Showing posts with label treason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label treason. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Paul Ryan and Obama Team Up To Block 9/11 Bill

Bipartisanship Breaks Out to Block 9/11 Bill

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

www.rollcall.com

A Senate bill that would allow families of those killed in the 9/11 attacks to sue the Saudi government has achieved a rare Washington distinction, by uniting the Obama administration and some of its fiercest GOP critics.

President Barack Obama, Speaker Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., are rallying to kill the bipartisan plan that would make it possible for American citizens to sue foreign governments believed to be linked to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest warned the legislation could lead other countries to craft even broader versions that could do significant harm to the U.S. government.

“It certainly is plausible … that that other countries when they're implementing these laws would not tailor them so specifically,” Earnest said. “And that does open up the United States to a unique degree of risk, and putting our country, our taxpayers, our service members and our diplomats in legal jeopardy in that way is contrary to our interests.”

Earnest said it would be “unwise” for the Senate to pass the legislation, “particularly when there is an alternative mechanism for us to resolve these kinds of issues with other countries.”

That alternative, he said, is “the essence of diplomacy.”

Shortly before Earnest appeared in the White House briefing room, Ryan spoke out against the so-called '9/11 bill.'

“I think we need to look at it,” Ryan told reporters at the Capitol. “I think we need to review it to make sure we are not making mistakes with our allies and that we’re not catching people in this that shouldn’t be caught up in this.

“The White House is opposed to it. It’s received some opposition here. We’re going to let these things work the process,” he added. “We’ll see where it goes from there.”

Administration officials are “gratified” to have Ryan as an ally as they try to block the legislation.

There has long been speculation that some members of the Saudi ruling family provided support to the al-Qaida hijackers on 9/11.

The White House on Tuesday picked up another unlikely partner in Graham, a hawkish Armed Services member and former GOP presidential candidate who is a frequent critic of Obama on foreign policy and national security matters. Graham placed a hold on the bill, wanting to review changes that have been made.

In fact, the legislation appears to align the president with many more Republican members than Democrats. Such scenarios, save a handful like trade bills, have been few and far between during Obama’s presidency.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada says that in the Senate, it's Republicans that are more split.

"I support it, almost everyone in the caucus supports it," Reid said of his Democrats.

Earnest acknowledged that this White House’s alliances with GOP members “is rare.”

“But I think in this instance it is an indication of just how significant these questions are, and, you know, we're obviously gratified that there are other Republicans who have taken … a close look at this legislation and recognized the serious, unintended consequences that could result from its passage,” he said.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Tuesday declined to discuss prospects for the bill, which is sponsored by Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas and the No. 3 Senate Democrat, Charles E. Schumer of New York.

Graham appears to be "concerned with the way that this administration has treated our allies, and particularly Saudi Arabia as a result of the misguided Iran nuclear deal,” Cornyn told reporters. “And now the president seems to want to use the leverage of the 9/11 families in order to somehow mollify or cure that rift that the president has created.

"This is really narrow provision, which only has to do with terrorist attacks on our own soil," Cornyn said, adding that it wasn't necessarily the case that it would apply to Saudi Arabia. "Let's let the chips fall where they may."

Saudi leaders have threatened to sell $750 billion in U.S. assets should the 9/11 victims bill become law. Earnest, however, seemed to dismiss that threat earlier this week , saying the Middle East power is a "large economy" and has no interest in destabilizing the global economy.

On a related note, Reid said that he supported the position of members of the independent, bipartisan commission that investigated the attacks, who want to see 28 pages of their report that remain classified be made public. The material is believed to draw a picture of foreign support for the 9/11 hijackers.

White House officials are actively contacting members to make their case. Earnest said the administration would like to have “a dialogue” with lawmakers about the legislation.

Contact Bennett atjohnbennett@cqrollcall.com. Follow him on Twitter @BennettJohnT.

Contact Lesniewski atnielslesniewski@cqrollcall.com and follow him on Twitter at @nielslesniewski.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

COMMENTS

Monday, March 21, 2016

Obama Welcomes Castro's Criticism of America: 'I Personally Would Not Disagree'

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

www.weeklystandard.com

President Obama said that he "personally would not disagree" with some of Cuban President Raul Castro\'s criticisms of America:

"President Castro, I think, has pointed out that in his view making sure that everybody is getting a decent education or health care, has basic security and old age, that those things are human rights as well. I personally would not disagree with him," Obama said.

"But it doesn\'t detract from some of these other concerns. And the goal of the human rights dialogue is not for the United States to dictate to Cuba how they should govern themselves, but to make sure that we are having a frank and candid conversation around this issue. And hopefully that we can learn from each other."

