I don't think corrupt individuals should have the right to talk about treason at all.

^ There is a difference between "corruption" and "treason"... do you mean treasonous people shouldn't talk about treason?

This question... confuses me...

"nearly found evidence" suggests that no evidence was found...? So this ranges from strong theories to gossip really, doesn't it...?

Serious allegations of treason should be investigated, even if hypocrisy rears its ugly head. People who have actually committed treason, or have had to prove they haven't, might actually be in a position to provide a lot a guidance for how to proceed in a particular case.

What people who commit treason probably shouldn't be doing is weighing in on the punishments for treason.

^ Completely agree

^^ If there is suspicious behavior, that behavior should always be investigated. Those not guilty ought to be exonerated through these investigations.

If someone did find evidence of corruption, then I do not think the guilty party should have the right to talk about treason at all.

Treason is what it is. Everyone worthy of being accused shall get their share of responsibility for their actions. Same for Corruption !!!!

The reason I don't think the corrupt should have the right to talk about treason is that it could lead to someone being a scapegoat for a crime they didn't commit.