Is Barak Obama guilty of treason?

[ZNP]

Beyond a reasonable doubt much?

We have yet to have a trial or to see all the evidence. This is merely enough to indict. But that is big because then you can subpoena, you can question witnesses, you can throw the weight of the DOJ and FBI behind this investigation. You can also offer witness protection. You can take people's testimonies on the record.

There are several potential advantages for a prosecutor in seeking and obtaining an indictment of a suspect:

• Formal initiation of felony proceedings: In many jurisdictions, particularly for serious offenses (felonies), an indictment is a formal accusation that allows the prosecution to proceed with the case in higher courts like Superior Court.
• Grand jury screening: The indictment process involves a grand jury – a group of citizens – reviewing the evidence and determining if there's probable cause to believe a crime was committed and the suspect was involved. This acts as a safeguard against unsubstantiated charges.
• Testing the strength of the case: The grand jury process can be a way for the prosecution to assess the strength of their case before a full trial. The prosecutor presents evidence to the grand jury, essentially acting as a "test run" for how a potential trial jury might react.
• Protection of the investigation: In some cases, a sealed indictment can be used to keep charges confidential, allowing investigators to gather more evidence, prevent the suspect from fleeing, and protect witnesses who might be at risk if their cooperation becomes public.
• Coordination of arrests: Sealed indictments can also be used in cases with multiple suspects, allowing law enforcement to coordinate arrests and apprehend all individuals simultaneously without tipping them off.
• Stronger legal foundation: An indictment, particularly a grand jury indictment, can be seen as a more substantial basis for a case than a criminal complaint, which is often based solely on a law enforcement officer's testimony. This can be particularly important in serious felony cases.
• Locking in witness testimony: Presenting witnesses before a grand jury allows the prosecution to put their testimony on record, which can be useful if the witness becomes unavailable or their testimony changes later.

It's important to remember that an indictment is not a conviction. It simply means that a grand jury has found sufficient evidence to proceed with formal charges. The accused is still presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.

 

[Texasgal]

I don't think you have put all the pieces of the puzzle together.

1. JFK assassination -- tie that to the CIA

2. RFK assassination -- tie that to the CIA

3. Watergate -- this can also be tied to the CIA as a way to remove Nixon

4. Obama laying the groundwork to impeach Trump with this lie

5. After the first impeachment failed they impeached him a second time despite him already being out of office as a way to prevent him from returning in four years.

6. When that didn't work they used lawfare.

7. When that didn't work they had two assassination attempts.

I expect there is a lot more information collected by the White hats than just what we have seen so far, but yes, put all the puzzle pieces together and you have terminal cancer.

Present proof beyond reasonable doubt of that within what the courts accept and then I will agree.

 

[Texasgal]

We have yet to have a trial or to see all the evidence. This is merely enough to indict. But that is big because then you can subpoena, you can question witnesses, you can throw the weight of the DOJ and FBI behind this investigation. You can also offer witness protection. You can take people's testimonies on the record.

There are several potential advantages for a prosecutor in seeking and obtaining an indictment of a suspect:

• Formal initiation of felony proceedings: In many jurisdictions, particularly for serious offenses (felonies), an indictment is a formal accusation that allows the prosecution to proceed with the case in higher courts like Superior Court.
• Grand jury screening: The indictment process involves a grand jury – a group of citizens – reviewing the evidence and determining if there's probable cause to believe a crime was committed and the suspect was involved. This acts as a safeguard against unsubstantiated charges.
• Testing the strength of the case: The grand jury process can be a way for the prosecution to assess the strength of their case before a full trial. The prosecutor presents evidence to the grand jury, essentially acting as a "test run" for how a potential trial jury might react.
• Protection of the investigation: In some cases, a sealed indictment can be used to keep charges confidential, allowing investigators to gather more evidence, prevent the suspect from fleeing, and protect witnesses who might be at risk if their cooperation becomes public.
• Coordination of arrests: Sealed indictments can also be used in cases with multiple suspects, allowing law enforcement to coordinate arrests and apprehend all individuals simultaneously without tipping them off.
• Stronger legal foundation: An indictment, particularly a grand jury indictment, can be seen as a more substantial basis for a case than a criminal complaint, which is often based solely on a law enforcement officer's testimony. This can be particularly important in serious felony cases.
• Locking in witness testimony: Presenting witnesses before a grand jury allows the prosecution to put their testimony on record, which can be useful if the witness becomes unavailable or their testimony changes later.

It's important to remember that an indictment is not a conviction. It simply means that a grand jury has found sufficient evidence to proceed with formal charges. The accused is still presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.

Well, then it’s just going down with it. Who’s gonna prosecute?

 

[ZNP]

Present proof beyond reasonable doubt of that within what the courts accept and then I will agree.

