public office into a travesty, into an abomination.

Consider: by implementing policy bringing hundreds of thousands of Muslims into this Country whom the F.B.I. and other counterintelligence officials cannot reasonably examine for potential threat to our Nation and to our citizenry, the U.S. President, Barack Obama, has endangered the American citizenry. Once here, they spread like locust over the landscape of our Country. They are difficult to locate; difficult to keep track of. Far better it would be to keep them from crossing our borders. Problematic enough it is to have to deal with illegal infiltration by Islamic extremists into our Country were our borders closed to Muslims. It is quite another matter where Presidential edict allows infiltration easily through lax immigration policies or policies specifically designed to contravene immigration laws enacted by Congress. Obama has permitted tens of thousands of Muslims from the Middle East to enter our Country—notwithstanding the problems Muslim refugees have caused for Europe. Clinton intends to allow hundreds of thousands more Muslims to enter our Country. That is insane.

Hillary Clinton intends to continue Obama’s policy if she becomes President. She has admitted as much. Indeed, she revels in it. Both Clinton and Obama hide their goal—undermining the stability of our institutions and threatening the social order.

Their policy doesn’t stand rational scrutiny, even as it is cloaked in high-sounding moral rhetoric. For, their domestic policy threatens the safety and well-being of the American citizenry. Such policy is, arguably, an act of terrorism perpetrated against the American citizenry. They mask their treacherous aims under the color of high Office, under the cloak of moral necessity, and under the guise of bald exigency. They are safe from potential harm their seemingly high-minded policies cause. The average American is not. Europeans have learned well the dangers posed by Muslims. What is the response of Obama and Clinton? Americans are expected to take upon themselves the same dangers that Europeans face. It is the right thing to do, so Obama and Clinton say. Application of the dubious ethical scheme of Consequential utilitarianism supersedes the duty owed to our Nation under our Constitution. Terrorism indeed, swathed in an infant’s soft blanket.

CONCLUSION; IMPORTANT REITERATION

Barack Obama’s destructive Administration is rapidly drawing to a close. Our Nation’s Constitution, its institutions, and our security have survived relatively intact. If Hillary Clinton succeeds Obama, our Nation will not survive. She will dismantle our Bill of Rights. She will destroy our economy. She will endanger our citizenry. Clinton will subordinate our laws and jurisprudence to that of other Nations and international tribunals. She will misuse our military, financing unwinnable wars with our tax dollars, sacrificing the lives of our soldiers on military campaigns and escapades that have nothing to do with defending our freedoms or preserving our National Security. Clinton will engage in Nation building, while dismantling our own Nation. She will distribute hundreds of billions of dollars to other Countries, underwriting their debt and serving their needs, while destroying the credit of our own Country and ignoring our Nation’s needs. Clinton will rewrite our Nation’s history. She will thrust alien ideas of culture, morality, religion, and into the Nation’s psyche. Clinton will undermine our National Sovereignty, our National pride our uniqueness. She will compel uniformity in thought and deed. Hillary Clinton will become the Imperial Presidency.

Hillary Clinton does not have the best interests of our Nation at heart. She never did. She never will. Hillary Clinton and her family prove, through their deeds, that they serve only their own personal, selfish interests and those of their secretive benefactors both in this Country and abroad. Hillary Clinton’s needs are not our Nation’s needs. Clinton’s desires and goals are not our Nation’s desires and goals. She used the Department of State as a vehicle to amass personal wealth. She will use the Office of the U.S. Presidency in the same way, dispensing ever more favors to those willing to fill her personal coffers. The fate of our Country rests in the balance.

This Nation has had enough of the Clintons and of all other family dynasties. Hopefully, the American People will see through the mask of this Viper, Hillary Clinton, before it is too late. Americans must refrain from voting for Clinton. The fate of our Country rests in the balance.