concordtom said:

---

What happened to King Louis the 16th, or was it the 17th?

---

Quote:

---

The U.S. Constitution is unusually precise about treason. It is in Article III, Section 3, and it says:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

It then imposes an unusually high evidentiary requirement:

"No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

And finally:

"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

What that means

There are essentially two constitutional paths to treason:

1. Levying war against the United States
* Courts have interpreted this narrowly. It involves actual waging of war or an armed effort against the government, rather than merely planning, advocating, or conspiring to overthrow it.
2. Adhering to U.S. enemies and giving them "aid and comfort"
* This involves both adherence to the enemy and providing aid and comfort.
* The Supreme Court has emphasized that merely doing something that happens to benefit an enemy isn't necessarily treason; the required connection to the enemy and treacherous intent matter.

One particularly important word: "only"

The Constitution doesn't say treason includes those things. It says it "shall consist only" of them. The Framers deliberately made the constitutional definition narrow, in part because English treason law had historically been abused to punish political opponents. Congress therefore cannot simply pass a law declaring some other form of disloyal conduct to be constitutional treason.

There is also an important distinction between treason and other serious offenses. Someone can potentially commit espionage, sedition, conspiracy, obstruction, etc., without committing the constitutional crime of treason.

And that's why the phrase "aid and comfort to the enemy" is legally much more specific than the everyday use of the word treason.

If you're asking this in connection with something Trump or another U.S. official has recently said or done, I can also explain how the constitutional definition would applyor not applyto that specific conduct, using the relevant statutes and Supreme Court cases.

---

Aunburdened said:

---

concordtom said:

---

What happened to King Louis the 16th, or was it the 17th?

---

There was no King Louis XVII

---

concordtom said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

concordtom said:

---

What happened to King Louis the 16th, or was it the 17th?

---

There was no King Louis XVII

---

Thx. I did a bit of reading on the French Revolution!
I guess the citizenry got pretty upset and disgusted with their leadership!

---

Aunburdened said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

concordtom said:

---

What happened to King Louis the 16th, or was it the 17th?

---

There was no King Louis XVII

---

Thx. I did a bit of reading on the French Revolution!
I guess the citizenry got pretty upset and disgusted with their leadership!

---

Unlike the resistance liberals, they did more than just show up with signs every three months.

---

Aunburdened said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

concordtom said:

---

What happened to King Louis the 16th, or was it the 17th?

---

There was no King Louis XVII

---

Thx. I did a bit of reading on the French Revolution!
I guess the citizenry got pretty upset and disgusted with their leadership!

---

Unlike the resistance liberals, they did more than just show up with signs every three months.

---

ChudBear said:

---

Yesterday, Obama said ""People are always surprised when I tell them the federal government is so much less corrupt than probably it's ever been in terms of just pure bribes, or patronage or favors."

https://www.axios.com/2026/09/24/obama-government-corruption-congress-podcast-trump?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Sorry for all of you out there that are claiming Trump is the most corrupt President ever! Obama disagrees.

---

Even Navatek’s executives were surprised at how far their money went in D.C.

“It was eye-opening for me, frankly. ‘Oh my God, all of it is for sale. It’s all for sale,’” said one.https://t.co/zRDfuRmUgN

— ProPublica (@propublica) September 25, 2026

Quote:

---

Government contractors are banned from making political contributions. More consequentially, for the company to offer donations to Collins in exchange for an official action, or for Collins to accept, would constitute criminal bribery.

But the company did have such a proposal: Navatek was hungry for more government contracts in Maine. If they cut a big check, the CEO told Reed, Navatek wanted Collins to guarantee tens of millions of dollars in additional federal funding.

To skirt campaign finance laws and conceal the source of the funds, Navatek planned to funnel the donation through a shell company. The CEO wanted assurance that Collins would know where the money came from. Reed confirmed that she would, the executive said and that Navatek would get its government contracts.

After the Corner Bakery meeting, Navatek's CEO, Martin Kao, sent an initial $150,000 to the Collins super PAC using the shell company. Two months later, he told Navatek executives that Collins committed to getting the company $32 million in naval contracts, according to an internal company email reviewed by ProPublica.

---

Wow! Just wow!🤯 https://t.co/vYSkfnqz72 pic.twitter.com/E41WBq8EWp

— Abubaker Abed (@AbubakerAbedW) October 1, 2026

Cal88 said:

---

Kushner benefitting from the Gaza genocide.

Wow! Just wow!🤯 https://t.co/vYSkfnqz72 pic.twitter.com/E41WBq8EWp

— Abubaker Abed (@AbubakerAbedW) October 1, 2026

---