Of course, this is sufficient to get an indictment. Once they have that it will be legal for them to pull every email, every phone conversation, every meeting. They may already have all that information now, but it is illegal for them to use it until they get an indictment. Also if you want witnesses in this case they may demand witness protection. It is a lot easier once you have a real trial and you have the FBI involved.

At this point all they need is sufficient evidence to indict, not to convict.

 

[ZNP]

Well, then it’s just going down with it. Who’s gonna prosecute?

Treason, assassination of JFK, attempted assassination on a Presidential candidate, this can only be handled by a Military tribunal. My guess is this investigation has been going on long before Trump even began running for president.

 

[Dude653]

It all depends on who’s the one defining what treason is.

If any crime was committed it's not treason, as treason is aiding and abetting an enemy in time of war.
I see you all don't have that same energy about the great orange one committing seditious conspiracy though

 

[Texasgal]

Of course, this is sufficient to get an indictment. Once they have that it will be legal for them to pull every email, every phone conversation, every meeting. They may already have all that information now, but it is illegal for them to use it until they get an indictment. Also if you want witnesses in this case they may demand witness protection. It is a lot easier once you have a real trial and you have the FBI involved.

At this point all they need is sufficient evidence to indict, not to convict.

As a former detective im aware of that the prosecution always will demand evidence that they are sure of that the jury will accept. Otherwise they will just dismiss the case. Been there, done that.

 

[Texasgal]

We have yet to have a trial or to see all the evidence. This is merely enough to indict. But that is big because then you can subpoena, you can question witnesses, you can throw the weight of the DOJ and FBI behind this investigation. You can also offer witness protection. You can take people's testimonies on the record.

There are several potential advantages for a prosecutor in seeking and obtaining an indictment of a suspect:

• Formal initiation of felony proceedings: In many jurisdictions, particularly for serious offenses (felonies), an indictment is a formal accusation that allows the prosecution to proceed with the case in higher courts like Superior Court.
• Grand jury screening: The indictment process involves a grand jury – a group of citizens – reviewing the evidence and determining if there's probable cause to believe a crime was committed and the suspect was involved. This acts as a safeguard against unsubstantiated charges.
• Testing the strength of the case: The grand jury process can be a way for the prosecution to assess the strength of their case before a full trial. The prosecutor presents evidence to the grand jury, essentially acting as a "test run" for how a potential trial jury might react.
• Protection of the investigation: In some cases, a sealed indictment can be used to keep charges confidential, allowing investigators to gather more evidence, prevent the suspect from fleeing, and protect witnesses who might be at risk if their cooperation becomes public.
• Coordination of arrests: Sealed indictments can also be used in cases with multiple suspects, allowing law enforcement to coordinate arrests and apprehend all individuals simultaneously without tipping them off.
• Stronger legal foundation: An indictment, particularly a grand jury indictment, can be seen as a more substantial basis for a case than a criminal complaint, which is often based solely on a law enforcement officer's testimony. This can be particularly important in serious felony cases.
• Locking in witness testimony: Presenting witnesses before a grand jury allows the prosecution to put their testimony on record, which can be useful if the witness becomes unavailable or their testimony changes later.

It's important to remember that an indictment is not a conviction. It simply means that a grand jury has found sufficient evidence to proceed with formal charges. The accused is still presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.

Just to clarify. Do you really believe that there will be built a case of treason against a president? If so, that would open a Pandora’s box of allegations of every president ever since #1.

 

[Dude653]

I don't know where you all are getting your information but none of the sources I'm looking at are showing a shred of evidence against obama. Also, I'm almost 100% certain this is a distraction against releasing the Epstein files as they implicate trump.
But if Obama is guilty of treason then so is Trump for January 6th.

 

[studier]

Probably the only way you can prosecute him for this is in a military tribunal for treason.

I don't know if you're correct or not, but it is interesting how the narrative is being structured around the word, "treason", and how Tulsi seemed intent to clearly not depart from the terminology. Then Trump used it in the Oval Office with the press.

So, what will the DOJ say...

 

[Texasgal]

I don't know where you all are getting your information but none of the sources I'm looking at are showing a shred of evidence against obama. Also, I'm almost 100% certain this is a distraction against releasing the Epstein files as they implicate trump.
But if Obama is guilty of treason then so is Trump for January 6th.

Smokes and mirrors have always been the law of power, so it’s likely you’re onto something.

 

[Texasgal]

I don't know if you're correct or not, but it is interesting how the narrative is being structured around the word, "treason", and how Tulsi seemed intent to clearly not depart from the terminology. Then Trump used it in the Oval Office with the press.

So, what will the DOJ say...

Tulsi’s reputation is dwindling in the military. The only reason it is not well known is because of the loyalty in the chain of command.

 

[ZNP]

Just to clarify. Do you really believe that there will be built a case of treason against a president? If so, that would open a Pandora’s box of allegations of every president ever since #1.

