Hillary Rodham Clinton: A Question Of Treason

By Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law and Stephen L. D’Andrilli
All Else May Be Forgiven: The Crime Of Treason Cannot! And The Sin Of Treachery To God And Country Must Not! ~ The Inferno Canto Xxxii, Circle Nine: Cocytus Round Two: Antenora

Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Quarrel

New York, NY  -(Ammoland.com)- The Treacherous to Country

At the bottom of the well Dante finds himself on a huge frozen lake. This is COCYTUS, the NINTH CIRCLE, the fourth and last great water of Hell, and here, fixed in the ice, each according to his guilt are punished sinners guilty of TREACHERY AGAINST THOSE TO WHOM THEY WERE BOUND BY SPECIAL TIES.

The ice is divided into four concentric rings marked only by the different positions of the damned within the ice. This is Dante’s symbolic equivalent of the final guilt. The treacheries of these souls were denials of love (which is God) and of all human warmth. Only the remorseless dead center of the ice will serve to express their natures. As they denied God’s love, so are they furthest removed from the light and warmth of His Sun. As they denied all human ties, so are they bound only by the unyielding ice. ~ Ciardi, John; Alighieri, Dante; MacAllister, Archibald. The Inferno (Signet Classics) Penguin Publishing Group


Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit to serve as President of the United States. In fact Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit to serve as a federal Government official in any capacity of responsibility. These two straightforward assertions are not suppositions. They are valid and logical inferences drawn from several incontrovertible facts.

  • One, concrete evidence supports a finding Hillary Rodham Clinton had, during her tenure as Secretary of State, a Cabinet level position in the Obama Administration, either intentionally or through gross negligence, mishandled classified Government information. Doing so constitutes a serious breach of federal law, amounting to a felony if convicted.
  • Two, concrete evidence supports a finding that Hillary Rodham Clinton had knowingly obstructed justice by lying to federal officers engaged in the legitimate criminal investigation of Clinton’s conduct. This is a serious breach of federal law, amounting to a felony if convicted.
  • Three, concrete evidence supports a finding that Hillary Clinton engaged in an ongoing practice of corruption, having used the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation as a conduit for the selling of favors through the Department of State—a high level component of the Executive Branch of Government—to wealthy, prominent, and powerful individuals, and to multinational corporations, and to non-governmental organizations (“NGO’s”), and to foreign governments, some clearly unfriendly to the U.S. and to U.S., interests in exchange for hard cold cash. Bribery is a serious breach of federal law, amounting to a felony if convicted.

Conviction on any one of the above mentioned crimes is sufficient to send a person to federal prison for several years.

The mere possibility that a person has engaged in any one or more of the above crimes raises serious doubt about that person’s ability to serve this Country, and about that person’s character, namely and specifically, that person’s honesty, integrity, sincerity, sense of values, and willingness to sacrifice his or her personal needs and desires and wishes to the more sacred needs of duty to Country, duty to our Country’s Constitution and to its system of laws, and duty to our citizenry; and that duty of service does not extend to the citizenry of other Countries, contrary to what the present U.S. President, Barack Obama, says and what Hillary Clinton also ascribes to.

But, let us consider whether Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her seeming service to the American people as Secretary of State, transgressed in any other way. Let us consider whether Hillary Clinton committed a crime so serious, so ignoble, and so heinous, that every other crime pales in comparison and significance. Let us consider whether evidence supports a finding that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s wrongful conduct, as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, amounts to a crime directed against the very Sovereignty of this Nation, against this Nation’s Constitution, and against the citizens of the United States.

Let us in fact ask this question: apart from likely committing serious felonies during her tenure as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration that have been detailed, did Hillary Clinton likely commit the most heinous crime of all—a crime so horrific that no one, from either political Party, will talk openly about it; that no one in either political Party will even speculate about?

Did Hillary Clinton commit treason against this Nation?

