We underwent some sort of awful transition when that kind of statement was mainstream, instead of the kind of thing that would slip out now and then.

Blowback from saying the silent part out loud in public is no longer a concern for them.

We underwent some sort of awful transition when that kind of statement was mainstream, instead of the kind of thing that would slip out now and then.

Amazing how all of the verified attempts and support at and of voting irregularities and meddling come from the right.

https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1366809384647589890

There is no doll booth separating civilization and McCormick’s road.

Yes, he did. But I’m afraid the two or three Internet references (the one you found and a couple of others) gloss the really interesting assets of this, that are addressed in the book.

From https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/sedition.html

“Seditious Conspiracy and Federal Law: The Basics
The federal law against seditious conspiracy can be found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code (which includes treason, rebellion, and similar offenses), specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2384. According to the statutory definition of sedition, it is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States:

* To conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States or to level war against them;

* To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States; or

* To take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.

The author suggests that one reason the Nixon administration did not move against Jane Fonda (and this is at the bottom of a long list of reasons, not nearly the main reason, but still…) was because on Oct 22, 1968, “Nixon had ordered an aide to try to sabotage President Johnsn’s peace initiiative…”etc. etc.

This is what makes this a great book. There is a lot of parallel and related historical detail and nuance.

The point is, if someone adhered to (helped) the Hanoi government during the US period of involvement in the Viet Nam war, that act would be considered aiding a country at war with us, because everybody understand that a war is a war even if Congress has not declared it.

Since we now have proof that Nixon’s people convinced the North Vietnamese officials to step away from the peace talks prior to the 68 election (because Nixon would give them a better deal), would that qualify as treason by Nixon?

We also know LBJ had been informed of the interference and chose not to go public with that information prior to the election. Would he be guilty of treason?