Obama made the comment at a joint press conference with the Cuban Communist dictator.

COMMENTS

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Feds fight disclosure of Hillary Clinton Whitewater indictment drafts


www.politico.com
The National Archives is fighting a lawsuit trying to force disclosure of several draft indictments of Hillary Clinton prepared by a Whitewater prosecutor in the 1990s.
In a brief filed late Tuesday, Justice Department lawyers and the Archive



s argue that disclosure of the draft indictments would lead to an unwarranted invasion of Clinton's privacy and violate a court rule protecting grand jury secrecy.
"Despite the role that Mrs. Clinton occupied as the First Lady during President Clinton's administration, Mrs. Clinton maintains a strong privacy interest in not having information about her from the files of the Independent Counsel disclosed," wrote Martha Wagner Murphy, chief of the Archives "special access" branch that stores records of former independent counsels. "As an uncharged person, Hillary Rodham Clinton retains a significant interest in her personal privacy despite any status as a public figure."
The conservative group Judicial Watch, which filed suit for the records in October under the Freedom of Information Act, is arguing that Clinton's ongoing bid for the presidency reinforces the public interest in records about her alleged misconduct.
"She's one of the most well-known women in the world, seeking the office of the presidency and her privacy interests outweigh the public interest in knowing what's in that indictment? It's absurd and it's shameful that the administration is proposing this," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. "This is a political decision to protect her candidacy—because it is laughable, legally."
The Archives and Justice Department were dismissive about the impact of Clinton's presidential bid on public access to the records.
"While there may be a scintilla of public interest in these documents since Mrs. Clinton is presently a Democratic presidential candidate, that fact alone is not a cognizable public interest alone under FOIA, as disclosure of the draft indictments would not shed light on what the government is up to," Murphy wrote.
"Her interest in avoiding disclosure of the drafts is not diminished by the fact that she is a former public official who is running for President," Justice Department lawyers added in their brief.
Law enforcement records about living people who did not face charges in criminal investigations normally are not released under FOIA, or the names are sanitized from the records before they're published. However, sometimes judges have ordered the release of such records in cases involving public officials.
Despite the usual practice, though, the Archives has released fairly detailed information about the independent counsel's focus on Hillary Clinton. Just last week, Judicial Watch announced it had received 246 pages of records describing the crimes some prosecutors believed were committed in connection with the Whitewater land deal and related matters. Some of the memos are from the "HRC Team" in the counsel's office—apparently a team focused on Clinton. One discusses the jury appeal or lack thereof of a case based solely on circumstantial evidence. One prosecutor put the chance of a conviction for Clinton at 10 percent.
It's not clear from the government's court filings why the draft indictments would be more sensitive than that kind of analysis, but the new submissions do argue that the drafts are covered by grand jury secrecy. In its initial response to Judicial Watch, the Archives relied solely on Clinton's privacy (and that of others) and did not mention the grand jury secrecy issue. But the brief filed Tuesday contends the drafts would provide insight into the grand jury's activities by revealing the identities of witnesses and that they quote from grand jury testimony.
Fitton said that "if Mrs. Clinton was being truly transparent," she would provide a privacy waiver that could ease release of the records.
Spokesmen for the Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the legal filings.
Josh Gerstein is a senior reporter for POLITICO.
COMMENTS

Monday, May 5, 2014

Obama’s Benghazi Lie Isn’t Just Impeachable… It’s… Treasonous?