I believe we have pieces in place that could build a case of treason. Prior to yesterday I thought the odds were at least 50/50 that this was to distract from the Epstein case. Now I think the odds have moved in favor of this actually building a case against Obama and the Deep state, I would say 60% that this is part of a giant case, not for the law courts but for a Military Tribunal, and 40% to keep people distracted long enough for them to pull some false flag event.

So I disagree with your premise which is that we have passed the point of no return to going to court. I would say we have passed the point of no return, yes, but 60% chance of the end game being in court and 40% that it ends up with a false flag event much bigger than 911.

This doesn't eliminate the theory that Trump is actually working together with Obama and the globalist. It is possible that Trump knows about the false flag event and this information is designed to give a plausible reason why the attack took place.

Knowing the why is much harder than knowing the what. But it seems to me there is no going back from what they have already done.

 

[ZNP]

I don't know where you all are getting your information but none of the sources I'm looking at are showing a shred of evidence against obama. Also, I'm almost 100% certain this is a distraction against releasing the Epstein files as they implicate trump.
But if Obama is guilty of treason then so is Trump for January 6th.

It is still a very plausible theory that both Trump and Obama are working together.

 

[ZNP]

I don't know if you're correct or not, but it is interesting how the narrative is being structured around the word, "treason", and how Tulsi seemed intent to clearly not depart from the terminology. Then Trump used it in the Oval Office with the press.

So, what will the DOJ say...

law courts are used to determine if someone is guilty of treason.
Here's how it generally works in the United States

• Judiciary's Role: The judiciary plays a vital role in interpreting treason laws and ensuring their fair application.
• Constitutional Definition: In the U.S., treason is narrowly defined in the Constitution as "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".
• Proof Requirements: To secure a conviction, the law requires either the testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession from the accused in open court.
• Specific Intent: Prosecutors must prove that the defendant committed one of the actions defined as treason with the "specific intent to betray" the United States.
• Overt Act: There must be a clear overt act, which is a physical action that demonstrates the accused's commitment to betraying the state. Examples could be engaging in combat against the United States or providing substantial support to enemy entities.
• Corroborating Evidence: The overt act must be corroborated by reliable witnesses or a direct confession.

It's important to note that the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has played a role in interpreting and clarifying the meaning of treason over time, aiming to strike a balance between national security and individual rights, according to EBSCO Research Starters.

It is theoretically possible to use the law courts, and that is the best way to go public with the charges. But if this is as big and as deep and wide as many have suggested it seems to me it can only be handled with a Military tribunal. Obama was commander in Chief at the time of the alleged incidents.

The military can have jurisdiction over a service member accused of treason. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) grants military courts jurisdiction over all offenses punishable by the UCMJ, including treason, regardless of where the offense occurred or whether the service member is on active duty.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Military Status:
  The military's jurisdiction over a service member's criminal conduct is primarily based on their military status at the time of the offense.
• UCMJ Jurisdiction:
  The UCMJ applies to all active duty members, reservists and National Guard members when in federal service, and other individuals specified in Article 2 of the UCMJ, including those serving with or accompanying the armed forces.
• Treason:
  Treason is a specific offense defined in Article 104 of the UCMJ and is punishable by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
• No Geographical Limits:
  The UCMJ applies "in all places," meaning the military can exercise jurisdiction over offenses, including treason, regardless of whether the service member is on a military base or elsewhere.
• Termination of Jurisdiction:
  Generally, the military's jurisdiction over a service member ends with their discharge from the armed forces. However, if a service member is discharged after a court-martial has already been convened, the military may still have jurisdiction to complete the trial, according to The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School (.mil).

However, I suspect many of the people involved were not service members of the military at the time and that even more of them aren't actively in the military at the moment. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for the DOJ to be involved, especially getting witnesses, gathering evidence, and cutting deals as well as providing witness protection.

 

[Texasgal]

It is still a very plausible theory that both Trump and Obama are working together.

Actually, I can’t with a hundred percent of certainty rule out this sentiment.

 

[ZNP]

I don't know where you all are getting your information but none of the sources I'm looking at are showing a shred of evidence against obama. Also, I'm almost 100% certain this is a distraction against releasing the Epstein files as they implicate trump.
But if Obama is guilty of treason then so is Trump for January 6th.

'IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE': Gabbard Releases New OBAMA Documents Alleging TREASON | TRENDING

 

[Dude653]

'IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE': Gabbard Releases New OBAMA Documents Alleging TREASON | TRENDING

1. They did interfere
2. No evidence was presented here.

 

[studier]

'IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE': Gabbard Releases New OBAMA Documents Alleging TREASON | TRENDING

Why the release of statements like this? I doubt it's the DOJ preference. Public pressure especially knowing the pressure being put forth on the Epstein matter?

 

[ZNP]

1. They did interfere
2. No evidence was presented here.

They don't need to present evidence here, it was a press announcement concerning charges made and referred to the DOJ, she outlined what they are, but at this point it is in the hands of the DOJ