42 votes

Lawrence O'Donnell: What The U.S. Constitution Says About Treason (OMG)

"You're now on a through route to the land of the different... the bizarre... the unexplainable... Go as far as you like on this road. You’ve just crossed over into...
the Twilight Zone."

Lawrence O'Donnell June 25, 2013


No words can capture my thoughts. Please feel free.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hard to stomach the hypocrite O'Donnell - one of the worst...

...enemies of liberty around.

OK - so he's quite correct in this video regarding Snowden, and if I didn't already know what a rotted socialist he is, I would probably think he was a very correct thinker based on this.

But I think underlying his rant here is the fact that the GOP is screaming bloody murder that Snowden is a traitor so O'Donnell probably sees a political opportunity here.

In my opinion.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

He's wrong though, you do not need a declared war for treason.

He's wrong though, you do not need a declared war for treason.

The first two people ever to be convicted of treason was for the Whiskey Rebellion which was not a declared war. The US Civil war was also a non-declared war in which several people were tried for treason.

Excellent! Excellent! This Is the Best Approach

The City Attorney of my former city drafted a really bad public nuisance ordinance that, if adopted, would have robbed us of any remaining privacy or property rights.

I got it stopped mostly, I think, because I attacked the poor drafting, pointing out the many errors, many of which, I'm sure, crept in because it was cut & pasted from a whole bunch of other cities' ordinances, and the defined terms weren't conformed.

Someone I respect told me that you can stop legislation by attacking the spelling and grammar.

Exposing people as not knowing the most basic things they should know, while simultaneously filling in the public on the specifics, is the way to go. People are all too ready to think that our elected officials are somehow experts, and they certainly want them to be, so when they find out otherwise, it's enough to stimulate a backlash.

It's kind of like triggering the bullying impulse, and may not be kind or even fair, but it works to point out ignorance. So, yes, "Ha, ha, he doesn't know what "treason" means" may work better than trying to convince people that Snowden didn't commit it, or that he deserves due process.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/


What makes you think this matters?

We're talking about the same people that ignore the bill of rights. What makes you think they give two shits about what this says?

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.


While I certainly agree with Lawrence on this one, it is absolutely wild to hear HIM invoking the Constitution. This is the guy who defended martial law in Boston to capture a single 19 Y/O criminal.


'Picking and choosing' what works for the sake of justification is why we have over 2000 sects of Christianity. Same shit. Accentuate what 'laws' work for you, and denounce what doesn't. I call it all hypocrisy. It's how people's brains function these days.

One Theory

Maybe TPTB are finally admitting that they're losing the media battle to the alternative media. So to stay relevant, they throw a few of these out there.

No idea if this is correct but it's a plausible theory (again, that's not to say it's correct).


Listing the problems here:

Liberty is attacked by enemies who do not always, or often, openly declare, publicly announce, or in any way officially serve notice that they are attacking and destroying Liberty; meaning, in fact, that innocent people are being targeted and their individual Liberty is being destroyed willfully by criminals.

The Constitution was a successful attack upon Liberty by criminal frauds, such as Alexander Hamilton, whereby their stated goal, their publicly stated goal, was to defend Liberty, which serves as inculpatory evidence proving problem 1 above.

Since The Constitution was, is, and will be a Usurpation, a successful attack upon Liberty (a list of names of people who are currently being injured by criminals who make false claims of legal authority), those supposed "members of congress" are, in fact, a list of names of criminals perpetrating crimes, with few exceptions, or no exceptions now that Ron Paul is no longer in office.

Those criminals, hiding behind the false authority of the successful attack upon Liberty, declare wars when they want to destroy innocent people for fun and profit, so the concept of treason is, in fact, in this case, a concept of defense of Liberty, so the lie is knowable as being highly profitable for the criminals since no one, according to the criminals, can lawfully oppose the criminals, according to the criminals. How neat can it get?

The Declaration of Independence specifically reports, to anyone who cares to know, that it is the duty of every human being to fight for Liberty, which is a fight against criminals who Usurp Liberty, such as the well documented case of the dirty deal knowable as The Constitutional Convention, which were secret proceedings, frauds working to commit fraud, and slave traders working to enslave slaves, knowable as The Dirty Compromise, knowable as a Consolidation of many Constitutionally limited Republics into one Nation State, and knowable, therefore, as a Usurpation of Liberty, and knowable as Crime made Legal by the Lying, Thieving, Pedophile, Slave Trading, Torturing, Serial Killing, and Mass Murdering, for fun and profit, criminals who give themselves badges, raises, bonuses, for all the crime that they do so well, including the crime of punishing their fellow criminals for perpetrating the same crimes without their fake licenses that they hand out, or take away, on a whim, or at their exclusive pleasure.

