That's not the Constitution. It also provides a specific definition of "treason" that excludes anything that's happened with respect to Trump's election.
And the Rosenberg's weren't convicted and executed for treason. Only espionage, which is one of the reasons it was so controversial.
The comments on that NYT article are some of the dumbest things I've ever read. "He moved from California, so now we're subsidizing his diet!" "He deprived people of their civil right to see Avengers: Endgame!" Literally gatorman-level dumb.
I've never been to Mongolia, I don't know any Mongolians...but even I know that Mongolian folklore, going back a thousand years, includes the missive "DO NOT EAT MARMOTS OR YOU WILL DIE OF THE ***** PLAGUE."
It ends the next time the Democrats have the White House and Congress, and can outlaw the Republican Party as a hate group/terrorist organization.
I suspect they think they might be able to do it next time. I'd sure as hell love to see AOC's opinion on the subject.
Just to be clear: the document was released to the public with redactions such as required by law, and that's "obscuration?"
Someone tell me again pot is harmless...
Explain to me how Starr was even authorized to look in to the President's sex life as part of a real estate investigation.
That was a worse fishing expedition that the current one against Trump.
Not entirely different: Bill was railroaded into a setup where he lied about something that shouldn't have remotely been within the scope of the investigation.