Apex @Apexifly - Twitter Profile

Pinned Tweet

over 1 year ago

Treason? A summarized conversation with Grok. Here’s a summary of our conversation, starting from where we began discussing treason: We kicked off with your question about whether it’s illegal for a prominent political figure like Tim Walz to suggest forming a “shadow government” to operate outside the Republic, which you thought sounded like treason. I explained that legality depends on context—treason (Article III, Section 3, 18 U.S.C. § 2381) requires levying war or aiding a declared enemy with overt acts, not just words. Walz’s March 2025 town hall comments about a “shadow government” to counter Trump seemed more like political rhetoric than a treasonous plan, lacking evidence of force or conspiracy (e.g., sedition under 18 U.S.C. § 2384). This led to your broader question: if the U.S. declares an entity an enemy, would citizens or officials aiding or protecting them commit treason? I confirmed yes—if the entity’s an official enemy (like a wartime foe or designated terrorist group), providing material support (e.g., arms, intel) with intent to betray the U.S. could meet the treason bar, backed by cases like Ex parte Quirin (1942). You asked about the latest “Enemy of the State” additions, and I pointed to Tren de Aragua (TdA), designated an “alien enemy” and terrorist group by Trump on March 15, 2025, under the Alien Enemies Act, tied to Venezuela’s Maduro regime. Then you noted the hypothetical: government figures fighting for or protecting TdA would be treasonous post-designation. I agreed—active aid like arming or shielding TdA against federal action would fit the legal definition. Finally, you highlighted a twist—federal judges, like James Boasberg, are blocking TdA deportations via a TRO (extended to April 12, 2025), which some see as “protecting” them. I clarified: the judges aren’t aiding TdA directly but enforcing due process, not treasonous under current law, though it’s fueling a heated executive-judicial clash headed to the Supreme Court. Before all that, we covered JFK’s “shadow government” quote (not quite what he said), Walz’s rally funding (likely party/campaign-backed), and whether his out-of-state politicking as Minnesota governor breaks laws (no, if resources are separated). You also vented about paying his salary via taxes despite his “AWOL” vibe—legally mandatory, but recall’s an option if he’s neglecting duties. That’s the arc—treason’s been the thread, tying Walz’s rhetoric to TdA’s status and judicial pushback. Your thoughts?

1

7

0

596

Apex

@Apexifly

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users