Talking heads, talking nonsense, or basing their words on false principles, such as might making right, and war is good for the economy, or leadership is founded on papers, or meaning can mean whatever anyone cares it to mean one minute, and then the opposite meaning the next minute, are aiding, and abetting, lending moral support, and lending material support, in the form of Federal Reserve Notes, and Votes, and Federal Income Taxes, all crime made legal by the Usurpation knowable as The Constitution, knowable as a written order to be obeyed without question, and knowable as a tool to be picked up and used by Tyrants, as Tyrants are only different from run of the mill criminals by the degree of their crimes being more severe, perpetual, and according to them, legal.

If the words in The Declaration of Independence means that criminals who usurp the powers reserved to defend Liberty, and use those powers to perpetrate crime, then it is the duty of friends of liberty to remain in Liberty and to fight against those criminals instead of paying those criminals every penny earned and not needed for survival.

If the words in The Constitution mean anything, other than the words in The Bill of Rights, then The Constitution means, specifically, that the words in The Declaration of Independence are meaningless, outlawed, and therefore The Constitution, by edict, commands the destruction of Liberty, under no uncertain terms.

Inculpatory evidence follows in 3 brief forms:


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.


End the Fraudulent Federal Reserve, it is a crime in progress.
End the Extortion known as The Internal Revenue service, another crime in progress.
Bring the Troops Home (You are the Troops)
Do so by July 4th, 2013, start now, finish early.

An actual, true, working, Federation, or Voluntary Union of 13 Constitutionally Limited, Sovereign, Republics existed between 1776 and 1788, in fact, a working example, and a legal precedent.
Going back to Voluntary, Free Market, Liberty, as a form of Voluntary Government, such as the example provided between 1776 and 1788 requires a will to do so that is a will more powerful than the will to get something for nothing, in other words there must be the power of knowledge in excess of the power of falsehood, or God help us, because we will continue to provide the means by which we suffer otherwise.


"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise."


"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."

The good news is where you can find it.

Refusing to see the bad news is bound to pay dividends, paid by the ignorant, scared, powerless, and paid to those who may be criminals, but at least they know better than to keep on paying into a confidence scheme, hopping, beyond hope, to get paid something in return, some day that never arrives.


"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it."

Since when did Presidents require an alias?

Barry Soetoro?

Generalismo Washington?


Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty


"to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;"

Take that to your counterfeit bank.

Laugh all the way there too.

A foundation of lies may be fun and profitable for some time, for some people, and then the bill is due.


Best talking head rant in a looooooong time.

Excellent closing line about not taking an oath to actually read the Constitution. Also liked the part about feelings being more important to most Americans than facts.

Very accurate. Thanks for posting.

Hmmm? Interesting choice of words

Keeping my "MSM BS Shields" up, what I "heard between his lines" was that no one can be charged with Treason because the US is involved in unconstitutional wars and the only way one can be charged with Treason is by acting against the US while involved in Declared Wars.

So then, what do you call the people declaring and involving the US in a handful of unconstitutional wars?

It's very clever to set up a precedent for the protection of corrupter politicians while seeming to speak against them.

Nice try.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

The reason for a formal Declaration of War ...

... goes back a long way in history. It's been awhile since I read up on it, but the basic concept is that a formal declaration allows soldiers to kill without punishment. If there is no declaration, then it is considered murder, which can be punished by life imprisonment or execution.

The idea is that a formal declaration is supposed to be some sort of special set of laws. Not that it matters much these days when we have lawlessness (aka "anarchy" in what is supposed to be a rule of law government), but that's what they were thinking about 200 years ago.

Another wise one :)

So, all these wars are NOT wars, but acts of mass murder for corporate gain?

Hey, doesn't General Electric, one of the World's largest weapons manufacturers, own MSNBC?

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Since, besides treason, the Constitution only outlines

rules for the government to follow, the only people that can be considered domestic enemies of the Constitution are those in government.

