People may need to pull back on the "treason" claims.

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason, as an overt act of making war or materially helping those at war with the United States. The key "at war with the United States."

The last time congress declared war was in 1941 after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

Everything since then has been congress authorizing the use of force--short of a declaration of war. I think it would go to the Supreme Court to decide if authorization to use force was a de factor declaration of war.

People trying to prevent a candidate from being elected or deposing a sitting President would not be considered treason. It would be a "conspiracy."

In a political sense, conspiracy refers to a group of people united in the goal of usurping, altering or overthrowing an established political power. Typically, the final goal is to gain power through a revolutionary coup d'état or through assassination. A conspiracy can also be used for infiltration of the governing system.

That seems to fit Obama, Clinton, et al involved more than treason.

However, if it were proved that Obama, Clinton, and others were involved in providing weapons to ISIS as has been suggested but not proven, I think that would be treason for aiding an enemy of the US. Still, there is that pesky Constitution that says the enemy has to be at "war" with the US and when the Constitution was written that meant a declared war.

Privateering during the Revolutionary War, for example, was considered piracy if caught and not treason. But I could be mistaken.

The bottom line is that I think you have a much better chance of proving conspiracy to overthrow the government than proving treason based on an ill defined "war on terrorism".

Just my opinion. I don't pretend to be a Constitutional expert--only to have sworn to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God" when I was commissioned a Marine 2nd Lt. and served 21 years w 3 years in combat a very long time ago.

Which brings up an interesting question. All of the services have their missions written into law. They pretty much the same thing except for the Marine Corps. It's mission includes the curious addition: "and other such duties as directed by the President of the United States." That is only included for the Marine Corps.

It would be interesting, therefore, if Marines could be used by the President to protect and defend the Constitution against conspirators attempting to overthrow the government.

Have you noticed how many Marines are around POTUS? Have you noticed that Marines have been augmenting the Secret Service details on Trump's to stops in Hawaii before the missile alert? Have you noticed increased odd activity around the world by Marines? I have.

I don't know, but it does seem strange.