By Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law and Stephen L. D'Andrilli

This is part three (3) or our four (4) part series to determine if Hillary Clinton is can be charged with the crime of Treason.

New York, NY -(Ammoland.com)- “And Joram said, Make ready. And his chariot was made ready. And Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah went out, each in his chariot, and they went out against Jehu, and met him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite. And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, ‘Is it peace, Jehu?’ And he answered, ‘What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?’ And Joram turned his hands, and fled, and said to Ahaziah, There is treachery, O Ahaziah.’ And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between his arms, and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot.” ~2 KINGS, CHAPTER 9:21—24, King James Version

Wherefore Does Treachery Exist? Does It Exist In The People Who Topple a Tyrant?

Or, does it exist in the usurper who proclaims, ‘I am now the law of the land and rule by divine right! Obey me or fall, for such treachery that exists in the land is treachery to me, only. No other treachery can there be.'

If Hillary Clinton obtains the mantle of U.S. President, she will proclaim that an attack against her right to reign as U.S. President is an attack against the Nation and, so, constitutes treachery to Nation. She will shred the U.S. Constitution—the Supreme Law of the Land that proclaims rulership in the People, not in those who hold high public Office. For those who hold Office—however lofty that Office may be—are but servants of the People, nothing more. Yet, Hillary Clinton will usurp the power the People rightfully hold. She will proclaim that “She,” not “We, the People,” is the rightful and true Ruler of our Nation.

Hillary Clinton will substitute the Constitution for the law “She” makes. Hillary Clinton will say that her law is right, and just, and good, and superior to our old Canons.

That may happen. Don’t think it cannot. If so, a Tyrant will rise in our midst. This Tyrant will rise through deception, through deceit, through the connivance of the Press, and through the ignorance of the People.

No Greater Horror can beset this Nation than to seat a Deceiver in the Oval Office.

Analysis Of Evidence Of Clinton’s Treachery To Nation

We look at a few specific assertions, referencing specific events that occurred when Clinton served as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration that commentators claim support a charge of treason. We analyze these assertions to determine whether they adequately support a charge of treason. The first is this:

“While Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she supported a covert exchange of weapons to Libyan rebels, some of whom then conducted the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi.”

Under the Supreme Court’s treatment of treason this would not support a successful prosecution for treason because, even if true, the intent to betray the Nation—the guilty state of mind—is missing, or, at least, the state of mind cannot be gleaned from the aforesaid assertion.

Nothing in the assertion, if true, suggests Clinton knew the Libyan rebels that she and Obama armed had planned to attack Americans. Even if Clinton suspected these Libyan rebels might turn those weapons on Americans, that presumption still does not support a charge of treason. For, treason, under our Constitution and under federal Statute, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, requires a specific state of mind—a specific intention, a specific guilty mind or mens rea, to harm our Nation—thus, satisfying the “knowingly adhering” to our Nation’s enemies requirement. Negligence, gross negligence, or even reckless disregard for the safety of Americans is, simply, not enough to support a charge of treason, much less sustain a conviction on treason.

Did Clinton know or suspect the rebels she had armed posed a potential threat to our Nation and to its citizenry?

Perhaps she did. But, that presumption, too, does not support a charge of treason, reprehensible though her actions be if Clinton recognized a potential threat to Americans, posed by the rebels she armed, and decided to arm them anyway.

Did Clinton know, in advance, that the Libyan rebels she armed would, in fact, attack Americans at Benghazi [and some say Afghanstan], or, at least, did Clinton arm the rebels with the expectation and hope they would attack Americans?

Both inferences are a considerable stretch on the basis of the mere assertion that Clinton had armed the rebels who did eventually carry out an attack on Americans. But, if this scenario were true, a charge of treason would stick. A prosecutor could then show intent—that Clinton had adhered to our Nation’s enemies—intent sufficient to support a charge of treason, necessary to secure a conviction. But, a prosecutor cannot legitimately draw either one of the two aforesaid inferences from the evidence given. Those inferences simply don’t follow logically, rationally, from the mere assertion that Clinton had armed Libyan rebels who did eventually carry out an attack on Americans in Benghazi. In point of fact the Obama Administration still provides weapons to so-called “moderate” Islamic rebels who, from one day to the next, may no longer be “moderate,” and who, thereafter may use our own weapons against us. Or, these “moderate” Islamic rebels may sell those weapons to “non-moderate” groups of Islamic rebels, that is to say, extremist Islamic rebel groups who, thereafter, use those weapons—our weapons—against us. Perhaps Clinton believed that the Libyan rebels she had armed were “moderate” Muslims, who posed no probable threat to Americans at the time she armed them, from what she knew about them, and that she could not, at that time, and did not, at that time, reasonably anticipate they would turn violent. She could make that claim and probably would make that claim in her defense were she tried for treason. The claim is plausible and difficult to controvert.

If Clinton did want Americans killed at Benghazi, we can only speculate as to a reason. Perhaps she sought to demoralize Americans—destabilizing our Country, weakening our resolve, making us malleable, so that she, on behalf of her wealthy, powerful, sordid benefactors might reshape our Nation in a manner that destroys our independence, our sovereignty—drawing us into the orbit of a one world governing body, a new world order. But these speculations would not support her conviction on treason.