It is a rare circumstance that a civilian could be legally considered a domestic enemy of the Constitution.


Ok, now I like where you're going with this

So what you're saying is that those who are acting against the constitution (OPENLY!) could/should be treated as traitors to the US Constitution?

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

He labels himself "practical European socialist"

He's got the definition of treason down but you can't ever expect good things from a practical European socialist. (Not even a practical American socialist at least??"

His lot are not attempting to take us into the twilight zone....he's attempting to take us into Nazi Germany. And that my friends is NOT hyperbole.

I do find it funny he feels he understands the constitution enough to lecture his audience of it. Of course maybe he knows slightly more than his own audience. Probably enough to fill a thimble

Dont trust him, think hes

Dont trust him, think hes playing the crowd, think he would turn, in a heartbeat.......saying that, i tip my hat...a slight one

Did Lincoln commit treason?

Lincoln did wage war against the states and I have seen some writers accuse him of treason. Is there a technicality that would absolve him of a charge of treason?

Lincoln and Treason

Just my two cents:

Waging war on the states is a "treasonable" offense. Incidentally, suspending habeus corpus only when states are "in rebellion" is allowed according to the US Constitution.

Some advocates of Lincoln state that he did NOT commit treason because the states had seceded---they acknowledge that they did, in fact, secede. If that is the case, then the ratification of the 14th Amendment falls into question.

Other advocates of Lincoln argue that the states did NOT secede, although they 'tried'---if this is the case, then yes, Lincoln DID commit treason by waging war on them. Seceding is NOT rebelling. Rebellion is insurrection, or uprising. Revolting, violent revolution---these things are acts of rebellion. But saying 'ok...I'm out'---that is not rebellion. That is leaving peacefully.

So yes. According to advocates of Lincoln that say he "suppressed the rebellion" are historically inaccurate. Lincoln committed treason by waging war against the states, if they refused to recognize that they had seceded.

Ok -things are just plain out of whack these days

Did I really just see part of the Constitution on an MSM broadcast???
Did a MSM broadcaster just educate the sheeple that we have not had a "war" since WWII.
Did he actually just come right out and tell all of America how stupid they are and that they may actually just want to pick up the Constitution and read it one day?

Hey dickhead - educating the sheeple about the Constitution, illegal wars and the ignorance of America IS THE DAILY PAUL'S JOB!!!!!!
Nobody asked you for help - so go back to being an establishment shill worshiping Lord Obama.

As others have stated - it would have held more weight had you called out those reps in a bipartisan manner(everyone loves bipartisan anyways)

The Second Amendment is even shorter than Article III section 3 so it will fit nicely on your screen as well. Just a thought.

TPTB are really just screwing with us now - that's all I can say.

Partisan hack

No mention of his beloved Diane Feinstein saying this is treason? Only Republicans call him traitor, right O'donnell?
What a joke he is

No one bothers to define

No one bothers to define "National Security" either.

Even if it saves just one life? No.
One life is not critical to national security. There is such a thing as an acceptable loss of life in a free society. Life can be dangerous and people will get killed from time to time. Even if a handful of lives are lost, the danger level is acceptable. Humans are easily conceived and born for replacements.

Oh yes they have!

Its been on and off MSM news since Nixon.

National security = whatever the federal executive SAYS it is, legally speaking, until Congress says otherwise.


Link please. I want to share

Link please. I want to share this.


there ya go. :)

While he is dusting off his

While he is dusting off his copy of the constitution he should check out the 2nd amendment. Hell he might as well read over the whole thing. He might be shocked to find out how wrong he has been all of these years.

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but an irate tireless few keen on setting the brushfire of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams


Odonnell is saying that we have public officials that accepted their positions with no intent of abiding by its restraints?

Glad he's waking up. Now, the trick is to get him out of the left-right paradigm nonsense

Yeah I actually stomached 7

Yeah I actually stomached 7 minutes of Lawrence O'Donnell there, surprised me. But has HE read the Constitution? Because I would bet he believes we can somehow get around the 2nd Amendment, even though it is clear what the framers meant by anyone not involving their own feelings in the issue.

I don't think that he's given much thought to the Fourth Am.

either, with respect to Spygate.

I appreciate O'Donnel here while I disagree with him 99%...

of the time.

There's an old saying, "Even a blind sow finds an acorn every once in a while."

old saying among the stupid