Is there a basis, in either the U.S. Constitution or federal Statute, or both, to indict Hillary Clinton on one or multiple counts of treason? And, may we not consider, concomitantly, that, apart from considering whether Hillary Rodham Clinton committed the crime of Treason, under our Constitution and under Federal Law, did she not also break God’s law, and commit the cardinal sin of treachery to Country?

Now, to be sure, the Arbalest Quarrel is not the first party to consider the issue of treason in relation to Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State. Some commentators and some websites have heretofore broached the subject of treason in connection with Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State. Indeed, some commentators and some websites have even asserted, categorically, that Hillary Clinton did commit treason. But—and this is an important but—it is one thing to call a person a “traitor,” as rhetorical hyperbole, and this is more often the case than not.

It is quite another to apply the term, ‘traitor,’ to a person from a legal standpoint, with all the consequences that such assertion constitutes. And, it is from the legal perspective—and not from the matter-of-fact, colloquial, rhetorical, man-in-the-street standpoint and perspective—that we look at treason here, that we consider the legal grounds, if any, for legitimately, realistically, and appropriately positing a charge of treason on Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In undertaking this investigation into the merits of bringing a charge of treason against Hillary Clinton, we must always bear in mind that the worst citizens among us, along with the best, do have and should have, that protection afforded all citizens of the United States, under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says clearly, cogently, succinctly:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” 

The Sixth Amendment guarantee holds true for me; it holds true for you; and it holds true for Hillary Rodham Clinton. It holds true for all citizens of the United States.

Scales of Justice
It is quite another to apply the term, ‘traitor,’ to a person from a legal standpoint, with all the consequences that such assertion constitutes. And, it is from the legal perspective—and not from the matter-of-fact, colloquial, rhetorical, man-in-the-street standpoint and perspective—that we look at treason here.

The American citizen’s natural right to defend him or herself against a criminal charge levied against that citizen is a right no less to be honored and safeguarded than the natural right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as codified in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and no less to be honored and safeguarded than the natural right of an American citizen to speak his or her mind openly and freely, as codified in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, uninhibited by and irrespective of the current penchant for “political and social correctness” as thrust on us all because of the personal peculiar sensitivity of a few; and no less to be honored and safeguarded than the natural right of the American citizen to keep and bear arms, as codified under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Also, when looking at the possibility that an American citizen’s conduct amounts to a crime—whether considered relatively minor in scope such as an inoffensive infraction, or one codified in our law that is so horrific that we consider it, as well, a mortal sin—a crime against nature and against God’s strictures—we must consider one’s conduct from the standpoint of federal and State statute and from the standpoint of individual State Constitutions and from the standpoint of the U.S. Constitution.

Our criminal codes, whether enacted by State Legislatures or by the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Constitution, and the Constitutions of the various States establish, one, the fact that certain conduct amounts to a punishable offense; two, the specific elements necessary to establish a prima facie case for the existence of a punishable offense; and, three, the penalties for conviction on that offense. In other words, our system of laws pertaining to criminal behavior requires the codification in the U.S. Constitution or the in the Constitutions of the States or in federal or State statute saying that particular behavior is criminal.

So, under the U.S. Constitution and under State Constitutions, and under our federal and State system of criminal law, it is not sufficient a particular species of behavior be deemed reprehensible in order to exact a penalty for the commission of it. That is to say, if a person’s conduct isn’t statutorily prohibited, then that person’s conduct does not rise to the level of a crime, upon which a person can be charged and tried in a court of competent jurisdiction, and, if found guilty, assessed a penalty once the prohibited conduct, for which the person has been formally charged and tried, has been finally, and firmly, established and adjudicated.

We point this out in exacting detail here for a reason. We do this because the discussion of treason, from a legal and philosophical perspective is not so easy to understand and to fathom as some might think.

The subject of treason, seemingly simple to understand in a straightforward colloquial sense, is actually quite opaque, difficult to comprehend and to apply in the legal sense. And, it is the legal sense of “treason” you must come to know, that you must become familiar with, that you must be receptive to and come to appreciate that is important here, even if the subject matter is abstruse.