Was Clinton negligent in providing arms to these Libyan rebels?

Sure. Again, the Obama Administration provides arms to Islamic groups across the Middle East. He does this all the time. Obama tells us his Administration supports arming only “moderate” rebel groups. But, the word, ‘moderate,’ is a dubious and fluid concept. President Obama uses it deviously to suggest such rebel Muslim groups are our friends. They aren’t. They have their own agenda. “Moderate” Muslim rebel groups turn on us regularly, constantly. They use our weapons against us. The Benghazi tragedy illustrates that point well.

Muslim rebel groups hate us. None, we can trust. The appellation, ‘moderate,’ applied to some, is no more than a political nicety. Obama uses it for expediency. It means nothing. Our Nation should be circumspect in arming any Muslim rebel group. Rebel groups that seem friendly toward us one day or, at least, benign, can turn hostile toward us, the next. We should not supply these groups with weapons they can turn against us, ever. Obama’s entire foreign policy is suspect. The policy is based on ill-formed goals. Military tactics and strategy in the Middle East change daily, even hourly. We, Americans, are caught up in a maelstrom the Bush Administration created and one the Obama Administration worsened. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have acted at least negligently in the conduct of our Nation’s foreign policy. Their actions may support a claim of gross negligence. Their actions may even support both a claim of reckless indifference to the security of our Nation, and reckless indifference to the lives of our citizens. But, their policy formulations, endangering our Nation as they do, do not support a charge of treason; nor can a charge of treason rest on the specific act of having armed Libyan rebel groups that attacked and killed Americans, in the absence of evidence of specific intent on the part of Obama and Clinton to kill Americans through the act of arming Libyan rebel groups.

Did Clinton fail to provide adequate military support to State Department personnel in Libya after our Ambassador made several requests for protection? If so, does that support a charge of treason?

Some commentators point to Clinton’s failure to provide adequate military support to State Department personnel in Libya after our Ambassador made several requests for protection.

Although reprehensible, that assertion, too, if true, does not support a charge of treason. Once again, on its face that assertion shows negligence, gross negligence, or even reckless disregard for the safety and security of Americans. That assertion doesn’t entail a clear, irrefutable intention, on Clinton’s part, and, by implication, on Obama’s part, to kill Americans. So, that fact does not support a charge of treason.

Did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama refuse to send troops to protect our people once the attack against Americans in Benghazi was underway? Does that fact support a charge of treason against Clinton and Obama?

The tacit premise here is that Clinton and Obama were aware that an attack against our people was occurring, and they deliberately told our military to “stand down.” If true, would this support a prima facie case of treason against Hillary Clinton and against the President Obama? One thing is clear. If federal prosecutors charge Clinton with treason, they should charge Obama too. For, they operated in concert. So, Obama has a vested interest in Clinton succeeding him. He faces more than loss of his legacy—poor as it is—if Clinton is defeated in this Presidential election. For, if prosecutors charge Hillary Clinton with treason, they will charge Barack Obama with treason, too.

Let’s suppose that Clinton and Obama had knowledge of the Benghazi attack in real time, while it was unfolding, and that they did nothing to protect Americans. Still, federal prosecutors would have a difficult time prosecuting the case against Clinton and Obama to a successful conclusion. The reason is that the legal issue here is one here of first impression: “Does the omission to act, where a legal duty to act exists, constitute an overt act, sufficient to support a charge of treason?”

Remember, treason, according to U.S. Supreme Court decisional law, requires an overt act of betrayal to the Nation.

Federal prosecutors must prove that Obama and Clinton knew Americans were under attack and intentionally did not provide military assistance to those Americans. But, even in this scenario, conviction on treason is, at best, uncertain.

In their defense, Obama and Clinton would argue they did not know of the attack on Americans at Benghazi as it was unfolding in real time. If true, a treason charge would collapse. If false, then failing to send troops to protect our Ambassador and his staff does amount to an “omission to act” where there is a clear duty to act. There’s no question about it. But, then, the follow-up question is this: does a failure to act amount to an overt act of betrayal to Nation? Are the two equivalents? It may seem so, but this is not a legal certainty, distasteful though such omission to act is to our conscience. Obama and Clinton would claim that failure to act—even where duty demands they act—does not mean they gave direct aid and comfort to our enemies. Is an act of omission equivalent to an act of commission, under the law of treason? That’s unclear. How would a court of competent jurisdiction decide that question? We don’t know.

So, where does that leave us? If solid evidence to support Clinton’s indictment on treason exists—and, hence, evidence, by logical extension, to support Obama’s indictment of treason, too—that evidence lies buried in the bowels of Government. The Justice Department may in fact have that evidence. The American public, unfortunately, does not.

But, if a charge of treason can’t feasibly stick against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, that doesn’t end the matter. We have terrorism Statutes. We ask: Can a charge of terrorism be brought against them? To our knowledge, no one has considered this. We do. The question is not beyond the pale. We take it up in Part four.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.