Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/20/2004 8:09:33 AM EST
It strikes me as criminal to falsely portray a sitting president - any of you guys more up on "treason" than me care to comment?
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 8:11:58 AM EST
Because "Bush is a liar!" .....Silly you...
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 8:13:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 8:13:39 AM EST by Tortfeasor]
This goes beyond politics, it goes to the core of the respect due a sitting president, no matter what party you are in. (But I see your tongue in your cheek...)
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 8:21:43 AM EST
I highly doubt there's anything criminal about it, but CBS may well have crossed live of Sullivan v. NY Times. For better or worse, however, I don't thnk Bush would do anything about it; too much risk of a political backfire.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 8:30:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By Tortfeasor:
This goes beyond politics, it goes to the core of the respect due a sitting president, no matter what party you are in.



So ya think that is dis-respect of a sitting president, whatdaya call this: suetheterrorists.net/

excerpt:
12. Plaintiffs aver that defendants all conspired with the government of Saudi Arabia("GSA") prior to 9/11/01 to knowingly finance, encourage, recruit, permit, and aid and abet, certain individuals to carry out the 9/11/01 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, in order to orchestrate a contrived, stylized and artificial "second Pearl Harbour" event for the purpose of galvanizing public support for their military adventure agenda in the middle east, and in order to persuade congress to enact their repressive patriot acts I and ii for the purpose of suppressing political dissent inside the us. Plaintiffs aver that defendants Bush et al. Knew about plans by "Al Quaeda" to launch the 911 attacks (hereinafter referred to as "the 911 acts"), and conspired with gSA to fund, finance and encourage said Al Quaeda individuals (many of whom were acting as informants and agents of defendants) to mount the 911 attacks, and allowed these attacks to occur deliberately, thereby violating clearly established rights of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also are informed and believe, and so aver, that defendants orchestrated the 911 acts and utilized a technology known as "fly by wire"("fbw"), i.e., remote control of aircraft, in the 911 acts. Said technology is also employed in the "global hawk" aircraft and military drone aircraft, and in commercial aircraft used in the 911 acts. Then, defendants concocted a scheme to cover up what they had done and suppress their prior knowledge and approval of the 911 acts.
13. Plaintiffs also aver that defendants knowingly utilized the climate of fear and hysterical created by the 911 acts, and deliberately concocted untrue and fraudulent claims of "weapons of mass destruction" ("WMD") said to be present in Iraq, from 9/11/01 through the present, and particularly in october 2002, when defendants presented these false claims to congress in order to obtain a resolution "Enabling act" which Bush then used to launch a preemptive war against the sovereign state of Iraq.


FWIW, this is an actual lawsuit, filed in CA and brought by one of former Sen. Bob Dole's senior advisors and someone who has personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades.

Pretty tough talk there, but according to Mr. Hilton, he has the documentation to back it up.....

additional comments made by Stanley Hilton:

SH: Yeah, we are suing Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11 to happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we had a witness who is married to one of them. The hijackers were U.S. undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI and the CIA to spy on Arab groups in this country. They were controlled. Their landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and other places. And this was a direct, covert operation ordered, personally ordered by George W. Bush. Personally ordered. We have incriminating evidence, documents as well as witnesses, to this effect. It's not just incompetence - in spite of the fact that he is incompetent. The fact is he personally ordered this, knew about it. He, at one point, there were rehearsals of this. The reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant on September 11th - when those videos showed that Andrew Card whispered in his ear the [garbled] words about this he listened to kids reading the pet goat story, is that he thought this was another rehearsal. These people had dress-rehearsed this many times. He had seen simulated videos of this. In fact, he even made a Freudian slip a few months later at a California press conference when he said he had, quote, "seen on television the first plane attack the first tower." And that could not be possible because there was no video. What it was was the simulated video that he had gone over. So this was a personally government-ordered thing. We are suing them under the Constitution for violating Americans' rights, as well as under the federal Fraudulent Claims Act, for presenting a fraudulent claim to Congress to justify the bogus Iraq boondoggle war, for political gains. And also, under the RICO statute, under the Racketeering Corrupt Organization Act, for being a corrupt entity. And I've been harassed personally by the chief judge of the federal court who is instructing me personally to drop this suit, threatened to kick me off the court, after 30 years on the court. I've been harassed by the FBI. My staff has been harassed and threatened. My office has been broken into and this is the kind of government we are dealing with.


Should be interesting to see how far they get w/ this......

Mike
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 8:39:37 AM EST
They'll claim they're covered by the First Amendment, particularly as a news organization.

However, there is only ONE reason someone would manufacture document(s) to the effect those were: To slander the President and skew the polls against him. Delude the populace. Here's dictionary.com's definition of treason:


trea·son     P   Pronunciation Key  (trzn)
n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

A betrayal of trust or confidence.




It might just fall under treason by that definition.

/sorry, not a lawyer, but this memogate thing really irritates me.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 8:45:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 8:45:55 AM EST by PAEBR332]
Per the Constitution this does not even come CLOSE to rising to the level of treason. See Article III, Section 3:


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.{emphasis added}
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 8:45:20 AM EST
Treason is defined very precisely in the constitution.


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.



Nothing Rather did is remotely close to this.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 8:55:47 AM EST
But the dumbocrats ARE the enemy.....
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 9:06:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 9:07:40 AM EST by Currahee]
I'm not a lawyer but I have way more than .02 on this...