on Obama’s now confirmed lie about what really happened in Benghazi. The Judge asked a simple question… ” Why wouldn’t we impeach this president for not protecting and defending Americans in the bloodbath known as Benghazi?”
Watch the segment below.
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/05/obamas-benghazi-lie-isnt-just-impeachable-its-treasonous/#sthash.bCbuhV9O.dpuf
on Obama’s now confirmed lie about what really happened in Benghazi. The Judge asked a simple question… ” Why wouldn’t we impeach this president for not protecting and defending Americans in the bloodbath known as Benghazi?”
Watch the segment below.
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/05/obamas-benghazi-lie-isnt-just-impeachable-its-treasonous/#sthash.bCbuhV9O.dpufvvv
Judge Jeanine Pirro used her time Saturday night to unload both barrels on Obama’s now confirmed lie about what really happened in Benghazi. The Judge asked a simple question… ” Why wouldn’t we impeach this president for not protecting and defending Americans in the bloodbath known as Benghazi?”
Watch the segment below.
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/05/obamas-benghazi-lie-isnt-just-impeachable-its-treasonous/#sthash.bCbuhV9O.dpuf
Judge Jeanine Pirro used her time Saturday night to unload both barrels on Obama’s now confirmed lie about what really happened in Benghazi. The Judge asked a simple question… ” Why wouldn’t we impeach this president for not protecting and defending Americans in the bloodbath known as Benghazi?”
Watch the segment below.
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/05/obamas-benghazi-lie-isnt-just-impeachable-its-treasonous/#sthash.bCbuhV9O.dpuf
Judge Jeanine Pirro used her time Saturday night to unload both barrels on Obama’s now confirmed lie about what really happened in Benghazi. The Judge asked a simple question… ” Why wouldn’t we impeach this president for not protecting and defending Americans in the bloodbath known as Benghazi?”
Watch the segment below.
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/05/obamas-benghazi-lie-isnt-just-impeachable-its-treasonous/#sthash.bCbuhV9O.dpufv
Judge Jeanine Pirro used her time Saturday night to unload both barrels on Obama’s now confirmed lie about what really happened in Benghazi. The Judge asked a simple question… ” Why wouldn’t we impeach this president for not protecting and defending Americans in the bloodbath known as Benghazi?”
Watch the segment below.
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/05/obamas-benghazi-lie-isnt-just-impeachable-its-treasonous/#sthash.bCbuhV9O.dpuf
Judge Jeanine Pirro used her time Saturday night to unload both barrels on Obama’s now confirmed lie about what really happened in Benghazi. The Judge asked a simple question… ” Why wouldn’t we impeach this president for not protecting and defending Americans in the bloodbath known as Benghazi?”
Watch the segment below.
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/05/obamas-benghazi-lie-isnt-just-impeachable-its-treasonous/#sthash.bCbuhV9O.dpuf
Judge Jeanine Pirro used her time Saturday night to unload both barrels on Obama’s now confirmed lie about what really happened in Benghazi. The Judge asked a simple question… ” Why wouldn’t we impeach this president for not protecting and defending Americans in the bloodbath known as Benghazi?”
Watch the segment below.
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/05/obamas-benghazi-lie-isnt-just-impeachable-its-treasonous/#sthash.bCbuhV9O.dpuf

Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens? If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi.
Our Constitution defines it this way: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Aid and comfort to the enemy — what is that?
When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your “enemy,” then who) — and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to “stand down”? Meanwhile, our government may have been conspiring to arm another offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria.
How much more treasonous can you get? Benedict Arnold was a piker.
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/05/obamas-benghazi-lie-isnt-just-impeachable-its-treasonous/#sthash.bCbuhV9O.dpuf
Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens? If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi.
Our Constitution defines it this way: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Aid and comfort to the enemy — what is that?
When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your “enemy,” then who) — and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to “stand down”? Meanwhile, our government may have been conspiring to arm another offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria.
How much more treasonous can you get? Benedict Arnold was a piker.
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/05/obamas-benghazi-lie-isnt-just-impeachable-its-treasonous/#sthash.bCbuhV9O.dpuf
Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens? If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi.
Our Constitution defines it this way: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Aid and comfort to the enemy — what is that?
When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your “enemy,” then who) — and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to “stand down”? Meanwhile, our government may have been conspiring to arm another offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria.
How much more treasonous can you get? Benedict Arnold was a piker.
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/05/obamas-benghazi-lie-isnt-just-impeachable-its-treasonous/#sthash.bCbuhV9O.dpuf


Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Treason

  In America only 16 people have been tried for Treason from 1776 - 2012.   I am shocked to learn that some of them were pardoned by sitting presidents.  Treason is defined by the US Constitutional Dictionary as "treason n the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war Source: NMW" and Article Three of the United States Constitution listed on Wikipedia defines Treason as:  

Section 3: Treason

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.
 I have gone to this length to show how President Obama maybe guilty for Treason for at least one crime and maybe more.  I say this based on information coming out of the Benghazi massacre.  The president was at the very least requested to send military assistance in what had become a 7 hour long over throw of an American Embassy and the rape and torture of  U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and the murder of U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and U.S. embassy security personnel Special Forces Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. The request for help by America was denied by what has come out most recently by President Barack Hussein Obama.  It is also being exposed that Obama had a live feed to the attack and watched it as our American heros were being slain.  Obama then went to sleep and attended a fund raiser for his reelection in Las Vegas. Obama knew what happened as it fell apart and then LIED to the American people about it.


1.  Allowed Americans to be raped and killed while he watched and denied assistance 3 times.
2.  Lied to the American people about the extent of what happened. Knowingly misled.
3. Aiding foreign enemy by not lending support during an act of war.

You need two witnesses to attest to these charges and I would subpoena:

1. Hilary Rodham Clinton and
2. General David Howell Petraeus


The following are persons accused and tried of Treason in America from 1776 - 2012 you may soon add President Obama.