Treason:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Seditious Conspiracy:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

I would agree it’s not Treason for CNN to edit Trumps speech. But there is a case for seditious conspiracy.

Remember that CNN is an american company owned by foreign nationals who have actively worked with other actors to undermine/overthrow the president of the USA.

Everyone of the media on that wikileaks email regarding Hillary Clinton dinner could be subject to this depending on their role and participation in the fake russian collusion story. CNN, MSNBC, FOX news, anyone who knew the truth and still published the false narrative without informing the public, could be subject

to this charge.

>>4662188

“by force”

The laws in the US recognize that term “force” as such:

Force means power, violence, or pressure directed against a person or thing. Force is a compulsion by physical means or by legal requirement. For example, if A used a gun to force B to use that person’s ATM card or under the malpractice policy clause, the insurance company was forced to defend the doctor.

Force is synonym to unlawful violence and it can be actual or implied. The entry into the ground of another without his consent and the case of false imprisonment are examples for implied force.

So force doesn’t need to mean actual physical force. Can be implied and can be meant to imply “pressure”.

Therefor, the news organizations attempting to “force” Trump to alter his words or speech, are an unlawful attempt to pressure Trump into doing something they want.

Creating fake stories without providing exculpatory evidence can be used as contributing evidence of a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected government. A purposeful malignment of the government designed to sway public opinion.

>>4662329

i’ll look into the 2012 NDAA but the smith mundt act is repealed and as such, irrelevant.

>>4662288

Maybe they are defunct.

Yet they are still broadcast nationwide and are on every tv in every airport nationwide.

Still have family members that watch

them.

If they are going to watch that shitshow, at least force them to show what Trump is actualy saying instead of carefully crafted sound bites that will support their narrative.

Open the firehose instead of spoonfeeding the people and allow them to see the contradictions. By allowing CNN to alter/edit, these people never actually get to see the hypocrisy.

I doubt CNN will alter the democrats response.

>>4662389

I agree, but reminiscing on a law that no longer exists is pointless aside from awareness of what we lost.

Already aware here, but that doesn’t mean other laws are not applicable to the situation.

>>4662473

True, but imagine if they DO carry the speech. Full and unedited. Trump is allowed to make his case to everyone (captive audiences in airports) without CNN manipulating or deleting parts they don’t like.

Remove the “gatekeeper”. Remove the obstructionists.

I don’t believe that Trump is an unreasonable person and i think most rational adults can agree that the need to stop human trafficking, sex trafficking, drugs, criminals, and terrorists are a damn good argument for the border wall.

We here know many things that the average person does not. It’s part of the frustration in dealing with this disparity in information. But if the information can

reach more people, many many more people would have a much better understanding of the situation andrew understand why the democrats are being so

irrational about it.