Why aren't we calling the Capitol attack an act of treason?
During Donald Trump’s presidency, UC Davis law professor Carlton Larson spent a lot of time on the phone telling journalists: “It’s not treason.”
Trump’s behavior towards Russia: not treason. All the FBI investigations Trump labeled as treason: also not treason. Then came the 6 January attack on the Capitol by hundreds of Trump supporters. That was treason according to the founding fathers, Larson wrote in an op-ed the next day.
But in the three months since 6 January, however, there has been little public discussion of “treason” as the framework for understanding what happened, Larson said. “Everything was ‘Treason, treason, treason,’ when it wasn’t, and now you have an event that is closer to the original 18th century definition of treason than anything that’s happened, and it’s almost silent. Nobody is using the term at all,” he said.
-snip-
Treason is defined in the US constitution as “levying war” against the United States, or “adhering” to the enemies of the United States and “giving them aid and comfort”. The framers had in mind “men gathering with guns, forming an army, and marching on the seat of government”, Larson said.
-more-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/why-arent-we-calling-the-capitol-attack-an-act-of-treason/ar-BB1fjC7u
= new reply since forum marked as read
why we aren't having serious Congressional hearings and investigations into the event. We need to know, both for now and for the future.
Forget bipartisan - the RepubliQans do not WANT to see or hear the facts.
JUST DO IT!!!!!!