That can’t be helped. Indeed our founders struggled with the very notion and concept of ‘treason’ and we’ll explain why and how in upcoming articles.

So, the rhetorical use of the term, ‘treason,’ as applied, by some, to Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State, does nothing to help us to effectively defeat Hillary Clinton on that ground. So saying, doesn’t make it so. Simply calling Hillary Clinton a traitor does not, in the mere assertion, serve to persuade anyone who is predisposed to see Clinton as someone suitable to lead this Country that she isn’t.

Rather, to call Clinton a “traitor” in the absence of a good legal ground for so saying simply informs those who support Clinton in her quest for the U.S. Presidency, that those who call Clinton a traitor are wrong-headed. Better then not to use the term, ‘treason,’ or ‘traitor’ in reference to Hillary Clinton at all. For, one simply displays his or her own ineptitude. So, we must be cautious. And, at worst, so saying opens one up to a defamation action. So, we must be circumspect and careful.

In the next few articles, The Arbalest Quarrel shall discuss treason, from a legal, historical, and philosophical perspective. If there is a legal basis for charging Hillary Rodham Clinton with the crime of treason, we will present the grounds for doing so. In the articles that follow we will explore the legal basis, if any, for doing just that.

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.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard Alan Hart


Wild Bill

Holy Crap! Vyacheslav Ivanov is dead. He died in a violent mid air explosion, yesterday. Who the heck is Vyacheslav Ivanov, you ask? It could be the same Vyacheslav Ivanov that was the CEO of Rosatom, the company that was involved in the sale of twenty percent of the USA’s uranium reserves that Hillary Clinton was involved with! Vyacheslav Ivanov was a loose end for Hillary and for Putin.


Treason? The person, that some of you have chosen to be the next POTUS, Trump, is headed that way. Trump approved of Kim Jong Un for talking over his country at such a young age. He admires how he took over by first having his uncle killed. N. Korea heaps praise upon him as a “wise Politician”. Trump is the preferred candidate of Communist China because he is viewed as the candidate LEAST interested in promoting human rights; or stepping in to control China’s growing dominance in the Asia-Pacific Area. So, our 3-headed enemy of Russia, China & N. Korea… Read more »


RidgeRunner51= obama and hillary shill ! Still drinking the obama Kool Aid ? Spewing lies is all these people have left in their bag of tricks



This is what you would expect when an attorney is protecting his turf. A thousand words, that are intended to confuse, when one word says it all; guilty!


Keep in mind that most Lawyers are liberal/socialist with education pointing them in that direction . Any lawyer worth his salt looks for ways around the law and the US Constitution . The hole idea that one is innocent until proven guilty, is a myth . Seldom does a prosecutor take an innocent person to court . The only people with a worst reputation then lawyers are used car sales men . Walking the fine line between the truth and a lie is how they make their living .


she could only be a traitor if she used to be one of us!!, she was never one of us, she has always been a domestic enemy of our Constitution, protect the Constitution from “all” enemies foreign and “domestic”..


WOW! What an obtuse article, and people think I’M verbose! Basically the author has said that we should not use the Terms “Traitor” or “Treason” in the colloquial, rather than legal, sense when referring to Hillary Clinton, and that we all need to learn exactly what the legal definition of “Treason” is under the Constitution and federal laws derived therefrom. OK, I get that. But I didn’t need 130+ lines of text to do it.. Let’s hope the coming articles will be more succinct.

Bruce Moeller

Right on. Attorney’s are supposed to write succinctly, so is this author really an attorney? What a waste of space.

2nd Amender

What does Hillary, and what does Bill, and what does Chelsea, hold, that every member of the elected democrats is in mortal fear?
It surely seems the greatest game of blackmail is going on in plain view of us all, yet blindness is exhorted as a virtue by the socialist/progressive/communists, because common sense obviously does not!

Does the Clinton foundation own the DNC?


The bitch deserves nothing less than execution !


Yeah, we would not even have to ask for more! I’ll settle for just that!