It isn't treason. However it is fraud and forgery. The right to protect sources ends if the source provides a falsehoods (documents in this case) and the person who produced the document is guilty of a felony. If the CBS organization does not produce the source then they are guilty of aiding and abeiting (sp?) the only reason they would want to hide the person or persons is if they are also guilty of conspiracy. That and the fact that is probably someone from the DNC or Kerry campaign and they want to protect their boy.

edit to add: pobably nothing will be done about it because, as was said, the potential for backfire is to great.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 10:29:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 10:42:52 AM EST by scrum]
Probably not Treason, as attacking a sitting President with the intent to affect the outcome of an election in favor of another candidate would not qualify under 18 USC 2381 (Unless the case can be won first that the Democratic party, by espousing and acting on a platform that largely intends to remove the republic and replace it with a social democracy, either under their elite cabal of leadership or under an the supervision of an international body, such as the UN or IS). The big issue is violent overthrow is not advocated, just non-violent influence on the election and turning the US into a UN province through the use of mass media.

Now, guilty under the following codes, in varying degrees of probabilty, could be considered (on this and other counts):
18 USC 2382 Misprision of treason
18 USC 2387 Activities affecting armed forces generally
18 USC 2388 Activities affecting armed forces during war

As well as potentially violating several Federal and State election laws.

The problem is the answer and defense to almost every question would either be First Amendment (speech or press) or to plead under the 5th. Democracy guarantees the tyranical rule of the mass media. Charges will never be made.



Link Posted: 9/20/2004 10:33:09 AM EST
One time I was eating at Pizza Hut, and there was a scraggly looking middle aged couple who were drunk off their asses. One of the employees got ahold of their keys or the lady's purse so they wouldn't drive off, and called the cops. In the meantime, they found out and this drunk lady was yelling and going on and on ... and the only thing I actually remember of what she said was "That's treason - of the HIGH DEGREE!!" referring to her keys being taken. Oh man that a funny one.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 10:40:05 AM EST
Treason, sedition.........

If it was up to me Dan Rather, Katie Couric, and Peter Jennings and a dozen or so "celebrity's" would face a firing squad tomorrow morning.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 2:22:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By mr_wilson:

Originally Posted By Tortfeasor:
This goes beyond politics, it goes to the core of the respect due a sitting president, no matter what party you are in.



So ya think that is dis-respect of a sitting president, whatdaya call this: suetheterrorists.net/

excerpt:
12. Plaintiffs aver that defendants all conspired with the government of Saudi Arabia("GSA") prior to 9/11/01 to knowingly finance, encourage, recruit, permit, and aid and abet, certain individuals to carry out the 9/11/01 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, in order to orchestrate a contrived, stylized and artificial "second Pearl Harbour" event for the purpose of galvanizing public support for their military adventure agenda in the middle east, and in order to persuade congress to enact their repressive patriot acts I and ii for the purpose of suppressing political dissent inside the us. Plaintiffs aver that defendants Bush et al. Knew about plans by "Al Quaeda" to launch the 911 attacks (hereinafter referred to as "the 911 acts"), and conspired with gSA to fund, finance and encourage said Al Quaeda individuals (many of whom were acting as informants and agents of defendants) to mount the 911 attacks, and allowed these attacks to occur deliberately, thereby violating clearly established rights of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also are informed and believe, and so aver, that defendants orchestrated the 911 acts and utilized a technology known as "fly by wire"("fbw"), i.e., remote control of aircraft, in the 911 acts. Said technology is also employed in the "global hawk" aircraft and military drone aircraft, and in commercial aircraft used in the 911 acts. Then, defendants concocted a scheme to cover up what they had done and suppress their prior knowledge and approval of the 911 acts.
13. Plaintiffs also aver that defendants knowingly utilized the climate of fear and hysterical created by the 911 acts, and deliberately concocted untrue and fraudulent claims of "weapons of mass destruction" ("WMD") said to be present in Iraq, from 9/11/01 through the present, and particularly in october 2002, when defendants presented these false claims to congress in order to obtain a resolution "Enabling act" which Bush then used to launch a preemptive war against the sovereign state of Iraq.


FWIW, this is an actual lawsuit, filed in CA and brought by one of former Sen. Bob Dole's senior advisors and someone who has personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades.

Pretty tough talk there, but according to Mr. Hilton, he has the documentation to back it up.....

additional comments made by Stanley Hilton:

SH: Yeah, we are suing Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11 to happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we had a witness who is married to one of them. The hijackers were U.S. undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI and the CIA to spy on Arab groups in this country. They were controlled. Their landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and other places. And this was a direct, covert operation ordered, personally ordered by George W. Bush. Personally ordered. We have incriminating evidence, documents as well as witnesses, to this effect. It's not just incompetence - in spite of the fact that he is incompetent. The fact is he personally ordered this, knew about it. He, at one point, there were rehearsals of this. The reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant on September 11th - when those videos showed that Andrew Card whispered in his ear the [garbled] words about this he listened to kids reading the pet goat story, is that he thought this was another rehearsal. These people had dress-rehearsed this many times. He had seen simulated videos of this. In fact, he even made a Freudian slip a few months later at a California press conference when he said he had, quote, "seen on television the first plane attack the first tower." And that could not be possible because there was no video. What it was was the simulated video that he had gone over. So this was a personally government-ordered thing. We are suing them under the Constitution for violating Americans' rights, as well as under the federal Fraudulent Claims Act, for presenting a fraudulent claim to Congress to justify the bogus Iraq boondoggle war, for political gains. And also, under the RICO statute, under the Racketeering Corrupt Organization Act, for being a corrupt entity. And I've been harassed personally by the chief judge of the federal court who is instructing me personally to drop this suit, threatened to kick me off the court, after 30 years on the court. I've been harassed by the FBI. My staff has been harassed and threatened. My office has been broken into and this is the kind of government we are dealing with.


Should be interesting to see how far they get w/ this......

Mike



Tagged
Tinfoil on
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 2:24:24 PM EST
I am not all that good at criminal law.

Why don't you research it and get us a memo?
Top Top