Posted on 09/02/2015 7:37:41 PM PDT by Chode
As the Constitution is the law, then it is clear that the Bill of Rights is not suspended for charges of treason, or any other charge.
The Founders were particularly suspicious of the charge of treason due to it being abused by the King of England. Thus they specified the definition as strictly as possible and did not include any provision for the suspension of rights for those thus charged.
AND, I think all this 'was marked', 'was not marked' is a distraction. It's like me walking out of a store with a TV and saying 'Well! There was no price tag on it, I didn't know I had to purchase it'
It's a purposeful distraction. She broke the law whether or not there were markings. This is typical Clinton 'muddy the water with an argument about non-pertinent details.'
For example, If Merkel tells Hillary on the phone "we're invading Iran tomorrow" and Hillary emails that to Huma ... that information was never marked classified. The whole thing is complete BS -> give the people something to argue about that has nothing to do with anything.
And ... thanks for answering :-)
YOu did not read the article did you?
You also did not read what I said, that IF treason is committed, they get nothing to hide behind. Not charged, but committed.
I stand by what I said.
By what process is it determined if treason is committed?
Now you are changing the argument.
Go back and read again what I said.
You say charged, I said committed.
I’ll let you answer your own question.
They’re all going to be closed hearings, apparently. At least for now. My guess is there are questions they need to ask that can’t be asked in open hearings due to their classified nature. Makes sense, any way, but it sure is aggravating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.