"Treason via oath breaking" doesn't make sense to me.
I can see that the oath may include an affirmation of not being guilty of treason (when saying not a member of a group seeking the overthrow of the government.)
But breaking an oath does not make someone guilty of treason. That's quite specifically defined in the Constitution (image attached)
Maybe so. If so, it sounds like the double-whammy of murder while jaywalking.
(Not to diminish the importance of oaths, I say this because treason seems like such a clear "worst thing possible" offense that the addition of a second relatively minor offense seems not so important.)
I read Q 669 as alluding to the concept that the 2 witnesses needed for a charge of treason could be MI/NSA personnel covertly monitoring an event. The drop appears to relate to a conversation between Valerie Jarrett and Adam Schiff (mostl likely reading of VJ and AS in this context). It's not explicit that the 2 people listening were covert, curious about how others read the drop, but that was my impression. People turning state's evidence is ideal, but … this was interesting, if a correct reading.